OK, let's review - 2 years later

[Segnosaur]

We failed to win the hearts and minds of the Iraquis.

There are opinion polls that show the majority of Iraqis are happy with America's action of overthrowing Saddam. (Although I doubt there was much need to 'win their hearts and minds'; they probably supported the invasion even before it began.)

We failed to find the source of the anthrax contaminations.

Although its not good that the Anthrax mailer is still out there, how exactly is it Bush's fault? Did Bush have some magic information about his identity that he failed to pass on?

Its not easy tracking someone like the Anthrax mailer. (Remember, the Unibomber went years until he was turned in by his brother.)

We failed to bring peace to the Mideast.

Did anyone predict he would be able to bring peace within his first term?

We failed to enlist the help of our allies in the war on Iraq.

Actually, they did get many (maybe even most) of their allies on side. They didn't get a lot of neutral (or non-allied) countries on side.

We failed to uphold world opinion about America.

Just what exactly do you mean by that? Are you referring to the people who complained about the US 'wasting' the 'goodwill' towards the US following 9/11?

We failed to win the hearts and minds of the world's Muslims.

Did anyone predict that all the Muslims in the world would immediately start loving America?

We have taken our eyes off the ball. We have let Bush distract us into paying attention to his little war instead. In the meantime Bin Laden relaxes somewhere, planning the next outrage.

Is there any proof that Bin Laden is still alive? We haven't heard from him in a long time. We did get a 'video' this week, but there's nothing in it to show that it was shot within the past year. Bin Laden could very well be burried unter a pile of rubble somewhere in the mountains of Afghanistan.

And even if we were searching for him, the type of resources needed to hunt him involve more intelligence work than military. (I doubt B52s are going to be much help searching for him.)

George Bush is an out-and-out failure.

I figure he's just like Clinton, Bush Sr. Regan, etc.... Did some good stuff, did some bad stuff, but much of his activities were just reactions to events in the world.

And while I think Bush should be criticized over some things, I don't thing blaming him for things that weren't really his fault is really fair.

 

[HarryKeogh]

Re: Re: Re: OK, let's review - 2 years later

A perfectly good point. You are invited to construct a similar list of successes.

some of the successes that this administration (an administration that i'm not crazy about either, just trying to be fair here) has accomplished

al qaeda operations have been disrupted (key word, disrupted). many members have been caught or killed. millions of dollars of their assets frozen.

afghanistan is not home to large scale terrorist training facilities and the taliban leadership have been driven from leadership positions. the government no longer has public executions esp. for activities most people wouldnt even deem a crime.

saddam hussein is not in power. no matter which side of the fence youre on you have to admit he was a sick bastard.

saddam hussein's sons, two pretty brutal leaders in their own right, are dead

-of course im not saying al qaeda still isnt a very powerful organization or that there are no taliban influences in afghanistan or that every iraqi is doing a dance of joy in the streets when they see an american soldier walk by but these are some decent accomplishments that shouldnt be totally ignored. (plus i'm only typing them because you asked)

 

[Tricky]

some of the successes that this administration (an administration that i'm not crazy about either, just trying to be fair here) has accomplished

al qaeda operations have been disrupted (key word, disrupted). many members have been caught or killed. millions of dollars of their assets frozen.

afghanistan is not home to large scale terrorist training facilities and the taliban leadership have been driven from leadership positions. the government no longer has public executions esp. for activities most people wouldnt even deem a crime.

saddam hussein is not in power. no matter which side of the fence youre on you have to admit he was a sick bastard.

saddam hussein's sons, two pretty brutal leaders in their own right, are dead

-of course im not saying al qaeda still isnt a very powerful organization or that there are no taliban influences in afghanistan or that every iraqi is doing a dance of joy in the streets when they see an american soldier walk by but these are some decent accomplishments that shouldnt be totally ignored. (plus i'm only typing them because you asked)

A fair list, Harry. And like everyone else, I agree that to expect peace in between Israel and Palestine is ludicrous. Bush actually got high marks for his road map. It wasn't his fault that the crazies wouldn't budge an inch.

However, in spite of these successes, you have to ask, "was it worth it?". What does the balance sheet look like? In my opinion, we are deeply in the red, morally as well as financially.

 

[Sundog]

Re: Re: Re: Re: OK, let's review - 2 years later

some of the successes that this administration (an administration that i'm not crazy about either, just trying to be fair here) has accomplished...

Some good points there. But I think it's a little ironic that most of these achievements - involving intervening in and actually carrying out war in two countries (so far) in order to change their government strikes me as an odd thing for conservatives to be happy about. Pat Buchanan for one seems hopping mad about it.

But they have no choice but to hold these up as achievements, when they were only side benefits in all cases, because that's all there is. We didn't go into Afghanistan primarily to unseat the Taliban, that was a side benefit. We didn't go into Iraq because Hussein and his sons were oppressing Iraquis, liberating them was a side benefit.

So it seems to me all we can say is that we failed in our primary objectives in both places but that there were positive side effects. This doesn't make me want to sing happy happy joy joy.

 

[Sundog]

And like everyone else, I agree that to expect peace in between Israel and Palestine is ludicrous.

My fault. What I really meant was, one of the major reasons for going into Iraq was that it would help stabilize the middle east. I think it's fair by now to call that a missed objective, to say the least.

 

[HarryKeogh]

However, in spite of these successes, you have to ask, "was it worth it?". What does the balance sheet look like? In my opinion, we are deeply in the red, morally as well as financially.

i don't know yet. part of me feels duped by the administration (regarding reasons for invading iraq) but i find my resentment for that is tempered by knowing basic human rights have a much better chance of gaining a foothold in an iraq free of the old leadership.

hopefully with the passage of time the answer to whether it was worth it or not (in my mind at least) will become much clearer.

 

[Tricky]

We didn't go into Afghanistan primarily to unseat the Taliban, that was a side benefit.

I dunno, Sundog. I guess you are saying "getting Ben Laden" was the primary objective. However, Ben Laden and the Taliban were inextricably intertwined and I think most of us realized to to get him, the Taliban had to go. I honestly thought that was the objective, and I approved of it.
---
Edited to add:

But of course, we didn't get rid of the Taliban either, although they are less powerful.

 

[LTC8K6]

We've been looking for Saddam for 2 years?

 

[LTC8K6]

We were supposed to have stabilized the middle east already? We've only been in Iraq a few months. I think a miracle is a bit of a high expectation.

 

[Sundog]

We've been looking for Saddam for 2 years?

You weren't supposed to notice that.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, you could go back to 1991 and say we've been trying to get him for 12 years.

 

[Sundog]

We were supposed to have stabilized the middle east already? We've only been in Iraq a few months. I think a miracle is a bit of a high expectation.

This just strikes me as more wishful thinking by the Bush administration. Stabilizing the Middle East would come as a result of a happy and democratic Iraq, which they seemed to think would just "happen". The imminent arrival of such stability has been, shall we say, greatly exaggerated.

It seems to me that the trend is in the wrong direction and we have made things worse, not better. Witness Libya's desire now to exit the Arab League. It takes more imagination than I have to see how and when any of this is going to result in any kind of stability.

 

[Furious]

Also not a Bush lover, but:

- Formulated and excecuted a quick response against the appropriate group of nutjobs that killed 3,000 fellow Americans.

- Created a roadmap to peace in Palestine/Israel that both initially found acceptable, even if neither side chooses to follow it.

- Added some much needed security restrictions to airports to ensure 9/11 never happens exactly the same way again.

- Freed millions of Iraqi's from a tyrant who they readily acknowledge they could not have ousted themselves. The "hearts and minds" are not won because we did not do anything to help them 10 years ago when they had a better chance of doing it themselves. They certainly would have been as skeptical of a U.N. coalition regardless of when the U.N. would have ever done it.

- Found 39+? of 52 leaders of a regime that openly defied the international community.

- At least made an attempt at getting U.N. support for an invasion, which historically speaking, has been frequently ignored for unilateral military action by either party.

- Kept the number of casualties in the war to much lower than projected amounts. Even optimistic casualty figures were much higher than the current amount.

- Returned this country to a state where people are once again more likely to talk about the World Series instead of worrying if their office building is going to be bombed.



Both your list and mine are ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ of course. Bush can't take the direct credit or blame for most of either. There are plenty of things on your list many previous presidents of both parties failed miserably at in eight years of office, not just two.

I do not admire Bush. I did not nor will not vote for him. I dislike the idea of faulting him for things he has no control over to enhance a stupid list of four things he could possibly had direct control over, and even those where not likely to happen regardless of which person holds the title of commander-in-chief.

 

[Cleopatra]

To an extent just as more than half in various surveys still believe that some or all of the hijackers were Iraqi.

Sundog, did you include this in the successes? This is definetely a success of the government.

Thanks for your replies regarding Ascroft and the issue of personal freedoms.

Do I have to say that for us, the foreigners, a travel to USA has turned into hell after 9/11 ?

 

[Furious]

Do I have to say that for us, the foreigners, a travel to USA has turned into hell after 9/11 ?

From my personal experience, if you have your stuff together, no.

I took a one week vacation to England at the end of May. The gentleman ahead of me before we got to customs were definitely of middle east descent with valid passports ready in hand.

I was somewhat jealous coming out of customs to see that they were ahead of me in getting through, but that was simply because the lines for foreign visitors to the U.S. were about 1/3 of the length of the line for U.S. citizens returning to the country.

So I conclude from that experience, there is nothing overtly hellish. But generally speaking, I wouldn't come here and put up a bomb making site with links to Al Queda's homepage while preaching jihad at the local mosque either.

 

[Segnosaur]

This just strikes me as more wishful thinking by the Bush administration. Stabilizing the Middle East would come as a result of a happy and democratic Iraq, which they seemed to think would just "happen". The imminent arrival of such stability has been, shall we say, greatly exaggerated.

Why do you think that Bush assumed that Iraq becoming happy and democratic would 'just happen'? Iraqis have more freedom than they under Saddam (protests are allowed, even if they are against the US, many newspapers and magazines are being published, heck, they even have pr0n in some cities.)

I certainly thought it would take time and effort. But things are better than they were before, and there is a very good chance they will continue to get better.

It seems to me that the trend is in the wrong direction and we have made things worse, not better. Witness Libya's desire now to exit the Arab League. It takes more imagination than I have to see how and when any of this is going to result in any kind of stability.

Why is Libya's desire to leave the Arab league a bad thing? (Do you have a link for that, by the way?) Last time I checked, most Arab League countries were quite oppresive. Is it really better for the world to have one big block of oppressive countries?

Remember, than since the war, Libya has made several friendly comments to the US, Syria is cooperating more (even reforming parts of their economy).

See: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Taheri20030910.shtml (Its an opinion piece, and while I may not agree with everything the author says, he sums up a lot of stuff I've seen in other news articles)

 

[Sundog]

Why is Libya's desire to leave the Arab league a bad thing? (Do you have a link for that, by the way?)

Sorry, no, heard it on CNN this morning. It's a bad thing because the stated reason is that the Arab League has not reacted strongly enough to our invasion of Iraq. Radical Arabs are stirred up more than ever, just as some of us predicted. This is not the direction towards stability, it seems to me.

 

[Segnosaur]

Sorry, no, heard it on CNN this morning. It's a bad thing because the stated reason is that the Arab League has not reacted strongly enough to our invasion of Iraq.

I did a quick google news search. Yes indeed, Libya is talking about getting out of the Arab league (at least holding a referendum for it), but:
- They've talked about doing that several times before,
- They may be doing it because they think they should have stood up more to the US in their invasion of Iraq; however, like I said, Libya has also made conciliatory gestures to the US.

Radical Arabs are stirred up more than ever, just as some of us predicted.

Do you have any proof that significantly more arabs are involved in violent action now than before the invasion? Yes, there is violence in Iraq, and yes, terrorism is not defeated. But those radical arabs would likely be 'stirred up' regardless of what happened.

This is not the direction towards stability, it seems to me.

Why are you so fixed on 'stability'? Personally, I'd rather have an unstable situation where countries are taking steps to democracy, instead of a stable situation where human rights are oppressed and governments are free to sponsor terrorism.

 

[Segnosaur]

Sorry, no, heard it on CNN this morning. It's a bad thing because the stated reason is that the Arab League has not reacted strongly enough to our invasion of Iraq.

I did a quick google news search. Yes indeed, Libya is talking about getting out of the Arab league (at least holding a referendum for it), but:
- They've talked about doing that several times before,
- They may be doing it because they think they should have stood up more to the US in their invasion of Iraq; however, like I said, Libya has also made conciliatory gestures to the US.

Radical Arabs are stirred up more than ever, just as some of us predicted.

Do you have any proof that significantly more arabs are involved in violent action now than before the invasion? Yes, there is violence in Iraq, and yes, terrorism is not defeated. But those radical arabs would likely be 'stirred up' regardless of what happened.

This is not the direction towards stability, it seems to me.

Why are you so fixed on 'stability'? Personally, I'd rather have an unstable situation where countries are taking steps to democracy, instead of a stable situation where human rights are oppressed and governments are free to sponsor terrorism.

 

[jj]

World, Sworld!

Who cares about those other guys, you got a tax break right? So that should ease all of your aches.

It ain't me,
It ain't me,
I ain't your fortunate son!