How in the hell did we lose?

[underpants]

After reading the article aboutthis Marine report this just hit me. We lost. WE LOST? How in the hell could we have lost?

After all that we learned from the Vietnam debacle, after the huge overhauling of the US military since then, after massive amounts of money to create the single greatest military force ever imagined we still lost?

How can that be? My country doesn't LOSE. We are it we are #1 we are the only one left standing-How is this possible?

We lost.

If we really have no hope of clearly out one province in western Iraq what hope is there? What kind of bullshit is this? WE LOST??? We are openly negotiating with terrorists (at least alSadr was bad guy numbero uno) hell they left a soldier behind!! What in the hell is THIS?

I am just flabbergasted. I am just in a bit of shock.

Yes we told everyone this wouldn't work. We told everyone how bad of an idea this was. Yes experts said that we would "walk away with our tail between our legs" but I never really thought we would completely lose.

How could you possibly lose with THAT TEAM on your side (the US military). That is ridiculous. They can do anything, they can adjust to anything, they can adapt to anything and you still lost this thing??

All that and we lost??

I can't get my head around this.


I can't imagine there will be any embassy rooftop footage from Iraq but then I never really thought this would happen either.

We lost.

[LeftCoast]

1. And we spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined

When will people start asking why?!?

[Target_For_Exterm]

2. Bad Commander-In-Chief

It rots from the top.

The guys on the ground did their job.

[skipos]

8. Absolutely. nt

[Pyrzqxgl]

63. what there were of them

[Bandit]

3. Doomed to failure when begun with immoral invasion/occupation

We can't fight a war when one doesn't exist. All that exists is slaughter

[wtmusic]

4. Well, when you don't have justice on your side

it's nearly always a losing battle. Nearly.

[demnan]

5. Arrogance

and stupidity. Even the best military and the world can't overcome our greatest flaws.

[TahitiNut]

6. If the REAL objective was to enable Iraq's self-determination...

... then 'we' didn't lose. Yet. Sometimes self-determination - achieving self-governance - is messy and bloody. Would these people attempt the same things during Saddam's reign? Apparently not.

Only time will tell.

I don't personally believe for a nanosecond that was 'our' objective. If the global corporatists lose, I won't shed a single tear.

[underpants]

19. The Greatest Heist

the world has ever seen because they did it right in front of everyone hell they even inviting the press along for the ride.

Looking back one of the stories that still sticks with me is how some still believe that they snuck the WMDs out right before we invaded and that they moved all this around without anyone (no fly zone) catching them but yet the night before the invasion happened we were able to track TWO tractor trailers loaded with a billion US dollars all the way from the bank to the hiding place. No one ever thought to mention how preposterous that story was but then the whole thing has been preposterous from the beginning.

[TahitiNut]

26. Imagine a country so innovative and adroit ...

... that they can both build and then convert an industrial infrastructure capable of producing and deploying WMD, without detection, and then completely clean up the resulting vast amounts of toxic waste as well! It should be obvious that we invaded in order to learn the secrets of such an awesome industrial capability.

:sarcasm:

[matcom]

7. We lost the day we went in

this ain't no football game.

[WinkyDink]

9. What was our goal?

[Ian David]

25. Our goal had something to do with flowers and chocolate.

I guess we didn't find any.

[WinkyDink]

69. Maybe we should have looked for nylons.

[soleft]

10. I'm sure Rome, Great Britain, the Turks, The Greeks

They all asked themselves the same question

[sinkingfeeling]

11. Your hubris is showing. And that, my friend, is why the USA lost.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. We lost because those in power have always believed that we

lost in Vietnam because of a hostile media and weak willed electorate. What we were doing in Vietnam was right, and we were forced out by weak-kneed liberals.

Never mind that the military underwent great transformations after Vietnam to change the failed strategies. Nevermind that those changes made for a quick and complete victory in Desert Storm (not getting into the morality of THAT conflict). When Rummy and the Vietnam apologists got into power they went back to what they were sure would have worked in Vietnam if we'd been given the chance.

And it worked just as well as it did then.

[ginnyinWI]

13. it isn't only about incompetent leadership

Although that's a part of it. The simple truth is that in today's world you just can't go into a country and win a war of insurgency. Period. When the people are not with you, and when there is ample communication available, the people are stronger than the invaders. It couldn't have worked in Vietnam--it didn't even though we were there far longer than in Iraq. And it can't work in Iraq.

[Horse with no Name]

14. This "war" was lost with the first drop of blood shed

The rest was unnecessary.

[Jawja]

15. We LOST

because we had yellow-bellied chickenhawk white male soft fat assed warriors making decisions based on their "many unknowns" about the kind of military action they were taking without considering ANY lessons of ANYONE's history.

[HughBeaumont]

16. Probably because our goal was never to "win".

Only to "continue".

As in "take their resources by force and profit several hundred fold while doing it, no matter HOW big an American/Iraqi bloodbath it is".

That, and the CIC could be out-Presidented by a toddler.

[Pyrzqxgl]

64. how about the next war (and there will be one)

we send the bankers, diplomats, and business executives ( Oh yeah and all those oily oil company robbers)

[Bucky]

17. How to miss the target. Step one: aim at the wrong target.

Step two, follow directions from a compulsive liar. Step three, buy all your equipment from an unaccountable no-bid provider who doesn't care if you hit the target or not. Step four, don't bring along enough equipment.

[rock]

18. Ready, Fire, Aim

Yup.

[Warpy]

20. We didn't LOSE. The military WON and then the administration

just pissed it away, more interested in stealing resources than in securing the country.

It's been obvious from the beginning what their priorities were--guarding oil fields, leaving ammo dumps to be looted, leaving 70% of the population unemployed and hopeless--and it's been obvious from the beginning that the only way to win with that set of priorities would be to kill every male over the age of five, something even Freepers might not stand for.

What kills me is how easily this thing could have been won. If they'd have poured capital and resources in, putting Iraqis to work rebuilding everything that 10 years of sanctions had allowed to deteriorate, giving them paychecks and hope for the future as well as pride in their work and their country and reducing the time and hopelessness needed to form an anticolonial underground, it could have been won, really won, and we'd be out of there.

Instead, these conservatives thought they could work from the top down while their brethren stole everything in sight.

The military did more than they were asked to do, rolling into Baghdad far ahead of schedule. Now they're just there protecting thieves and being picked off one at a time.

The only way to salvage this thing now is to leave and to hold all those thieves and lunatics responsible to account. The Iraqis will not be our friends. Salvaging this will mean that perhaps several generations from now they'll no longer be our bitter enemies.

[underpants]

23. Among all the other fine posts here that one stands out as being outstanding

Very well said.

[tnlurker]

21. Bad policies

We have been following the wrong foreign policy since the end of WWII and maybe even since the Spanish American War. We have been bullying countries and propping up brutal dictators for over 100 years. We need to try some other policy.

[Beelzebud]

22. Those who fail to remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

[Ian David]

24. Good team, bad coach. n/t

[Richard Steele]

27. 150 thousand foreigners vs. 20 million citizens. LOSING was just simple math.

[Jackpine Radical]

28. It was pretty obvious to me from the beginning that we would lose.

But then again, I'm a Vietnam vet & could see that none of the big-deal overhaul addressed any of the inherent problems that coused us to lose in Vietnam. Unless you're willing to melt the country into glass with nukes (as a lot of FR-types now advocate), at some point you're gonna have to go house-to-house, door-to-door and separate the "innocents" from the "insurgents." We don't have any machines that can do that. (In fact, we don't have any troops or anything else that can do it reliably, which means the whole enterprise is futile from the beginning.) That means you're gonna have to put your forces in among potential enemies, and by the very nature of things--we being the invaders--there are gonna be a lot of enemies.

[underpants]

30. We don't have any machines that can do that.

Spot on

[n2doc]

34. And in the process creating more enemies

And I have always wondered- what does one do with the "enemies" once one has have separated them? Does the army put them in camps? If so, for how long? Forever? Does the army line them up and shoot them? We are used to fighting wars where, once we reach the Enemy capital and capture/kill the opposing leader, the people drop their arms and go back to their houses. But in Viet Nam and Iraq, as well as other conflicts, we stayed beyond that point (or never reached it, in the case of Vietnam) and reached the point where a significant portion of the population decided that they were fed up with the situation and took up arms again. And we don't have a good solution for this. We have to get out.

[MadHound]

29. Ignorance of basic military strategy

First off, never get into a war where the fighting will turn to guerilla warfare. Sure, you can bomb a place back to the stone age with high tech weaponry, but that high tech weaponry won't help you much when you're dealing with snipers, suicide bombers and IEDs. Second, when you are fighting on somebody else's home turf, you are fighting at a disadvantage. When you are fighting a guerilla warfare, facing a committed opponent, who has popular support, on their home turf, you are in for a world of shit. Third, when are fighting a war where such standard conventional markers of "victory" don't matter, like taking over the capital city, occupying major urban centers etc. then your fight is going to be a long fought, drawn out one that you will probably lose in the end. Because the enemy doesn't have to win in these cases, all they have to do is not lose, not lose their men, their moral, their support, their supplies. If they don't lose these things, if they continue on to fight for another day, and another, and another, etc., then they will, by default win.

These are lessons that we taught the British some 230 years ago. Apparently we had forgotten then by the time Vietnam rolled around(even though the French tried to warn us, what do they know:eyes:). We also should have learned this lesson again from the Russian debacle in Afghanistan. But apparently we didn't, and hear we are, losing this war that we could never really win in the first place.

[hlthe2b]

31. Actually, we lost BOTH Iraq AND Afghanistan: 3 wars lost in a row

So much for the world's last superpower.... Rise and fall of the Roman (US) Empire, anyone?

And, yes, this is shocking... but so, too was the loss of a major US city due to administration incompetence that would have resulted in mass jailings for those responsible in most parts of the world....

[Bluerthanblue]

32. the reality is there no winners in war EVER-

we've never really 'won' a war- we've simply stopped fighting temporarily-

We kill people, the 'theaters' change- the weapons become more high tech, but the concept that one group of people can be forced to bend to the will of another, at the point of a sword, the muzzle of a gun, or the threat of nuclear destruction, and remain 'docile' is flawed from the beginning.

We have never given peace and justice (in the true sense of the words) a real try. We know war isn't the 'answer'- because if it was, we wouldn't have to keep engaging in wars.

Violence only breeds more violence. We train our children not to hit, and to use their words, and we have a president that boasts "NO NEGOTIATIONS"- and strikes first- and a government that is willing to spend countless sums of money, and the most gifted minds that we have to find ways to fight and kill, but balks at spending money to see that people are free from the very REAL threats of disease, homelessness, hunger, and ignorance.

War is a game that power hungry, protected people play- using the lives of others.

If there is to be war, we need to return to the practice of the "leaders" leading the charge, and putting their lives right out there on the front lines, where the true cost and horror of combat cannot be denied or disconnected from the conscience of those who hold the power to wage war, or work for peace.

[JacksonWest]

47. War is a way of life in this country.

It's glamorized and perpetuated by every leader we have. We fuel our economy through the military. We've run out of "uniforms" to fight(until we go at it with China) and now these despot nations and quagmires are the fuel for the fire.

And it's hard to say we lost this war. It's not really a war-the goal was to remove Saddam from power-and to eliminate any weapons of mass destruction. Building a democracy was an afterthought. And it shows. Really, in terms of numbers, we've killed Iraqi's at a 200 to 1 ratio(the 1 being us). So, no, there is no winner here. Corporations benefited in the short term-Halliburton- but we don't have the oil rights yet.

But, as long as we're at war, all is right with the world. For the most part. A war is no longer measured in winning or losing. It's all about sustaining. Four years and change so far. Not bad. Lots of money, fear, and new markets opening up. It's not a loss to the guys that wanted this war. It's not even close. Hell, the worse it gets, the better for the war machine in the long run. Let Iran run rampant. Let North Korea get edgy. All of these actions will just solidify new conflict. New weapons. New blood. Yummy, you can almost taste the napalm from here.

:sarcasm:
So, don't get yourself down. We haven't lost anything. It's not about winning. It never was. Being there is enough.

Until this lovely country gets off the war train, it doesn't really matter. We have the means to dispose of any threat to our nation with ease. Lots of silos in the desert, lots of shiny planes. If we put half the money we put into this war into intelligence- we could preempt attacks.

War is always a choice. A choice we keep making.

[underpants]

50. *

"We" do have rights to the oil Bremmer's 114 rules established that Iraq's natural resources CAN be owned by foreign entities.

Great post. There are many on this thread. Added to my journal.

[Jacobin]

33. Don't go to war unless you are attacked

The last notable personality to do a 'pre-emptive war' to 'protect their homeland' was......wait for it........



Hitler invading Poland.






We have no moral high ground. Iraq didn't attack us. Thus, when we shoot and kill or bomb and maim Iraqis, there is no ostensible justification, none whatsoever. And that seeps through our military and the Iraqis psyches.

We can't bomb them back to the stone age and 'win'. Why would we do that? They didn't attack us. So we are stuck in a Vietnam malaise of trying to figure out how to get out.

[AndyTiedye]

49. If Hitler Had BushCheneyRumsfeld Running His Army, He Would Have Got Bogged Down Invading Poland

[spanone]

35. Criminality lost this war. It was a criminal war from the beginning.

Iraq didn't do shit to the US. We invaded a sovereign nation that did not attack us and got what we deserved. Defeat.

[Batgirl]

36. What can you expect from the Set Design Presidency

Did they then, or do they now they now understand, they may have had the power to create and market an image, but not to make reality align with the script they wrote? So much of their energy and focus was all about the window dressing, the Mission Accomplished banner, the chimp-in-a-flightsuit, the choreographed statue toppling, the purple fingers, just to mention the more infamous examples -- than the actual war strategery. It seems they were victims of their own propoganda campaign.

[underpants]

48. "Empty spectacle"

I saw an interview with Frank Rich and he used that phrase. I think it hits the nail on the head.

Don't look behind the curtain!! Not because they don't want you to see the man behind the curtain but because they know you will be horrified to find out that there ISN'T a man behind the curtain. There is nothing there. Nothing. No policy, no plan of any kind for any thing. It is all show-all for votes- it is all for the next news cycle and talking points.

"With us or against us" is clearly not policy, in fact it isn't meant for anyone's ears outside this country. They couldn't care less about what anyone thinks they only are trying to bow the competition ("dissent") and at the last moment right before you vote for someone other than who their Dear Leader tells you to you will ask yourself "Do I want to vote against my country?" <-----THAT is the whole point of that phrase.

They accomplished their main goals in the first few months (before 9/11)- empty the Treasury, sell off the public trusts, and invade Iraq. That was all their business plan included. Keep It Simple Stupid. That is their strategy-- but their spin might be K.I.S.S but it has nothing to do with their K.I.S.S. policy/business model.

Rich is right and so are you. It is only show.

[rinsd]

37. We are designed as an army of devastation not occupation. (nt)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. We invaded.

That's why we lost.

[ContraBass Black]

39. I knew it would happen before it started.

There was no plan, and no justification. The invasion was directly contrary to our national interest.

When you go into a gunfight and shoot yourself, you lose.

[endarkenment]

40. read Fiasco for the details.

Thomas E. Ricks "FIASCO: The American Military Adventure in Iraq" Penguin Press.

As far as I can tell our leaders even now have not figured out who the enemy is and what our overall objectives are, and still do not have a workable plan for this purported mission that we are not going to be allowed to fail at. Our troops have once again been put in harms way by brilliant idiots who cannot be bothered with mundane issues like having a reality based strategy for success. Had we gone into Iraq with a clear objective in mind and a workable strategic plan for acheiving that objective, we might have been able to succeed. I say 'might have been' as a counterinsurgecy is perhaps the most difficult type of war to fight. And before I get my ass chewed off here: it would have been wrong, criminally wrong, even if we did have a winning strategy.

[underpants]

46. The same point was made in a post above

I think it was Bill Mahr who said something to the effect of "Even if we had done everything right and gotten every single lucky break even then it would have been 50-50 a flip of a coin as to whether or not this ended up in a civil war or not"

There is a post above that states how we could have hedged our bets and actually improved their lot and thus diminished any support for the insurgency but still it was only an IF.

[endarkenment]

51. Bremer was the nail in the coffin.

He had his own agenda and disbanded the Iraqi Army, fired the civil service managerial level, and de-baathified the government. That was about it for a successful counter-insurgency. That was the end of the window of opportunity where we could have actually effected regime change and left Iraq in good order with Iraqis in charge. The question I still don't have an answer for (and it sure isn't in Fiasco) is why Bremer did what he did. This ends up being the 'on purpose' or 'total incompetence' puzzle.

[mandyky]

41. Because we were wrong!

The US of A has turned into the playground bully, and we are learning might doesn't make right.

If America had taken the path of humility, change and compassion instead of war after war (post 9-11), if we had listened as well as talked and threatened to the rest of the world, terrorism would have decreased as a result. While going to Afghanistan was understandable, invading Iraq and being just as ruthless as Sadaam was, I am afraid that has created more terrorists and people who hate Americans, westerners, and Christians (and other non-Muslim religions).

[booley]

42. Could it be in part becuase...

The guys who wanted this war didn't go to Vietnam in the 60 and 70s?

It doesn't seem these guys learned anything from Vietnam except how to get others to make the sacrifices for them. Just like they are doing now.

Maybe it was also in part becuase the actual objectives were never the stated objectives?

How can we fight a war if we aren't being honest about what we are fighting for?

[mentalsolstice]

43. Can't win without a purpose or a goal. Just sayin'. eom

[leftofthedial]

44. if you are Halliburton

or any of a few thousand other members of the bush cabal's actual constituency

"we" won.

bigtime.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

45. A disconnect from reality, also known as insanity.

It's as old as power. Or older.

[RethugAssKicker]

52. Talk about the American Myth... You are a shining example

of American propaganda and successful brainwashing...

America can lose and has lost !... America is not exceptional..
America does and has committed much murderous atrocities in this world and continues to do so today.

Wake up!

[butterfly77]

53. How can you win an occupation...

Because america is not all powerful.Because the government was lying and wrong when they went in. What were we suppose to be winning...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. They still don't understand that "war is a continuation of policy by other means."

They ignore the simple truth of Clauswitz's axiom.

It's the policy not the war that's important and what decides "victory" is the achievement of the policy.

The Vietnamese understood that and sought always to achieve the victory of their policy. The Americans substituted body counts, missions flown, bombs dropped, battles won, as indications of "victory". The Vietnamese, against monumental odds, stuck to achieving their policy, and Vietnam is no longer a colony of the west.

The Iraqi insurgents also appear to understand that. The Americans can bomb villages into oblivion, rack up the body counts, claim all kinds of "victories" but, in the end, they lost because they're still equating "victory" to military achievements which are irrelevant in a "people's war".

[Warren DeMontague]

55. These kinds of wars can't be "won". Define victory- self determination for the Iraqis?

According to recent polls, at least 70% of them want us out.

Therefore, if we get out, the Iraqis have achieved self-determination. And we win.

[endarkenment]

57. It was possible to acheive that goal early on.

had that been our objective, and had we developed workable plans to do exactly that, and had we done everything right working on that plan, we might have been able to depose the Saddamm regime and replace it with a functional Iraqi regime and gotten ourselves out, all in good order way back in 2003. We never had such a plan, we never had a chance.

[Warren DeMontague]

65. It's still possible to get out.

That's the ONLY solution, as far as I'm concerned.

[endarkenment]

67. Oh I agree about that.

And we certainly had no business going in. I think there is a reasonable case however that early on, right after the fall of Baghdad, a successful replacement of the Saddam regime followed by a rapid exit of our military forces was possible. Within a few months however we either deliberately, in order to prevent true Iraqi sovereignty, or accidentally through shear incompetence, criminal behavior either way, completely lost that opportunity.

Hopefully one of the items investigated by Congress will be determining exactly what happened in the first year of the occupation, and why.

[Warren DeMontague]

77. I agree completely. I was opposed to the war, but I think there was a window

where this could have been somewhat avoided. But the occupation was bungled SO badly that, as you rightly imply, one has to wonder if it was deliberate... Thus giving ample cover for 3 years worth of looting the US Treasury, no-bid contractors hauling "reconstruction" money out in duffel bags, and the like. And of course, there's always the matter of the permanent bases we've been setting up there.

[Greyhound]

56. They didn't lose, they just had different goals than those stated.

If you look at it from their perspective, Iraq has been a rousing success. I can think of nothing in history, aside from the sacking of Rome, that even comes close to the magnitude of thievery that has been carried out there. I doubt that a full accounting of the losses is even possible at this point.

[nolabels]

58. The child got his hand stuck in the cookie jar

I don't know if they thought they could really turn Iraq into a puppet regime or not but the one undeniable truth is the invasion was about gaining control of the oil spigots. One way or another the oil corporations made out with this subsidized war we carried out for them. Their profits are the largest in history. After that part and wanton stealing hundreds of billions from the Treasury it just gets kind of confusing it seems to me.

[SoCalDem]

61. and then called daddy & Mr Baker to bail him out

[nolabels]

62. Just like Robert Gates for the D.O.D. honcho......

Mr. James Baker III is a substitution of bad people and things for worse.

But at any rate I am glad you bring that up, check this out if you got a minute

I would say Mr. James Baker III is about as large of a crook as just about any of them after one listens to a review of who this guy really is. On in involvement on all things corrupt, he looks to be a hub on a large set of wheels from Enron, S&L disaster, Iran-Contra, etc.

This was the show

Beneath The Surface
Monday, 5:00-6:00 PM

It was on yesterday, Nov 26, 2006
(link to podcast/stream cast of shows
http://www.kpfk.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=v...

http://www.kpfk.org/index.php

[warrens]

59. We sent the military to solve a non-military problem

Religious and ethnic armegeddons just don't lend themselves to standard military tactics. Particularly when no one speaks the local languages.

[SoCalDem]

60. Just how we lost in Viet Nam and how we "tied" in Korea

Politicians screwed it all up, and I fear "karma" may have played a role too.

We never should have gone in the first place.

If you want a dictator gone, there are cheaper and easier ways to do it.

Of course we "won" GW1 although it too was a trumped up phony war, but the difference there was that after they were done testing out and playing with all the new military toys, Bush1 had the smarts to say.. "Yay, we won, we're goin' home"...and they did.. (well some stayed in Saudi Arabia, but the killing part (our share) was done.

We "won" WWII, but we did not do it alone, as the movies would have us believe, and we got into it years after others had been fighting it.. From what I know about WWII, it was not micro-managed by politicians..

[endarkenment]

66. "If you want a dictator gone, "

Part of the problem is that we have convinced ourselves that wanting a dictator gone from some other nation is a reasonable policy. It isn't. Not in and of itself. The bad ruler is the problem of the nation he rules, not of outside parties.

There are grey areas, for example where the unwanted ruler is slaughtering his people, or the unwanted ruler's belicose behavior poses a real and present danger (not some bullshit threat like the neoclowns cooked up) and a war to eliminate that manifest threat or that humanitarian crisis might end up deposing the unwanted ruler as a byproduct of a reasonable objective, but a policy goal that starts with 'we want to get rid of the guy' is a real bad idea. See Treaty of Westphalia. 350 years of experience lost on our brilliant idiots.

[SoCalDem]

68. I don't approve of it.. I was just making a point that if he was hell-bent

to "avenge" his Daddy's lack-lustre after-the-war perfromance, there were many other ways to go about it.. that did not involve so much bloodshed

[Jeffersons Ghost]

70. K&R.... what a great point... nicely put too because you already know why....

Just as a boxer takes a dive in a big fight to make an unbelievable amount of money, heavy-weight super-powers can "lose" while winning gigantic personal fortunes for a very few people. Can anyone win a fight that they originally planned and consistently tried to lose?

[Cha]

71. We LOST because

it was Misbegotten from the Get Go.

[seabeyond]

72. cant invade another country and win.... we forgot what we learned

in vietnam. that ishow we lost. we earned it, we deserve it... now is time for us to come back to our shores and become very humble, start healing our nation and people.... we often repeat our lessons of history. just another example. opportunity to start over and become a BetteR people

[maxsolomon]

73. because we are not willing to brutalize as empires of yore did.

allow Colonel Kurtz to enlighten on the inability of the modern democracy to defeat an indigenous insurgency:

KURTZ
" I've seen horrors...horrors that you've seen. But you have no right to call
me a murderer. You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that...But
you have no right to judge me. It's impossible for words to describe what is
necessary to those who do not know what horror means.
Horror. Horror has a face...And you must make a friend of horror. Horror and
moral terrorare your friends. If they are not then they are enemies to be feared.
They are truly enemies. I remember when I was with Special Forces...Seems
a thousand centuries ago...We went into a camp to innoculate the children.
We left the camp after we had innoculated the children for Polio, and this old
man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went
back there and they had come and hacked off every innoculated arm. There
they were in a pile...A pile of little arms. And I remember...I...I...I cried...
I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I
wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want
to forget. And then I realized...like I was shot...Like I was shot with a
diamond...a diamond bullet right through my forehead...And I thought:
My God...the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect,
genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were
stronger than we. Because they could stand that these were not
monsters...These were men...trained cadres...these men who fought with
their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with
love...but they had the strength...the strength...to do that. If I had ten
divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly. You
have to have men who are moral...and at the same time who are able to
utilize their primordal instincts to kill without feeling...without passion...
without judgement...without judgement. Because it's judgement that
defeats us. "

[maryallen]

74. Because the "enemy" was hungrier,

Had more heart,
More determination, and
It's THEIR LAND ... same as in Viet-Nam.

[BikeWriter]

75. id wuz stoopit leders

[OzarkDem]

76. Corporate CEO's are wily, yet dumb at the same time

They're actually frail, hothouse flowers who can't survive in any environment outside of the corporate world.

Their skill set and knowledge of the real world is very limited. They don't listen to others or take advice very well.

Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Condi and cohorts come from large corporations that make money through crooked business deals and purchased influence. They know next to nothing about how to oversee a complex military operations where real skills and experience are required. Their arrogance allowed them to ignore advice from the CIA and the leaders in the Pentagon and they never really thought about the consequences.

Their first priority has always been to use the war as a cover for milking the system for defense contracts for their friends and the actual running of the war was secondary. As right wing corporate idiots, they saw the military as just another corporation ripe for hostile takeover. They thought they could subcontract the war and "downsize" the military right in the middle of a war. After all, waging war is just another kind of business operation isn't it?

And worst of all, the news media that helped them sell the war worked like a well - oiled machine covering up their lies and blunders. It made them immune to criticism and kept them ignorant of the mistakes they were making.