a very good read

[luckyleftyme2]

a local maine newspaper has an excellent commentary on the IRAQ WAR
GO TO THE OPINION PAGE.
THE COMMENTARY IS TITLED:EVEN WORSE THAN INCOMPETENCE
It is in the friday may 18th 2007 edition
here is the link: http://www.timesrecord.com
THEN GO TO OPINION PAGE.

[never cry wolf]

1. It is a good piece, sometimes a snipped helps

Few still believe that the bogus reasons for the war, Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda, were honest mistakes. The same goes for the coordinated choruses about it being a cakewalk, over in weeks not months, our troops to be treated as liberators, maximum cost $7 billion, Iraqi reconstruction paid for out of its oil revenues, etc. The lies were believed by many at the time, and — along with a compliant press — generated the necessary public support for the war.

But did those lies doom the war to failure?

Recall the immediate prewar period. The anti-war movement was building up steam, raising serious doubts as to the reasons for it and its feasibility. Experts warned of the vicious religious, ethnic and tribal rivalries in Iraq, rivalries that Saddam Hussein had kept bottled up but would erupt as soon as he was gone. Military experts warned that considerably more troops would be required, at least double what were being proposed, not to defeat the Iraqi army but to maintain civil order afterward.

Most importantly, deploying considerably more troops would delay the invasion by a month or more. By then the United Nations arms inspectors would have completed their work and announced that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. His ties to al-Qaida had already been disproved.

They went in prematurely, with insufficient forces and planning. Was this because they didn't know better? Or did they cynically perceive that was the only way their war was possible?