One of the greatest blunders in the history of the political world has now been revealed.
Just prior to the invasion of Iraq, it was a well known fact that the Bush junior administration was forewarned by eminent militiary and political sources that the invasion would fail dues to the exclusive sectarian (social) makeup of that country. Furthermore it was advised that the invasion and occupation would cause civil war.
Now it has been revealed and one has to assume that this latest information was known by that administration prior to the invasion that failure in Iraq would cause another (and this would be even more serious than the above outcomes)… and that it would boost the cause of terrorism. This predicament for the USA and the world is of course unthinkable and this great country has an extremely difficult road ahead….certainly more difficult than that of the Vietnam War, in framing an exit strategy which has to appear as a political save (e.g exit with strength) instead of a political disaster (e.g exit in the face of defeat which will make the US appear as a has been superpower).
And here is where that political incompetence kicked in.
A wise and clever President..with political foresight who was confronted with this reliable information prior to the invasion and occupation of Iraq had to contemplate the following options, options which from the present situation in Iraq..were not canvassed and where instead a policy of *(1)gung ho was followed.
OVERT ACTION IN IRAQ AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE
a) It will boost the cause of terrorism and the objectives of it’s enemies as the US will be perceived as a feeble and a has been power.
b) Thousands of American lives lost….in futility
c) Sectarian violance and/or civil war which will most certainly involve the death of thousands of people incl women and children
d) Billions of dollars from the US Budget spent….in futility
or:
Should *(2) covert action be undertaken. With this being Plan A and the invasion and occupation being Plan Z
*(1) gung ho
“Gung Ho” policy is viewed by the writer as being an indication of political incompetence of the highest order
*(2) covert action
The President of the United States for this type of operation has at his/her disposal the best equipped (with state of the art equipment) and the most sophisticated entity in the world….The Central Intelligence Agency.
It is assumed therefore that the President would have maximum chance of success on this project. However imponderables do exist so in view of this aspect the following would have to be considered:
e) In the case of unexposed failure…minimum political damage
f) In the case of public exposure of failure…minimum political damage should the agency take full responsibility
g) In the case of public exposure of success…..if viewed negatively by the American public…the agency will get the criticism…however if viewed positively (which is entirely possible….if not probable) the President will get the kudos.
What excuse has George W. Bush for choosing the former (overt) action instead of the latter (covert) action with this being clearly a better option for the United States?
Just prior to the invasion of Iraq, it was a well known fact that the Bush junior administration was forewarned by eminent militiary and political sources that the invasion would fail dues to the exclusive sectarian (social) makeup of that country. Furthermore it was advised that the invasion and occupation would cause civil war.
Now it has been revealed and one has to assume that this latest information was known by that administration prior to the invasion that failure in Iraq would cause another (and this would be even more serious than the above outcomes)… and that it would boost the cause of terrorism. This predicament for the USA and the world is of course unthinkable and this great country has an extremely difficult road ahead….certainly more difficult than that of the Vietnam War, in framing an exit strategy which has to appear as a political save (e.g exit with strength) instead of a political disaster (e.g exit in the face of defeat which will make the US appear as a has been superpower).
And here is where that political incompetence kicked in.
A wise and clever President..with political foresight who was confronted with this reliable information prior to the invasion and occupation of Iraq had to contemplate the following options, options which from the present situation in Iraq..were not canvassed and where instead a policy of *(1)gung ho was followed.
OVERT ACTION IN IRAQ AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE
a) It will boost the cause of terrorism and the objectives of it’s enemies as the US will be perceived as a feeble and a has been power.
b) Thousands of American lives lost….in futility
c) Sectarian violance and/or civil war which will most certainly involve the death of thousands of people incl women and children
d) Billions of dollars from the US Budget spent….in futility
or:
Should *(2) covert action be undertaken. With this being Plan A and the invasion and occupation being Plan Z
*(1) gung ho
“Gung Ho” policy is viewed by the writer as being an indication of political incompetence of the highest order
*(2) covert action
The President of the United States for this type of operation has at his/her disposal the best equipped (with state of the art equipment) and the most sophisticated entity in the world….The Central Intelligence Agency.
It is assumed therefore that the President would have maximum chance of success on this project. However imponderables do exist so in view of this aspect the following would have to be considered:
e) In the case of unexposed failure…minimum political damage
f) In the case of public exposure of failure…minimum political damage should the agency take full responsibility
g) In the case of public exposure of success…..if viewed negatively by the American public…the agency will get the criticism…however if viewed positively (which is entirely possible….if not probable) the President will get the kudos.
What excuse has George W. Bush for choosing the former (overt) action instead of the latter (covert) action with this being clearly a better option for the United States?
