Quote:
|
Originally Posted by headsplice
Fair enough. But it still equals shite management if you can't even get the people whose job it is to kill your enemies to agree.
|
All (the principles of Boyd, the decisions of Rumsfeld, etc) is totally irrelevant to your original question. The discussion has now bogged down on tactical objective; not about the question which is one of strategic objectives.
Quote:
|
So, why isn't anyone beyond 'crazy liberals' standing up and saying, "What the fuck happened here?"
|
In many ways, this discussion has also bogged down into the irrelevant. Demonstrates why America invaded Iraq that was a diminishing threat. Clearly there were no facts that Saddam had WMDs. Our own spies (ie Syria, et al) said such weapons probably did not exist; were fictions created by Saddam so that his enemies would not attack. The UN inspectors could not find WMDs. Indeed, when past inspectors admitted same publicly, then people such as UT would accuse them of being child molesters. How does child molestation related to strategic concepts. It does not. It was provided because so many Americans could not compartmentalize - keep things in perspective - separate the irrelevant from analysis of America's strategic objectives.
The concept is demonstrated by fractals. Take a satellite picture of England. Measure England's perimeter. Now get closer - airplane perspective. The coastline perimeter increases? Why? Perspective changes. Now walk England's beaches. That coastline becomes even longer. Now measure the coastline using microscopes. Again the perimeter is even longer. Perspective changes the overall conclusion. Furthermore England from a microscopic viewpoint looks nothing like England from the satellite. Welcome to fractals - and the concept of perspective.
Propaganda is to confuse an issue using tools such as lying by telling half truths and by changing perspective. That England coastline from a satellite looks nothing like the same coast using a microscope. So propaganda argues from a microscopic viewpoint. How can the same thing appear so different using two different perspectives? All this nonsense about Rumsfeld's tactical objectives is totally irrelevant to the question. Topics about Rumsfeld and Boyd demonstrate how to confuse an issue - Rush Limbaugh style.
Fundamental to the issue is why we so screwed up during the liberation of Kuwait - ending the war too early for political purposes AND not making any plans for the peace. Those same neocons so needed an excuse to change history - to correct the mistake they made by not doing their job; by not first learning a basic concept - the purpose of war. Logic says those neocons in 1990 failed to perform their job - creating 10+ years of military involvement (ie no-fly zones patrols, trade embargos) and leaving Saddam fully empowered in Iraq. The same logic also says those same neocons did not plan for the peace in 2002. One would have expected them to have learned from their first mistake. They made the exact same mistake again - having not learned basic strategic concepts from both history and their own previous mistake.
Your question can only be answered from a strategic perspective. How Rumsfeld planned for war is only to confuse the issue and to avoid the 'perspective' of the original question. However those answers demonstrate why do many let a lying president unilaterally 'Pearl Harbor' another sovereign nation - and the people did not complain. Your answers demonstrate why so many Americans think emotionally rather than first demand facts. Many conveniently let the propaganda micromanage facts into discussions of irrelevant details.
The strategic objective: those neocons screwed up the political settlement in 1991 AND they did the same mistake in 2002 resulting in widespread looting. Did the looting exist? Obviously. So again, they deflected any accusation of incompetence. They denied the looting existed so that no one would ask, "Why they again had no plan for the peace." - a violation even of principles defined in 500 BC.
It’s called propaganda. Confuse the issue with irrelevant nonsense about how Rumsfeld planned for the war - so we don't ask why Rumsfeld, et al never bothered to plan for the peace.