Critics Say Rush to War in Iraq Hurt U.S.

[NNN0LHI]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040410/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_what_ifs&cid=544&ncid=1473

WASHINGTON - The deadly insurgency in Iraq (news - web sites) is a direct result of tactical missteps by the United States during the rush to war a year ago and in the months afterward, some critics say.


President Bush (news - web sites) could have spared himself major headaches if he had heeded the advice of experts who urged him to assemble a larger force, including Muslim soldiers from Turkey and others countries, to take into Iraq. He also should have avoided the assumption that Iraqis would embrace American soldiers as liberators after the ouster of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).


A healthier regard for Arab perceptions could have helped, said Nayef Samhat, a government and international relations expert at Centre College in Danville, Ky.


"The invasion was clearly unprovoked and can be easily seen by many in the Arab-Islamic world as nothing more than the reinvention of imperialism," Samhat said. "The images, too, are quite similar to those of Israeli military actions against Palestinians.


"Arabs will see the similarity," Samhat said, "and associate the two quite easily."

more

[rfkrocks]

1. Ok I am ready to jump off a bridge

great post-so obvious to many but if you are blinded by hubris you don't walk in the other guy's shoes-his point of view is irrelevant-our war president has a tin ear for all countries but his own-so dangerous a man is he-scary but unfortunately the truth

[tedzbear]

2. KICK!

Excellent post.

[stevedeshazer]

3. oh MAN

The headline alone is the greatest understatement of the 21st century.

[keithyboy]

4. Absolutely correct.

It was a war of choice not necessity. The blood be on their hands and may they face the ultimate judgement!

[stellanoir]

5. isn't it a bit of an irony. . .

that this administration's rush to war, ever mindful of the timing of the election and all too arrogant about bending the will of the Iraqi's, was totally miscalculated? Yet their stalling of the 9/11 commission's investigation also will result in its release during the run up to the election.

Had they stalled the war and not block the investigation of the commission, they'd perhaps have more global support and the invariably obfuscated and mostly redacted results of the commission would have blown over by now.

But about those BBV's. . . .

[daleo]

6. It wasn't just the "rush to war" that was a mistake.

It would have been a mistake regardless of the speed at which it was approached. It wasn't the "rush", it was the "to war" that was the mistake. It is hubris to think otherwise.

[DavidDvorkin]

7. Exactly right, daleo.

An illegitimate war remains illegitimate no matter how well it's conducted.

[Barrett808]

8. "It turns out Wolfowitz was wildly wrong."

Damn straight. How that delusional gangster's opinion can carry any weight in Washington is beyond me.

[greenman3610]

9. when I see articles like this

I send them to editors and publishers at local papers.
IT's not a bad idea to cc more than one editor, or an
editor and publisher at the same time, so they know
that the other guy is looking at this info, too.
especially when it's from a mainstream source, like
AP. To paraphrase Batman, journalists are fearful and
supersticious lot, so they need lots of encouragement that they
won't be the only ones printing the truth. They also need
to know that if they don't print what's happening, they
might get left behind the curve....
(it's easy to find email addresses, just google
"punxatawnie news email" for example)

I think the approach has worked with some of my
local papers...

[librechik]

10. why the rush? Off year elections!

yeah, they did it for that. Pukke candidates ran on the Iraq war aggression and won a narrow plurality. Mission Accomplished!