Time magazine
By on Sep 19th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
Time magazine
talks with more than a dozen “current and former intelligence officers knowledgeable about Iraq” and finds that “almost all of them now believe [the war] is not winnable militarily.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
I didn’t need to be an expert to figure that much out.
September 19th, 2005 at 2:23 pmWhere were these guys when they saw bushco trashing all their truthful reports so bushco could put out pure crap in their name?
September 19th, 2005 at 2:25 pmNOW they say so.
September 19th, 2005 at 3:03 pmWhere were they two years ago — or did they believe their own crap then, and have only now seen the plain truth in front of their very eyes.
Now that it’s too late, we are stuck in a mess, 2000 dead, thousands wounded and maimed, tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens dead and wounded and NOW they say we can’t win this militarily! How can we win it? Diplomatically? Not with the Bush team we won’t.
We are going to have to tuck tail and run away. That will just about burn our credibility and integrity to a crisp, but this is untenable.
It never was. A few people tried to make the point but were assailed as treasonus and unpatriotic.
September 19th, 2005 at 3:06 pmA choice quote:
The accumulation of blunders has led a Pentagon guerrilla-warfare expert to conclude, “We are repeating every mistake we made in Vietnam.”
September 19th, 2005 at 3:09 pmThe conclusion of Klein’s article, everyone of the unnamed officers favors continuing the war effort, not retreating.
“But the Pentagon leadership is unlikely to support a strategy that concedes broad swaths of territory to the enemy. In fact, none of the intelligence officers who spoke with TIME or their ranking superiors could provide a plausible road map toward stability in Iraq. It is quite possible that the occupation of Iraq was an unwise proposition from the start, as many U.S. allies in the region warned before the invasion. Yet, despite their gloom, every one of the officers favors continuing–indeed, augmenting–the war effort. If the U.S. leaves, they say, the chaos in central Iraq could threaten the stability of the entire Middle East. And al-Qaeda operatives like al-Zarqawi could have a relatively safe base of operations in the Sunni triangle.”
September 19th, 2005 at 3:26 pmWhat’s the old maxim, the words military and intelligence not being able to be used in the same sentence?
September 19th, 2005 at 3:37 pm….so you ’smart’ boys now say all thoes who have died so far in Iraq died for nothing?…it the oil dummys.
September 19th, 2005 at 3:55 pmOsama attacked us, not Iraq.
Viet Nam II
wisedup,
September 19th, 2005 at 5:31 pmwe can take little comfort in “I told you so” because we are stuck now. We will either continue to lose soldiers ad infinitum, or we pull out and let Iraq devolve into civil war, leaving a regional populace full of hate for America.
I think the only solution is to impeach Bush, bring him to trial for war crimes and try to show the world we don’t support him or his lunatic administration or their insane policies.
We are not a strong nation any more, in many ways; a very sad conclusion doesn’t begin to express our status.
Duh,
Democracy is not something that can be enforced militarily! There has to be at least a foundation of support for it in the existing culture, and that culture as a strong majority must support its implementation. We’ve gone from a secular government (albeit a dictatorship) where women and minority religions were allowed a relatively high degree of freedom in terms of the middle east – to clearly the direction of a theocracy. If they succeed in codifying islam as the final say on the law constitutionally – then their form of government is basically identical to that of Iran. This whole invasion is such a blunder of profound proportions it’s hard to even contain my disbelief at its incompetent execution…
September 19th, 2005 at 6:00 pmYou know we only lost 50 soldiers invading. I say we pull out, let whoever take over, and if they start trying to develop WMDs or otherwise making trouble, we invade again. At 50 dead per invasion, we could repeat this process 40 times, if you consider 2,000 dead “worth the price.”
September 19th, 2005 at 8:10 pm#11– Droll comments with a bit of sarcasm for a little punch. Like a fine chef — or maybe more like Emeril — Bam! Bam!
September 19th, 2005 at 8:45 pm“Democracy is not something that can be enforced militarily!”
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) — Millions of Iraqis cast ballots Sunday in the nation’s first free election in half a century — a vote hailed by officials as a success despite sporadic violence that killed more than two dozen people.
Anyone who thinks that Iraqiis turned out to vote because they were forced by military action is seriously uninformed.
It’s a minority of bathists remnants and foreign terrorists who are enforcing their will with intimidation, murder and terrorism. I wonder if Ryan thinks a mafority of Iraqiis prefer to be ruled as they were under Saddam.
September 20th, 2005 at 4:23 amMarie, it’s already a civil war. The country is more or less divided up. Kurds in the North have their Kurdistan (at least until Turkey and Iran smash it), the Shiites in the South have their Islamic Republic of West Iran… The Sunni’s have their Triangle of Death.
Iraq as well as Iran was a halfassed botch job by a bunch of British upper class twits who didn’t know jack about the situation on the ground when they drew the boarders after WW1, when they dismantled the Ottoman Empire. We’ve been suffering with the after affects of that for 90 years.
Maybe Iraq breaking up isn’t such a bad thing.
September 20th, 2005 at 9:23 amCharlie Foxtrot, so what about Iraqi elections? What’s your point? That the cost of all our treasure and lives of young American soldiers who bought into the Bush myth that we are “spreading democracy and freedom throughout the world” was worth it?
They had another government vote in Iran recently with a large turnout. What did that prove? That the religious fanatics who hand-picked the candidates also believe in democracy? Get your head out of Bush’s ass, pal.
September 20th, 2005 at 9:27 amCharlie,
September 20th, 2005 at 9:59 amSaving the Iraqi’s from Saddam was NOT the reason this lying Admin. gave to the world in order to jusitfy their invasion. If you still think these War Pigs were doing anything but planning to endlessly shovel tax money to their contractors, I think YOUR uninformed.
Bush went into Iraq for oil and to make his croney friend richer.
September 20th, 2005 at 12:12 pmBush went into Iraq to prove to his Daddy that he was better, bigger, badder and smarter. The black sheep runt did what nobody else could do.
Now the only thing he cares about is his “legacy” for the history books. And he’s almost got it — the worst president in US history. He’s done what he cares about: he has a place in history ahead of Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton. Maybe even better known than FDR and Lincoln. Best of all, Bush ‘41 will forever be known as “the Father of …”
The boy doesn’t care what happens to the country. Somebody will come along and take care of it; just like all his other messes. It matters not that many of the same advisors were at the elbow of both. Or that they didn’t give a flick about W’s visionary mandate from God. The sad thing is that W hates himself (that’s what all the put down nicknames, refusing to admit mistakes, and bullying is about). The smirks, swagger and inappropriate wise-cracks are cover-ups; along with surrounding himself with toadies. He still the frat boy president.
Oil, fortunes, democracy, freedom is just twaddle. Somebody else might care but W doesn’t. Why doesn’t he have any interest in what’s happening in the world? W doesn’t want to know because he hasn’t a clue until someone tells him what to do. When he got caught flat-footed by Katrina, it wasn’t his fault. He was “busy working.” But it made him look SO BAD, that he has to pretend to be on top of things. Trouble is, Rita is hitting Florida first — which looks like nepotism.
Now it would be nice if someone would tell him to stop wasting our tax dollars flying that damned plane at $65,000+ per hour plus the back-up planes, choppers etc. His fake photo op cost thousands; the Oval Office was already set up. Now he’s heading down there again this week-end for the 5th time.
But that’s probably because of the protesters heading for the White House. He’d have a hard time not knowing about them when they’re in his driveway — best be out of town!
Question: With John (Photo-Op) Roberts as Chief Justice, do we stand a better or worse chance to impeach? Will Roberts preside in an impartial manner according to the law? Or feel obligated to help out the guy who just got him his dream job for life?
START FLYING YOUR FLAGS UPSIDE DOWN THIS WEEK-END! AMERICA IS IN DISTRESS AND DESERVES BETTER!
September 20th, 2005 at 8:38 pm