miscalculation & accountability (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 17, 2024, 11:14:26 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign
  miscalculation & accountability (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: miscalculation & accountability  (Read 2560 times)
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« on: October 27, 2004, 10:51:22 AM »

What have been Bush's biggest policy decisions?

Did he miscalculate on these decisions?

Should he be held accountable?

Should Congressional Republicans also be held accountable?

Was his major policy policy decision perfect?  NO.  Were any president's?  NO.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2004, 11:21:38 AM »

What have been Bush's biggest policy decisions?

Did he miscalculate on these decisions?

Should he be held accountable?

Should Congressional Republicans also be held accountable?

Was his major policy policy decision perfect?  NO.  Were any president's?  NO.

So what were Bush's greatest miscalculations?

I would not characterize it as a miscalculation.

There was a choice in the Iraq invasion.  Go with the troops that they had, or attempt to bring in more troops.  The only way to do it would have been to enter, advance to the Euphrates around Nasiriyah, with the Marines and the 3rd ID.  They stop and wait for the 4th ID to unload.  They didn't have enough port facilities in Kuwait to deploy both at the same time.  Then, with about 25%-33% more forces, they take Baghdad in one enveloping movement, basically keeping the Iraqi Army/allied groups from melting away.

Couple of problems.  It takes two-three months to get the 4th ID up to Nasiriyah.  3rd ID and the Marines get to sit in the middle of the desert for all that time, while being attached basically by command type raids.  While there would be more troops to secure areas, there would be more time for Ba'athist/Islamists to prepare.  It is fairly likely that the there would have been much heavier causualties at the opening.  We might have talking about 2-3 thousand dead on the road to Baghdad.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2004, 01:23:15 PM »

What would have been the consequences of not invading?

Saddam starts up his WMD's again.  He gives/sells them to al-Qaeda who use them here and in Europe.  While we are pre-occupied with the aftermath, he takes advantage of the situation in the region.

Nasty little trick.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« Reply #3 on: October 27, 2004, 03:58:35 PM »

What would have been the consequences of not invading?

Saddam starts up his WMD's again. 

Nuclear or chemical weapons?

Yep and if you look at the recent report, Hussein wanted to restart the programs.  This was a long term menace. 
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.023 seconds with 14 queries.