« Home | "It's too dangerous for us to go in there alone" » | The more things change... » | Harper and Ambrose have to make up their minds » | A Note on the Nature of Reality » | I, too, am sick of all of the bad news about Iraq.... » | What evidence did they expect? » | Charity Begins at Home » | A furry question for any Bluenosers out there » | A lesson in Iraqi accounting » | Just a little google fun... »

Let's See Limbaugh Question His Manliness...

An interesting interview with Eric Haney, a retired Command Sergeant Major with the U.S. Army, and a founding member of 'Delta Force' the elite counter-terrorism unit. Eric on Iraq:
Utter debacle. But it had to be from the very first. The reasons were wrong. The reasons of this administration for taking this nation to war were not what they stated. (Army Gen.) Tommy Franks was brow-beaten and ... pursued warfare that he knew strategically was wrong in the long term. That's why he retired immediately afterward. His own staff could tell him what was going to happen afterward.

We have fomented civil war in Iraq. We have probably fomented internecine war in the Muslim world between the Shias and the Sunnis, and I think Bush may well have started the third world war, all for their own personal policies.

Excellent find, Dan! The analysis is pretty solid. I especially appreciate his commentary on American credibility:
"They voted for a second Bush administration out of fear, so fear is what they're going to have from now on" and on torture:
"The only reason anyone tortures is because they like to do it. It's about vengeance, it's about revenge, or it's about cover-up."

I won't fight over that analysis (yet), but I will challenge one of his points straight off.

Tommy Franks made his thoughts known as a civilian in September 2004.

He didn't have to do that.

He may not have had to - but I'm sure he got paid well enough to do it. As a challenge of Haney's analysis - that's pretty weak.

That's a pretty serious charge, there. Franks' words at the convention were consistent with what he's said elsewhere.

And, as I said, I'm not debating the rest of his analysis. (I've found that in those sorts of arguments, people just end up talking past one another.)

well, if Franks felt so strongly about the rightness of this cause, then why did he decide to retire, turning down the position of Chief of the Army that was offered to him? It certainly looks like he decided lobbying on the civilian side of the street paid more.

Plus, what you originally said was you weren't willing to debate his analysis yet. If you've got an informed reason to dissent with his reasoning, I'd be more than happy to hear it. If, on the other hand, you're going to change your position and back out with a strawman argument, then why bother posting?

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link