rn79870 wrote:I don’t blame the US for the act of a criminal element, but I blame the US for not foreseeing that the destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure would lead to civil chaos.
As humans, we are not able to predict the future with ease. Some people (the "experts) perhaps do it better than others, but nobody is perfect.
Yes, some people warned about what could happen in Iraq and they seem to be proven correct. But, for every expert, there are counter-experts (sit in on a legal case sometime to understand this ...), and it could just as easily have gone the other way too. The fact is that we truly did not know.
rn79870 wrote:I don’t think GW lied to us, or deliberately set out to do this, but he was driving the bus when it crashed, and crash it did. Therefore it’s fair, in my opinion, to hold GW either directly or indirectly responsible for the current conditions in Iraq.
Like I have said, I did not like us going into Iraq in this Second Gulf War (Sidebar: the first was an easy one to support. We were defending Kuwait against an aggressor who acted first ... did you know that many Islamic countries sent troops to the Coalition to fight against Iraq?)
My belief with the Second Gulf War is that we went in for the wrong reasons - little of which has been proven to be correct. But, the reasons have been proven wrong in hindsight, not with foreknowledge! Our Intel was faulty, period.
But, the difficulty lies in the classic "hindsight is 20/20". Yeah, we did not do a good job of thinking ahead about what might be the outcome. Yeah, we could have planned better. Yeah, we might have done some things differently. Yeah, we might this, we might that ...
But, so what?
We ended up in a situation where no "solution" is going to be perfect. Plus, there are always people who are on differing sides of an argument - sometimes, one side will be "righter" than the other ... from their own perspective, usually.
So, I don't think holding GW responsible for the current "situation" - good or bad - in Iraq has any value or has any purpose that is helpful at the moment! Regardless of whether he was "driving the bus" or not. It is just too counterproductive - assigning blame only delays working on the solution, imperfect as it may be.
FWIW, did I agree with him at the time? No. But, asking for a perfect and clear outcome may simply have been too naive an expectation for anybody. It just happened to be GW, that we can now castigate ... using hindsight!
rn79870 wrote:Didn’t Harry Truman have a sign on his desk about the buck stopping right there, on that desk in the Oval office?
Yeah. And, up to a point, I agree with this too.
But ... the problem is that this seems to get used for negative situations the vast majority of the time.
Why is that, btw?
The attitude seems to be that "the blame for all national problems always lie with the President" (forgetting that vetos of his actions are possible!), but he/she is not allowed to take the kudos for Good Stuff™ that also happens! (I don't mean GW per se, but any President/Leader ... whether Republican or Democrat is not the issue - we get mad if they try to take credit for successes). I don't get that.
Z