Iraq: Defining The War

Putting aside the on going efforts by some to rewrite history as regards the Iraq war, you should take a look at this informative discussion which helps to frame, not only the war itself, but the role of Saddam's trial as a part of it. See it here

Meanwhile, we were preparing our troops to expect that Saddam had ordered thousands of his best soldiers to decline combat, to fade into the countryside and the population, and to fight the "real war" as an insurgency. We were preparing our troops to be ready for it and to defeat it. When I was finishing up as a War College student, in March of 2003, we already had significant time in the curriculum where we were wrestling with how we were going to do that, and rebuild Iraq. And yet somehow everybody "knows" we went in without a clue and without a plan. It's frustrating.

Comments

[*flo*]

I enjoyed the read on Pundita and its discussion with the War College Professor.
I have never seen footage on the Nuremburg or Japanese Tribunal or done any extensive reading on it...as we know the trials did take place, and the now Germany/Japan and US did move forward.
Saddam's Trial, there is much frustration on his part (outburst), which was borderline contempt. The sooner the iraqis are educated on democracy, the sooner The word "Dignity" will be understood, leading to the Sunnis/Shites and Kurds being able to live together in peace. This lesson will take sometime, but I have faith it will happen based on history lessons.

[Sgt. York]

The Saddam "trail" is a farce. Either [a] strap him to a chair and have all the relatives of all his victims scream and spit on him and then take him out back and put a bullet in his head - or - [b] send him to the Haige and give him a real trial with some semblance of jurisprudence not this pathetic joke. I hate charades.

============================

[*flo*]

Posted by: Sgt. York | Dec 8, 2005 1:17:28 PM

I am still reading, also wondering about the charades during the International Tribunal WWII trials...probably the same thing...

[cindi in pa]

Thank you for the link Dan. Very interesting and well written.

Flo, so much to be learned in history, and how it repeats through time. As for myself, I never took a real interest. Learned more things from my children, who are all history buffs.

[Sgt.York]

Re: "International Tribunal WWII"

Oh come on! You are comparing the Nuremburg trials to this goof-ball of a joke? That's lame.

=================

[*flo*]

Posted by: Sgt.York | Dec 8, 2005 4:11:55 PM

Can't argue this because I don't know enough about the trials to defend its position...read Pundita's articles, which makes much sense.

[TheAlamo]

This makes me wonder about the criminals we have put into power. Do they have some kind of contract that says they will not be killed when we overthrow them...if, we overthrow them? We obviously have not overthrown Castro, nor the Chinese communists, and, we of course, put both of them into power as we did Hussein, but it would stand to reason we gave Castro and Mao promises of that sort--just in case.
My guess is that unless he is stupid (which may very well be) then he had an agreement with our government whereby he wouldn't be killed. Maybe it will be like Tim McVea. Maybe it will be a "show execution" and he will spend the rest of his days in South America, well taken care of, under another identity as many of the Nazi's did. We, of course, sent them there and gave them the new identities. My guess is that Saddam will be guilty of "war crimes" and a mock execution will occur and he will live happily ever after somewhere in sun, sand, and water. If we kill him, then that is a bad sign for the next dictator we put into power, and they won't take the bait.

In any event, the trial is a show, and Saddam seems to think he is the star...and he might very well be.

[*flo*]

Thanks for your input Alamo, couldn't get through "The Third Terrorist", I can almost picture Saddam marooned on some island with a cuban cigar hanging out the side of his mouth...

[shonane]

What a mess! I know someone who is retired military and just quit his job to go do out back into active army for a year stint in Iraq, voluntarily, because he is so committed to the policy about our being there. He is a smart, wonderful man, in an important policy position, with a family who really didn't want him to go, but he felt this is what he wanted/needed to do.

I, on the other hand, was totally opposed to our going there in the first place, yet I cannot have anything but the highest respect for him. People will never come to agreement on whether we should have or not. as they already decided - - - maybe there is no right answer. Maybe he is right and I am wrong, even though I know I will never be able to see that side either.

And Saddam, with all those bombs and dead people, one would have thought that he could have caught one and this part could be over. What a mess!