First, consider the sins of the right. While the Bush administration did a great thing in deposing Saddam Hussein, the Rumsfeld Pentagon did it with astonishing ineptitude. From the refusal to deploy enough troops to the willful neglect of occupation planning, ideologues set us up for a protracted struggle and unnecessary casualties.
The administration got the big picture right, but ignored the troublesome details. The president and his deputies further harmed their cause by refusing to admit that mistakes were made. From the floundering early days of don't-call-it-an-occupation through the incompetence of the young political activists sent to staff the Coalition Provisional Authority, willful errors have been redeemed only by the valor — and blood — of our troops.
Wow. Look, we hit Iraq with 70 line battalions, Marines, Army, and Brits. That's the equivalent of 7 divisions. This was in line with our long-standing plans for a major theater war. But since we did not build up iron mountains of supplies and relied on air power instead of extra artillery brigades, we didn't have the large numbers of support troops that normally would have been used. We crushed the Iraqi military with this force.
As for the post-war, the administration made some wrong assumptions but the venom of Peters' condemnation just about rises to the level of a stab-in-the-back argument. And it is bizarrely made as we win this post-war stabilization mission. And why is not wanting to call our post-war mission an "occupation" derided? Sure, technically it was, but so what? It was never taken as a legalistic description by the anti-war side but as a bad term. So why accept it easily? And so Ledeen's daughter worked for the CPA. That is a crime? I assume that is what Peters is knocking.
The talk about soldiers blood compensating for mistakes is true of all wars. And our government has adapted quite well I think, over the last two years, to changing circumstances.
Still, Peters wants us to win so in the end his criticisms are taken in that light. I don't think he criticizes to undermine the war or to score political points. Simply put, I trust him even if I think this criticism is wrong.
But there is no stab in the back going on. Our military fights well and is getting the backing it needs and deserves.
