Has Bush commandered two wars like he really wanted them to last forever instead of outright wins?

Question

Seems to me both iraq and afghanistand could have been prosecuted in a way that said, we are very serious about this war and we are going to make sure things go our way, and deal a decisive defeat to the enemy and bring our soldiers home in a timely manner (or at least not have them still getting killed as they are now). Seems to me its almost as if Bush's objective was to keep things going at about a certain rate perpetually as if that itself is the goal ..for us to be there fighting a war not necessarily winning the war.

Answer 1

Obtaining victory is not as clear-cut as you might imagine.  You have to remember that there is no defined enemy like previous wars.  While I agree that the beginning of the Iraq war did not go as well as it should have, thanks to Mr. Rumsfeld, we are on a better course.  It's just a matter of time before all the insurgents are finally sniffed out of their holes.  So no, I do not believe President Bush would deliberately prolong this war for personal reasons.

Answer 2

"Winning' would require a consistent strategy, specific goals, and an idea of what 'democracy in Iraq' looks like. We, the soldiers, and the Iraqi people have seen nothing but vague references to 'return on success' and  'the Iraqi people want to be free".

Answer 3

It was never serious, since those two ugly daughters of his never went to war; just a chance for poor kids to get poor money, go crazy, and die under a bridge.  Meantime all those folks in the HEARTLND that voted for him are now drowning like suckers.  Oh, BTW, our trillions spent there didn't produce one barrel of oil at the gas pump.

Answer 4

Bush has a very serious problem with people that he surrounds himself with (they are losers) and he is basically quite dumb.  He doesn't know how to bring a war to a close (and a win).  Bush is also very stubborn....a man who never makes a mistake.  This has proven to be a disaster for America. We need a president who has not only a high IQ but one who also has experience and sensitivity and it isn't either Obama or McCain.  What to do?  Sit back and don't vote?  It might help me if McCain chooses a sharp, experienced VP. McCain isn't a young man and it may be in the cards for the VP to take over the presidency if something drastic happens to McCain.  Obama is out of my "choice book" because I do not like the man for too many reasons to list here.

Answer 5

He would not have expected outright victory. But, he would not have expected them to last this far either.

Answer 6

Interesting question!

I think Bush originally thought we were going to just roll over Iraq, then go on to Syria and Iran.  I remember hearing that all the time during the run-up to the war.  Nobody in the administration thought the Iraq war would last more than a few weeks.

Of course this was because Bush didn't listen to his military experts, who all said that it would take 500,000 troops to stabilize Iraq.  Instead he listened to naive ideologues from the Project for a New American Century--Wolfowitz, Perle and Feith.  None of whom had any real military experience.

When the war wasn't over in a few weeks, Bush realized that he couldn't end it without admitting defeat.  And that's where we are now.  Bush's only strategy is to keep the war going as long as he can, keep insisting that we're making progress, until the Democrats take it out of his hands.  Then, for decades into the future, the Republicans will claim that we were winning but the Democrats decided instead to -surrender-.

This is why McCain is not allowed to criticize the war.  Future historians would say that even Bush's successor in the party didn't believe in the war.  So instead of distancing himself from Bush, McCain has to pretend he believes Bush is doing a great job and everything is fine.