Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
I think the Iraq situation is a classic example of this enduring conundrum with counterinsurgency: for a government (or ruling authority) to admit that it faces a serious insurgency, it has to admit that it made major policy errors. The natural tendency is to postpone such an admission as long as possible. But this gives the insurgents time to coalesce. I believe the situation in Iraq had reached a psychological "set" by late 2003 or early 2004. If we had admitted our errors and undertake the "surge" in the late summer of 2003, it might have made a difference.


I agree and it fills me with a mix of sadness and anger. How many people could still be alive if things had been done differently?

*Disclaimer: please tell me if I get to 'political' with this*

I'm not sure, however, that you can pin it all on the Administrations desire to avoid admitting mistakes. I understand the Administrations actions - CYA behavior is found in every organization. I still don't understand the comparable actions by the grassroots. Frankly, it looked to me like a lot of regular Americans didn't want to hear anything negative either. I was a war-supporter and participated in some blogs/forums/etc. inhabited primarily by other supporters and I can swear that even the grassroots reaction to anyone suggesting that we weren't "winning" was .... unpleasant. Almost no one wanted to hear it.

Sorry if this is too political - I'm new and I don't want to start an argument over spilled milk. However, I am interested in understanding it.

Why did people with nothing to lose personally react with such hostility, for so long, to allegations that we faced problems, even when those allegations were made in the name of fixing the problems and not just running away?