On The Chris Matthews Show, Matthews and guest insisted that the ongoing insurgency in Iraq was unexpected
Ignoring evidence that the Bush administration received repeated pre-war warnings of the potential for a sustained insurgency in Iraq, NBC host Chris Matthews and nationally syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker insisted that the continuing bloodshed had not been anticipated. On the September 25 broadcast of NBC's syndicated The Chris Matthews Show, Matthews suggested that the "enduring" nature of the Iraqi insurgency was a surprise and told viewers that he didn't "know many people who expected it to still be going on this long." Parker added that while "there was no preparation for the long haul" in Iraq, "I don't think anyone envisioned two years down the road we'd still be fighting insurgents."
But in contrast to Matthews and Parker's suggestions that no one anticipated that an insurgency would persist so long after the end of conventional fighting, USA Today reported on October 24, 2004, that "[m]ilitary and civilian intelligence agencies repeatedly warned prior to the invasion that Iraqi insurgent forces were preparing to fight and that their ranks would grow as other Iraqis came to resent the U.S. occupation and organize guerrilla attacks." In fact, USA Today noted that an Army War College report published in February 2003 suggested that military planners could expect a lengthy insurgency. Although the report did not offer a time frame for the length of the insurgency, it stated that "[t]he longer U.S. presence is maintained, the more likely violent resistance will develop."
Moreover, the Army War College report included a section titled "The Potential for Terrorism against U.S. Occupation Forces" in which authors Conrad C. Crane and W. Andrew Terrill warned:
The longer a U.S. occupation of Iraq continues, the more danger exists that elements of the Iraqi population will become impatient and take violent measures to hasten the departure of U.S. forces. At the same time, a premature withdrawal from Iraq could lead to instability and perhaps even civil war. By ousting the Saddam Hussein regime, the United States will have placed itself in the position where it will be held responsible by the world should anarchy and civil war develop in a post-Saddam era. Having entered into Iraq, the United States will find itself unable to leave rapidly, despite the many pressures to do so.
Crane and Terrill even predicted the horrific tactics the insurgency would use, warning, "The impact of suicide bombing attacks in Israel goes beyond their numbers, and this fact will also capture the imagination of would-be Iraqi terrorists."
Warnings about a prolonged and violent insurgency were not limited to official intelligence and military documents. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 31, 2002, Morton H. Halperin, then a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations, warned that the United States should be prepared "to fight the war in the streets of Baghdad ... and to accept the risk of very substantial casualties." In his statement, Halperin predicted that U.S. troops could be forced to occupy Iraq "for a very long time at very great expense in treasure but also in risk to lives." Responding to a question from Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), Halperin suggested that "we're talking about 20 years of many American troops in the country" to ensure the survival of a government that respects human rights.
In questioning Halperin, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE), who at the time was chairman of the committee, agreed that an invasion of Iraq would likely require a lengthy occupation. Biden, who ultimately voted to authorize the war, noted, "[W]e may very well radicalize the rest of the world, we may pick up a bill that's $70 billion, $80 billion, we may have to have extensive commitment of U.S. forces for an extended period of time in Iraq."
On September 27, 2002, New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof -- who traveled to Iraq before the war -- predicted that "an invasion of Iraq may not be the cakewalk that the White House expects." Citing an Iraqi militia member who planned to engage American soldiers in urban warfare "till my last drop of blood," Kristof warned that the Iraq war could devolve into a "nightmare" of "street-to-street fighting" against former Iraqi soldiers and "farmers ... taking potshots at our troops." Kristof asked, "Is America really prepared for hundreds of casualties, even thousands, in an invasion and subsequent occupation that could last many years?"
From the September 25 broadcast of NBC's syndicated The Chris Matthews Show:
MATTHEWS: [Weekly Standard editor] Bill [Kristol], we were all wrong, I guess, in thinking -- I thought it was going to be much bloodier going into Iraq, the initial encounter would be much bloodier. It was a quick campaign by [Gen.] Tommy Franks. But I don't know many people that expected it to still be going this long. This resistance had been vigorous, it's been enduring, and it doesn't seem like it's losing any strength. What did we get wrong here?
[...]
PARKER: And I think part of the problem politically is that the American people were never adequately prepared for how long this might go on. And [Defense Secretary Donald H.] Rumsfeld, I'm sure, has told Bush that this could happen. Insurgencies are always a risk. But there was no preparation for the long haul. They said, yes, it's going to be a long slog. But I don't think anyone envisioned two years down the road we'd still be fighting insurgents.
Didn't Dick Cheney himself predict these problems as justification for NOT invading Iraq during the first Gulf War?
The insurrgency wasnt even unexpected by me, much less by the people paying attention. The largest group of people who were suprised by the insurrgency is those who had drunk the Bush koolaid. Other than them I cant think of anyone who didnt expect an insurrgency. Hello, NO ONE WANTS TO BE OCCUPIED BY FORIEGN TROOPS. NO ONE.
Here's part of the quote from Cheney:
>"What we set out to do was to liberate Kuwait and to destroy his offensive capability, that's what I said repeatedly in my public statements. That was the mission I was given by the President. That's what we did. Now you can say, well, you should have gone to Baghdad and gotten Saddam. I don't think so. I think if we had done that we would have been bogged down there for a very long period of time with the real possibility we might not have succeeded."
And another Cheney quote from the same New York Times story:
>"I felt there was a real danger here that you would get bogged down in a long drawn-out conflict, that this was a dangerous, difficult part of the world;"
Of course, this was 14 years ago. I guess history has been revised since then.
History has not been revised........history has not been learned..
The "ongoing insurgency" isn't just a consequence of our invasion, it has been ongoing since the British (and others) created a horribly ill-conceived country where there should have been three.
Since Iraq's creation, there has been a civil war underway and the west-supported Sunnis have, until our invasion, held the upper hand only by brutalizing the Kurds and the Shiites.
I find it ironic that America, misled by Duhhbya and his puppeteers, will likely furnish the spark that ignites a hot civil war and, while they watch from the sidelines, undo what the British did 80+ years ago.
Odd that our government wouldn't anticipate an insurgency problem in Iraq when you consider that WE CREATED AN INSURGENCY IN AFGHANISTAN in the 1980s. Are we honestly supposed to believe they overlook the possibility of Al Qaeda stirring up trouble, not to mention Saddam loyalists? I am sick to death of Bush apologists lying through their teeth. Time to start hooking these liars to lie detectors while on the air and put the machine's reaction on the screen:
“Well, who knew there’d be an insurgency problem?”
WHOOP, WHOOP, WHOOP!
“Sorry, the correct answer is they knew, they knew.”
Of course, they knew! They just wouldn't admit it before the war, and, therefore, must deny it now. Whatever the REAL reason for Dick and George's Excellent Adventure, they must have assumed that once we were in it up to our necks, the public would forgive all and fall into lockstep. I'm sure the phrase "easier to get forgiveness than permission" was repeated more than once in the pre-war planning sessions.
This is true only if you buy the "mission accomplished" soundbite that George W. Pondscum announced proudly after he "flew" the jet on the staged carrier (at taxpayer expense, I must add.)
Aside from those who bought that, everyone knows it's BULL. So, where have you done your research, Chris?
Thought this should be brought to their attention, and have sent it:
Dear Ms. Parker and Mr. Matthews:
Having only yesterday been browsing among my pre-invasion and early invasion materials and noticing the attached report, I found the statements attributed by MediaMatters to you during your appearance on September 25, 2005, regarding foresight of the insurgency, remarkable.
Please note the following quoted excerpt from a detailed March 23, 2003 analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), which held itself out to be a non-partisan group staffed by 190 researches led by John J. Hamre, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense.
"SECURITY "Transitional Security Force "There has been no public discussion by the Administration of whether U.S. military forces have been trained and prepared to handle the mission of civil security – or maintaining public security – to avoid a dangerous security vacuum in postwar Iraq. In fact, it is clear that there continues to be serious disagreement among Administration officials and between civilian and military officials over the number of troops that will be required to maintain security in Iraq after a war. The Army’s Chief of Staff Eric Shenseki has proffered that as many as several hundred thousand troops may be needed as a postwar occupation force; Defense Department officials have dismissed this estimate as “wildly off the mark”, estimating instead that fewer than 100,000 troops will be needed. Uncertainty over what size force will be needed is understandable given outstanding questions such as how the war itself will progress, whether chemical or biological weapons will be unleashed, whether Iraq’s oil fields will be burned or taken over by some other military faction, any potential military activity by Iraq’s neighbors, and the extent of ethnic strife and score-settling violence that takes place. Nonetheless, the serious disagreements even over possible troop numbers – as well as over estimates as to how long any occupying force would remain in Iraq – is troubling at this late stage, as the need for stabilization forces to start rolling into Iraq is becoming evident even in the initial stages of the conflict."
I recall the media overflowing with discussions the issue of the possibility of civil war resulting from our interference. We have chosen to call the aftermath violence an insurgency, which seems to be almost a semantic distinction at this point. Either way, I am surprised to hear can one say "I don't know many people that expected it to still be going this long." Some of us did and based our opposition to the conflict in large part upon exactly such a concern.
Thank you for noting this.
Very truly yours,
Ms Parker was kind enough to immediately respond to the letter previously posted. She said:
Doesn't change the fact - or my point - that the American people were not expecting (for whatever reason) to be fighting an insurgency this late in the game. I think a poll would confirm as much. P.S. But thanks for sending this pdf. I'll take a look at it. I appreciate your taking time to send it along. I'm sorry to be so brief, but am on deadline at the moment. Best, Kathleen
In short we deceived our readers and viewers and we are now shocked that they were so ill informed. Shame on you for listening to us.
What crap, stacking the informational deck to make it seem like no knew because there was no evidence out there this would happen. That's because the right wing owned media buried it. This we are so innocent garbage is pitiful.
This goes hand in hand with Limbaugh's lie that "no one said it would be easy". The mainstream media did a horrible job before the war, mostly trumpeting the White House spin without question. Now the public is waking up to the stupidity of Dick and George's Excellent Adventure, and the press has a lot to answer for.
Ms Parker as has become recently of Chris "Pussyball" Matthews, are apologists as well as defenders of this corruption visited on us by Bush/Cheney. When Ms. Parker says she will investigate any information or data which in hind sight of her comments reveals her as shallow, misinformed or simply wrong, and she takes note to your email with a promise to respond, chances are better that Rush Limbaugh will explain truthfully why he fears a judge's release of his oxycotin job shopping.
Karl Rove has pulled all stops, called in all IOU's and released the detestible hell hounds of media distortion, misinformation and deflection in a desparate attempt to save the embarassing repetition of the seed. Rove knows without a full frontal media assualt on truth and fact, the single remaining salvation left for he and his cohorts will be a George W. Bush pardon. Like father like son.