Some commentators to this and other blogs have said "Hey, nobody ever said this war was going to be a cakewalk / walk in the park / etc etc etc."
Yes they did. Here are some examples, courtesy of Salon:
Richard Perle, recently resigned chairman of the Defense Policy Board: [. . . ], in a PBS interview July 11, 2002:Sounds to me like some pretty high rollers in the administration and its supporters expected a cakewalk -- and were trying to sell the American people the same. Those of us who opposed the war, for whatever reason, realized that it wouldn't be a cakewalk. And it isn't.
"Saddam is much weaker than we think he is. He's weaker militarily. . . .Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder. "
Ken Adelman, former U.N. ambassador, in an Op-Ed for the Washington Post, Feb. 13, 2002: "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps.
Vice President Dick Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press" March 16: "The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but that they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that." [. . . .]
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN March 23:
"The course of this war is clear. The outcome is clear. The regime of Saddam Hussein is gone. It's over. It will not be there in a relatively reasonably predictable period of time."
"And the people in Iraq need to know that: that it will not be long before they will be liberated."
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars March 11:
"In a meeting last week at the White House, one of these Iraqi-Americans said, 'A war with Saddam Hussein would be a war for Iraq, not against Iraq.'"
"The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator. They know that America will not come as a conqueror. Our plan -- as President Bush has said -- is to 'remain as long as necessary and not a day more.'"
Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a breakfast meeting March 4, 2003:
"What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. The best way to do that is have such a shock on the system, the Iraqi regime would have to assume early on the end is inevitable."
Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair writer, in a debate Jan. 28, 2003:
"This will be no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention.
"The president will give an order. [The attack] will be rapid, accurate and dazzling ... It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on."
Here's the quandary: I don't want another American, Brit, Aussie or Iraqi killed in this war. That means it should stop now. Of course, that would mean the US and Britain to leave with their tails between their legs -- which the Cabal would never allow, certainly not this early. So we have to stay in "as long as it takes." As long as it takes to do what? To get into Baghdad? We'll get there, no doubt of it. To get beaten? The only hope for an early end to the conflict is for us to get quickly, decisively beaten -- which means Americans die, and I do not want that. It would be even stupider than the entire starting premise to claim that more must die so we can end the war. So we have to win and occupy Baghdad. Then, however, the Cabal is vindicated: see, they will say, we did it and it only cost us a hundred or so dead GIs. Parades will start, and so forth. Huzzah.
No, it still looks like the only way out of this is to change the administration in a year. So I keep at it.