Which part of the scenario are you referring to?
That we'll:
(1) be greeted with rose petals,
(2) be out by the summer of 2003, or
(3) that the war will pay for itself?

SS

Yes Bush gambled. He hasn't lost yet.

And I know you hope he doesn't, you rascal.

So now it is the January elections that will change everything? And here I thought the hand over of sovreignty in June was going to change everything.

Why will the elections change anything? The reason that Sunnis are rebelling now is that the current government is run by a secular Shiite and they are out of power. Why will the Sunnis feel any more allegiance to a Shia dominated government elected by Shia Iraqis, as opposed to one installed by the US? They are still going to be out of power.

And remember, the purpose of the January elections is to elect a government to create a constitution. (Didn't we already do that?) Why would a Shia dominated government create a constitution that would protect the rights of a minority group when that minority group has dominated the Shia for centuries? Do you think the Sunnis believe they will? Not on your life.

Forgive me if I remain a bit pessimistic. As one who opposed the war, even I did not think there would be over 100 KIA 19 months after the invasion began.

Tell you what: When the drive from the Green Zone to the Baghdad airport resembles something other than a scene from The Gauntlet, I will begin to share your optimism. Until then, forty times bitten, twice shy.

mkultra:

But didn't many who opposed the invasion predict intensive house-to-house fighting that would result in thousands of American deaths? By that standard, things are looking good.

SS:

That Iraq will be the first Arab democracy.

m:

The Sunni will have to go along or get out--it's going to be a Shi'a dominated state.

As one who opposed the war, even I did not think there would be over 100 KIA 19 months after the invasion began.

And you call yourself pessmistic? The papers were filled with reports and estimates of thousands or even tens of thousands dead from the invasion itself.

Which papers? Only if you believe there was a genuine WMD threat, which I never believed. As one who understood that UN sanctions had reduced Saddam's military to a shell of what it was before 1991, I never for a moment thought that his conventional forces would put up much of a fight.

So, it's a good thing that the deaths are spread out over several years instead of happening all at once?

What's even worse, is that a Shia dominated election will result in the installation of a pro-Iranian government, thereby increasing Iran's hold on the Middle East.

So we knock over a non-nuclear power in the Middle East to increase the power of the one with nukes? A few thousand deaths here or there aren't going to mean much when the mullahs reduce Tel Aviv to a pile of rubble.

Why should the elections be illegitimate if the genocidal maniacs don't vote ? Was Lincoln'r re-election illegitimate because the Confederate states didn't vote in 1864 ?

The Sunni have chosen to continue their genocidal ways of the past. They're now paying the price for it. As long as the American troops stay in Iraq, they have a chance to reconsider that choice, however. Once the Americans leave, they'll be left at the mercy of their former Shia and Kurd victims.

m -

You mean to say that we enforced No Fly Zones, stationed thousands in Saudi Arabia, voted Iraqi regime change in 1998, fired a few missles here and there that same year, made the UN prostitute itself by producing 19 or so resolutions calling for Saddam to "or else", and we wasted all that time mobilizaing all that hardware, securing dams, oil fields, etc. in 2003...all because we were so stupid not to have listened to you. Damm.

m:

What deaths? We've lost hardly anyone and brought democracy to an oppressed people.

Moe from NC said:

"You mean to say that we enforced No Fly Zones, stationed thousands in Saudi Arabia, voted Iraqi regime change in 1998, fired a few missles here and there that same year, made the UN prostitute itself by producing 19 or so resolutions calling for Saddam to "or else", and we wasted all that time mobilizaing all that hardware, securing dams, oil fields, etc. in 2003...all because we were so stupid not to have listened to you. Damm."

Moe:

It is precisely because we had done so many of these things that we DIDN'T need to invade. Saddam was a toothless tiger. He was more mob boss than a state sponsor of international terrorist.

The point remains: No honest person who supported the war in March of 2003 would have at that time called the situation we currently have in Iraq a success. Not one.

And how many times are we going to be told that "we have turned" the corner before we simply refuse to believe it? 20? 40? 100?

OJ:

To the contrary, we have lost a lot of people and we have not brought democracy to an oppressed people. I don't consider 1200 American dead "hardly anyone" and I certainly don't call a government whose head is a former Baathist thug whom we installed a democratic government.

But I guess you do.

After the vote, the Sunni insurrection will be an Iraqi problem, not an American one. There simply needs to be a strong timetable where American forces can leave and a new Iraqi army/police can take over.

We've achieved our objective in the war and did so when Saddam was both deposed and captured. We can leave at any time once some kind of Iraqi government is functioning.

This is not a Vietnam situation in which it is unknown how much support the Iraqi govt will have. The Shi'a 60% will support the government. It is likely the Kurdish 20% will as well or at least not be hostile and not disrupt the government. There is a HUGE difference between whether the Iraqis will support the govt or whether the Sunni minority will. Sunni discontent with the new govt is unfortunate, but utterly indifferent to America. And I am unmoved that the reason the Sunnis give for their discontent is that they can no longer massacre the Shi'a or Kurds.

This is the endgame.

m:

1200 is one ship lost in WWII.

"No honest person who supported the war in March of 2003 would have at that time called the situation we currently have in Iraq a success. Not one."

I'm honest. And having been a career military officer, it is safe to say I have a fair amount of expertise in this area. Including being the target, and deliverer of, lethal force.

I view what we have in Iraq as a success compared to every one of the alternatives those against the war have proposed to the status quo ante bellum, which had well and truly reached a cul de sac.

Regulars here know full well I rarely agree with OJ, but he is absolutely correct here. We could either put up with the murderous status quo ante because we prefer stability over everything, or we could step up to the plate and deal with the problem.

The gamble was whether we could pitch Saddam over the side and replace that A-list butcher with something like a functioning polity, thereby giving those who might choose Islamo-fascism reason to think the path to Arab self-respect lay in some direction other than slavish devotion to the Quran.

So far as I can see, that gamble looks very likely to pay off.

Oh, and one other thing. One of the most difficult things to pull off successfully is to prove a negative.

"No honest person who supported the war in March of 2003 would have at that time called the situation we currently have in Iraq a success. Not one."

Typical Leftists tactic intended to suppress any dissent. Not only does the author impune the honesty of anyone who doesn't agree with him, but he then presumes to speak for them.

One nice thing about archives--go back to what was being said here before the war and you'll see we were dubious about the Sunni willingly participatig in a unified state and thought Kurdistan would be independent of Shiastan rather quickly:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/2003_03.html

Another thing to keep in mind is that Saddam was succeeding in bribing the French and Russians to lift the sanctions. Anyone doubting that the number one priority for Saddam would have been to return his slumbering MWD programs to full operational status must tell me what life is like in his universe.