I think Shinseki was reflecting the standard bureaucratic mode of wanting 10x the amount of resources necessary "just in case." Colin Powell did that with Desert Storm.

Tony Zinni and others were largely right on much of this. I'm not sure Shinseki really covered himself in glory, though.

Further, I'm not sure a large-scale insurgency was inevitable. A series of really poor decisions by senior leaders in both Washington and Baghdad certainly made things much, much worse.

While many opponents argued we needed to give sanctions more time, that Saddam was containable, that it would be hard to take Baghdad, etc., few predicted a massive insurgency-guerrilla campaign.

I dunno... wasn't that the basis for Shinseki's position that we'd need something like 300K boots on the ground to accomplish our goals there?

"The notion that we ought to now go to Baghdad and somehow take control of the country strikes me as an extremely serious one in terms of what we'd have to do once we got there. You'd probably have to put some new government in place. It's not clear what kind of government that would be, how long you'd have to stay. For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who's going to govern in Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire."

Source

If we'd known how things would have gone, we would not have gone into Iraq. While many opponents argued we needed to give sanctions more time, that Saddam was containable, that it would be hard to take Baghdad, etc., few predicted a massive insurgency-guerrilla campaign.

Tano:

Shugart's point is that many Democrats were skeptical of the war but nonetheless decided to vote for it after calculating the politics. Edwards is right, too: When you've got the intel guys showing you classified stuff and claiming it's a slam dunk that Saddam has a nuclear program and is supporting terrorists, it's a little harder to vote your skepticism.

Since Illinois' Dick Durban voted against it, my guess is Obama would have had the political cover to vote Nay. But we'll never know for sure. Politicians often say one thing while running and do something else once they get in office because their circumstances are changed and they calculate risks differently.

Geez, James, that is about the stupidest thing you have ever written on here.

What utter garbage.
We know damn well how he would have voted.
Nay.

How pathetic is this. Instead of having the grace to admit the guy was right (doesnt mean you have to vote for him, or admit he is/was right about anything else), you try to argue that he would have been as wrong as you if only....