If we'd only known then...

Michael and I read a really interesting article the other day, he posted a link to it in his last post, about the should've-would've-could've chorus, and I'd like to take a moment to query those of you who support the "If we'd only known then what we know now" camp.

What I really want to know is, what do we know now that we didn't know then?

WMD's? - It has long been established that there are no WMD's in Iraq. This has all sorts of implications for our motives as to why we went to war, but I distinctly remember that it was a risk we as a country seemed willing to take. We gambled on that point, and we lost, but we knew then there was a chance there were no WMD's and we decided to go knowing there might be nothing.

Insurgents? - The campaign in Iraq definitively has its enemies. There are people with guns who don't want to leave and who don't want us there. They're tenacious and willing to sacrifice themselves just to kill a few Americans. Maybe my ignorance of military tactics is off base, but I thought that an insurgency is something that would be a no brainer, when we put armed troops into someone else's country, there is bound to be resistance. And whilst one may argue that we weren't expecting such fierce resistance, when so much of that area has been calling for American blood for essentially my entire lifetime, can anyone really say they didn't expect resistance? That they didn't know there would be insurgency?

The commitment of time, money and American lives? - I know this is a touchy subject because it is one that hits home for a lot of people, but who would go to war assuming that they wouldn't lose any troops? With the globalization of information, each death is instantly known around the country, and we feel every single lost life around the country, but I have to ask, how can anyone say, "We didn't know then it would cost lives"? The responsibility of committing to war means that you have to be willing to know that your decision will cost lives. Did nobody stop and think before voting to go to war that it could be difficult? I've read before that in order to win a guerrilla war, it will take a huge number of troops a long time. I believe it was at least a 10 x 1 ratio of troops needed for something like 15 years. Now, it's been a while, and I forget where I read that, but if I, as an ignoramus in guerrilla warfare have an understanding of the cost, how can anyone argue they didn't know it would be costly when the made the decision to go to war?

So I have to ask, when politicians are saying "If we knew then what we know now, we would have never made the decision to go to war" I have to ask, what is it that you know now? Nothing has changed except public opinion. There haven't been any developments, there haven't been any revelations, so what do we know now?