Bush's new strategy - the march of folly

[lazarus]

here's Robert Fisk's take....

.........And so more US troops must die, sacrificed for those who have already died. We cannot betray those who have been killed. It is a lie, of course. Every desperate man keeps gambling, preferably with other men's lives.

But the Bushes and Blairs have experienced war through television and Hollywood; this is both their illusion and their shield.

Churchills have gone, used as a wardrobe for a prime minister who lied to his people and a president who, given the chance to fight for his country, felt his Vietnam mission was to defend the skies over Texas.

But still he talks of victory, as ignorant of the past as he is of the future......

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2144057.ece

[Dr. Shane]

A lot of leftwing, radical rhetoric in that post. I would hope we could have a more mature discussion here at C/A.

To pull out now, let the terrorists overthrow the new government and commit genocide would be to betray those that have already died for the cause.

Critics of the war have called for more troops for months. They should be happy with this move. Any criticism should be that it is far overdue and too few troops.

Bush's National Guard experience has no more to do with the Iraq War than Clinton's dodging the draft had to do with the war in the Balkins. However, for the record, Bush did volunteer to go to Vietnaum as a piolet but was not choosen for the program.

If we are going to discuss such issues, why not use a mature tone? Why not have an elevated conversation about current events? Do we have to act like we have a dog in the fight?

[Jeannieb43]

Shane, with all due respect. The tone is "elevated" if it agrees with your position??

I actually remember Churchill. My DH and I have spent hours visiting the War Room in London, deep underground, where Churchill directed the activities of WWII, in close cooperation with FDR. I'd say we could do a lot worse than Churchill and FDR did in bringing WWII to a close. HOWEVER, to pretend Dubya is another Churchill is to be blinded to the actual truth of this current conflict.

Many many Americans are sick and tired of this mess. Why do you keep disparaging anyone who doesn't support Bush? Does that somehow tarnish you?? It isn't as though Bush is a deity. He has become a disappointment even to most of the Republicans.

[bevin]

Quote:

A lot of leftwing, radical rhetoric in that post. I would hope we could have a more mature discussion here at C/A.

Why don't you demonstrate the behavior that you want.

Calling someone "radical" and "immature" doesn't seem to meet your guidelines.

Quote:

To pull out now, let the terrorists overthrow the new government and commit genocide would be to betray those that have already died for the cause.

1: The people opposing the current government are NOT terrorists, they are simply the other side of a civil war. There are government troops and police in the death squads, the government is supported as well as opposed by militias.

2: The fact that our soldiers have died for a cause does NOT make that cause any more righteous or likely to be successful. Hence the death of our soldiers should not be used to justify still more killing. This is a very invalid "stay the course" argument that GWB uses to avoid admitting he has screwed this up from the beginning.

Quote:

Critics of the war have called for more troops for months.

They have been saying the beginning that GWB was making a bad mistake and we should not be there at all - that no matter how much $$ and many lives we spent the problem was not solvable this way.

The people calling for more troops were the ones that supported the war, but not the way GWB was going about it. He didn't listen to them then, and now 60% of American's think it is too late - escalation is not the answer.

Quote:

They should be happy with this move. Any criticism should be that it is far overdue and too few troops.

Just because something would have worked 3.5 years ago doesn't mean it will work now. It is quite valid to have called for more troops to prevent the civil war, and then to call for less troops now we have caused the civil war.

Quote:

Bush's National Guard experience has no more to do with the Iraq War than Clinton's dodging the draft had to do with the war in the Balkins. However, for the record, Bush did volunteer to go to Vietnam as a pilot but was not choosen for the program.

I agree. I would have had my family pull strings to keep me out of that stupid war also.

Quote:

If we are going to discuss such issues, why not use a mature tone? Why not have an elevated conversation about current events? Do we have to act like we have a dog in the fight?

I agree.

Why doesn't GWB implement the recommendations of the BIPARTISAN Iraq Study Group? Because he still is not prepared to admit that he was fundamentally wrong.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

HOWEVER, to pretend Dubya is another Churchill is to be blinded to the actual truth of this current conflict.

I agree completely. There have been a lot of mistakes made in this war. Of course Churchill and FDR made their fair share of mistakes too.

Quote:

Why do you keep disparaging anyone who doesn't support Bush?

I have not supported Bush's Iraq policy since he was re-elected. I was hoping to see some major changes in his second term that haven't or perhaps are now just starting to happen.

Quote:

Many many Americans are sick and tired of this mess.

Yes indeed. And many are sick of the partisan politics being played with the war effort.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Why don't you demonstrate the behavior that you want.

Calling someone "radical" and "immature" doesn't seem to meet your guidelines.

I listen to talk radio, NPR and watch the Newshour with Jim Lerher as well as O'Reilly and Hannity and Combs. I hear the rhetoric of the talking heads and recognize it when it is used here. There are moderates out there and there are radicals. To use terms like "bleeding heart" or "neo-con" is immature and inflamatory. The word "radical" describes a viewpoint that is at the far end of the spectrum - either left or right. If it is inflamatory, simply provide me with another adjective to use in its place and I will gladdly comply.

[D. Allan]

Quote:

The word "radical" describes a viewpoint that is at the far end of the spectrum - either left or right. If it is inflamatory, simply provide me with another adjective to use in its place and I will gladdly comply.

'radical' has various meanings such as 1. of the root, fundamental, essential, 2. thourough, complete. 3. favoring drastic reform.

From a thesarus : emphatic, significant, progressive, invigorating, intense, red-hot, desparate, prodigious, pointed.

I like intense and red-hot. :)

[bevin]

Quote:

simply provide me with another adjective to use in its place and I will gladdly comply.

Don't bother trying to label or attribute the statements, simply state solid objective reasons why they are wrong.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I like intense and red-hot.

Yes, I think that would describe some at the ends of the spectrum like Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Moore.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Don't bother trying to label or attribute the statements

How can one honestly respond to rherotic like this without labeling it what it is - far left propaganda?

“desperate man keeps gambling” “It is a lie” “war through television and Hollywood” “defend the skies over Texas” “as ignorant of the past as he is of the future”

I wonder if this critic knows the truth and just ignores it for political purposes or if he too is just repeating what he has heard from talking heads.

[bevin]

Quote:

desperate man keeps gambling

No-one, including GWB and Condi Rice, are claiming that they are certain that this strategy will succeed. It IS a gamble - no doubt about it. GWB is desperate, because he has said that we can't afford to loose in Iraq.

In fact, we can. The same bad argument was pitched about how terrible it would be if we lost in Viet-Nam but today it is obvious that the only people who suffered from the USA's withdrawl there was the Vietnamese themselves, and that only from their treatment of each other.

As for the other points, argue against them with facts or ignore them.

But they are NOT "far left propaganda", they are talking points of main-stream USA politians, not just of people of the far left.

/Bevin

[Bravus]

Arrggh!! I had written a looong, thoughtful, non-partisan post in this thread... and the power went out at our house and I lost the lot!

Here's a short version:

1. This war cannot be won militarily, except by near-genocide of one of the major ethnic groups in Iraq. The best that can be accomplished militarily at this point is massive suppression: enough boots on the ground and uniforms on the street that the fighters don't dare show their faces. That's a temporary tactic that stops working when the troops leave.

2. That means to really end the war requires a diplomatic solution, which means taking the interests of all parties seriously, negotiating in good faith, probably negotiating with Iran and Syria, and likely making serious good-faith efforts on Palestine. I'm not seeing any moves at all in this direction, but I believe that's what it takes to win the war.

3. 21,000 troops is nowhere near enough to do what is described in (1) above. Once again the war planning falls between two stools: either a massive escalation or the beginnings of a withdrawal could do some good at this point, but a small escalation will not solve anything, just put more soldiers in harm's way and get more Iraqis killed.

[Dr. Shane]

Thank you, Bravus. That is the type of elevated and mature discussion I know we are capable of having here.

The hope is that if the US stays long enough, the new Iraqi government will become strong enough to suppress the various factions. It is hard to tell what the actually chances of that happening are because everyone's opinion seems to be tainted by their political bais.

President Teddy Roosevelt refered to the Spanish-American War as a "splendid little war". I guess the same could be said of the first Gulf War. However most wars are not splendid nor little. They don't go as planned. D-Day was much more disasterous than anything we have seen in the Iraq War.

A diplomatic solution would be wonderful. But who is part of that? If indeed Iran and Syria are funding and feeding the insurgancy, then they might be most helpful in such efforts. Certainly the terrorist groups cannot have a seat at the table.

I agree that the number of troops being sent isn't enough. My first reaction was "too little, too late." However I am an optimist. I hung unto hope for my sister recieving chemo-theropy too, until she finally took her rest in Christ. Things don't look good in Iraq and losing will be disasterous if it happens.

[lazarus]

I wonder if this critic knows the truth and just ignores it for political purposes or if he too is just repeating what he has heard from talking heads.

Just a bit of info about Robert Fisk.

He lives in Beirut, Lebanon, where he has resided for over 25 years.

Described by the New York Times as "probably the most famous foreign correspondent in Britain",[3] he has over thirty years of experience in international reporting, dating from 1970s Belfast and Portugal's 1974 Carnation Revolution, the 1975-1990 Lebanese Civil War, and encompassing the 1979 Iranian revolution, the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, 1991 Persian Gulf War, and 2003 Invasion of Iraq. He is the world's most-decorated foreign correspondent,[4] having received numerous awards including the British Press Awards' International Journalist of the Year award seven times. Fisk speaks good vernacular Arabic, and is one of the few Western journalists to have interviewed Osama bin Laden (three times between 1994 and 1997).[5]

May I humbly suggest that Robert Fisk has a tad more experience than most of us who post on this forum.

In addition, (forgive me for borrowing).... there may be a few of us critics here on CA who know the truth and just ignore it for political purposes and just repeat what we from talking heads...

[Dr. Shane]

Dan Rather knew that GW Bush volunteered to go to Vietnaum but Rather ignored it and one can only suspect he did so because of his own political bais. I don't know if Robert Fisk also knew that GW Bush volunteered to go to Vietnaum or if Robert Fisk was only repeating the misinformation he picked up from others in the media, like Dan Rather. Either way he is wrong.

GW Bush did initially indicate that he didn't want to serve overseas when he joined the NG. Later, when there was a program looking for piolets to go to Vietnaum, Bush volunteered but was denied because he didn't have enough flight hours. It seems there was a change in attitude during the time he served. If one wants to honestly say he tried to avoid serving in Vietnaum, they need to also tell that he later volunteered to go. Now either Robert Fisk doesn't know the truth or he is ignoring it for political purposes. Either way, it hurts his credibility and we know what happened to Dan Rather and his credibility.

[bevin]

Quote:

If indeed Iran and Syria are funding and feeding the insurgancy, then they might be most helpful in such efforts.

Many of the POLICE and the ARMY, funded and supplied by the USA, are part of the "insurgency". We are actually supplying more to the "insurgency" than those two countries combined. Billions of dollars of stuff that we supplied can't be accounted for!

It is NOT AN INSURGENCY. It is a CIVIL WAR.

Heck, the main supporter of the USA-backed Prime Minister is Moqtada Al Sadr and his huge militia. Do you really think the Prime Minister is going to squash his main supporter???

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Like I said, "It is hard to tell what the actually chances of that happening are because everyone's opinion seems to be tainted by their political bais." I am not a top, I don't spin. I am very hesitant to jump on any bandwagon. Others here obviously not only jump on but join in trying to recruit others to extreame positions.

Quote:

We are actually supplying more to the "insurgency" than those two countries combined.

This is such an obnoxious claim that it complete destroys the credibility of anyone making it. How could we possibly know unless we were actively part of the leadership of the terrorist, insurgent groups? Even then, I doubt that officials records are kept to know how much money is coming from various sources.

[Neil D]

Like I said, "It is hard to tell what the actually chances of that happening are because everyone's opinion seems to be tainted by their political bais." I am not a top, I don't spin. I am very hesitant to jump on any bandwagon. Others here obviously not only jump on but join in trying to recruit others to extreame positions.

[bevin]

The Bush Administration is trying to make Syria and Iran the fall-guys for its own utter incompetence in its management of this war.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/05/02/failures_cited_in_iraq_rebuilding/

Quote:

May 2, 2006

WASHINGTON -- A crucial program to train 20,400 Iraqis to guard key oil and electricity infrastructure sites ended in failure last year, with only about half that number actually trained and millions of dollars worth of automatic weapons, armored cars, night-vision goggles, and other equipment unaccounted for, auditors reported to Congress yesterday.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050505-115957-5756r.htm

Quote:

U.S. government mismanagement of assets in Iraq -- from the lack of proper documentation on nearly $100 million in cash to millions of dollars worth of unaccounted-for equipment -- are setting back efforts to fight corruption in the fledgling democracy, auditors and critics say.

The incompetence went back to the pre-war planning where they failed to understand the importance of protecting military and cultural sites

http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/mideast/iraq/2653.html

Quote:

November 01, 2004

by Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

While the story of the 380 tons of missing explosives at Al Qaqaa weapons site in Iraq has taken several twists and turns over the past three days, experts say the "explosives missing from Al Qaqaa are only a tiny fraction of what is buried in different sites around Iraq," and that Iraq is "awash in unaccounted for weapons." Even after the US military secured some 400,000 tons of munitions, as many as 250,000 tons remain unaccounted for.

In one case, The Boston Globe reported on Saturday, a cache of hundreds of surface-to-surface warheads at the 2nd Military College in Baquba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, was left unsecured even after coalition authorities had been told of its existence. Peter Bouckaert, who heads the emergency team for New York-based Human Rights Watch, said he was shown the weapons cache by local Iraqis who wanted it removed in March of 2003. He went straight to US military authorities in Baghdad's Green Zone. At first, Mr. Bouckaert said, he had trouble getting anyone interested in what he had to say, because the authorities were only interested in biological or chemical weapons, He said he was also told that there were not enough troops in Iraq to secure all the stores of weapons placed around Iraq. Eventually he gave the US Army the exact GPS coorindates for the site, but when he left ten days later, the area was still not secured and insurgents were looting the facility at will.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

The far-right, like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, make claims that "war is hell" and as such, this war is going like any other. Thus, they reason, the President doesn't deserve any criticism. To a certain degree, they are right, as far as wars being hell and unpredictable. I have echoed that sentiment. However the idea that the President is beyond critisim I have never maintained. I was vocal in hoping that he would replace Donald Rumsfield after his re-election and actually thought the only reason he didn't do it before is it would have looked bad in the months leading up to the election.

I have never claimed that mistakes made in this war have not been major. I do understand that major mistakes are made in every war, however such mistakes should result in a change in statagy, not "stay the course." So while I supported the invation, and still maintain the motives were honorable, I have been a critic of how the war has been managed. In my mind, that places me in the middle of the road and not at either extreame.

Now clearly the insurgants have managed to steal some of our weapons and explosives. However there is no way for us to know what percentage of these stolen weapons make up their arsenal in comparison to what they are recieving from other sources such as those in Iran and Syria. Anyone claiming to know such is simply trying to peddle some political SPIN. I am not a buyer in that market.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

[bush] experienced war through television and Hollywood

From what I understand, President Bush has met with the families of each soldier, sailor, airman and marine lost in the War on Terror. These are real people with real loved ones that have paid the ultimate price for what he believes is the best interest of the nation. That is hardly experiencing war through the television or Hollywood. That is shedding real tears with real people and knowing first hand the cost of war.

Those that experience war through television and Hollywood are the armchair-generals that sit back and consume the political SPIN of their liking and then try to get others to jump on their bandwagon.

[bevin]

Quote:

Now clearly the insurgants have managed to steal some of our weapons and explosives

There are military and police units that we have supplied weapons to that are opposed to the current government. They did not steal our weapons - the USA army can defend its own stuff. We failed to defend the stuff that was already on the ground, and we gave them more stuff.

It is not a small group of terrorists/insurgents trying to bring down an established government.

It is a civil war where there are three important groups of the populace and where they have not agreed on a peaceful and secure process for allocating the assets amongst themselves.

This situation was absolutely predictable and predicted before GWB made his (widely criticised at the time) decision to invade. His administration was and remains simply incompetent.

/Bevin

[Woody]

If my memory serves me correct ... support for the invading Iraq was around 75%. Even most Democrats supported it. I think the vote had only one or two people voting against it in the House and Senate.

Shane ... where are you. I need some help on this. But that is my memory.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

There are military and police units that we have supplied weapons to that are opposed to the current government.

Corrupt military and police units have supplied weapons to those opposed to the current government. Since they have done so without authorization, that is called stealing. Stealing is when a person takes something without asking permission first. The US is providing weapons for the Iraqi police and military but not so they can be given to insurgants. Therefore when they are given to insurgants that is stealing.

[bevin]

They aren't "giving them to the insurgents", they are using the weapons themselves to further their side of the civil war.

The police force and the military that we trained and we equipped are split along the same sectarian lines as the rest of the country.

It is a civil war, and we are equipping both sides.

By the way - it is costing us QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS PER MINUTE.

/Bevin