Pickett’s charge
I was working on another post, entitled, “How is the War in Iraq like a Frontal Lobotomy?” (answer–false advertising), but really, I’m not that interested in the history anymore. I’m more interested in the “surge”. I’m interested because the “surge” is a classic example of a loser’s strategy, and it is about to be put in place by a bunch of losers. The “surge” is about saving face rather than achieving an objective, and, let me say it right here, it’s a guy thing. It’s like “going down fighting”, except that those who are going to be going down aren’t going to be those who want to save face.
People always comment on how stubborn George W. Bush is, or how stupid he is, or how ignorant he is, but what they don’t comment on is how selfish he is. Clearly, the face that is being saved in this probable “surge” is his face, and that’s how he wants it. He is willing to sacrifice any number of troops (and we don’t know what that number will be, but it could be high) and any number of Iraqis (certainly a higher number, because the American troops will throw off all restraint) in order to say that—Well, what?
One thing I have always wondered about Bush, that I wonder even more now, is what is the source of his power over these people, that come hell (Iraq) or high water (Katrina), they do what he wants? Does he throw things? Does he hold his breath and turn red in the face, so that they worry he’ll have a stroke? Does he hit people? Does he shout, “Off with his head!”? Does he send high level dissenters to Gitmo? (I wish he would, so that they could come to experience and understand conditions there). Do they just defer to him because of the office of the Presidency? (No one did that with Bill Clinton). Why would anyone feel allegiance to George W. Bush? It’s a mystery, and it’s a mystery that is killing people every day.
#23, Timbo,
I’m glad you brought those points up. Because if Nixon hadn’t given the bone to Kruschev’s wife back in Moscow in 1958, none of this would have happened. Reagan giving weapons to Iran and Bush Sr. shooting Democrat lobbyists on the East Lawn didn’t help either. But you’re right. Clinton should never have helped himself to Betty Ford’s booty while she was passed out under the Christmas tree.
This is all simply bullshit.
When will a Ford like speech be made “Our long national nightmare is over”?
All this ranting and raving is not doing anyone any good.
I don’t want another “plain speaking” idiot in the oval office; I want someone with intelligence, insight, wisdom and genuine concern for the future of the middle class. I don’t want someone with a silver spoon stuck up his/her ass, like GW.
Simply put, we invaded IRAQ 1st time, to protect our oil and this was, is an ongoing big mistake. Protecting Kuwait was just a ruse.
Today we would be much better off having weened ourself off oil. Our air, water would be cleaner, there would be less SUVs on the road and America would not be financing terrorist, corrupt nations and corporations around the world.
anyone notice that the handful of pro war voices are saying everything BUT that we can actually win in Iraq? whether it was a good idea to begin with (no) and whether things will suck after we leave (yes) are different questions.
so I put it to you, Timbo – can the US win in Iraq? if so, how? and if not, shouldn’t we conduct an orderly withdrawal?
– To tie together comments made by Doug and Jager (29&34), there is no doubt in my mind that America will win the war in Iraq. One must keep in mind that the majority of the problems facing Iraq, which is not as daunting as other war torn countries, can only be solved by the Iraqis themselves. The majority of Iraqis, upwards of 85%, want to push Iraq forward from the last 15 years of economic depression and forge a new democratic, civil, and prosperous country. As I said America cannot win this alone, as it will take the Iraqis to do the heavy lifting and their security forces are beginning to prove that in fact they are capable, with adequate support.
– To answer the how part, let me lay out a time table that the DoD backs gathered from the numerous press briefing. The next year will be devoted towards shifting labour and capital out of dense urban populations and into surrounding territories (Baghdad may stilll contain U.S. troops but they will work in concert with Iraqi security forces). 2-3 years, America troops (120,000-100,000) will continue to offer quick reaction force capabilities while providing logistic and humanitarian relief. 3-5 years, (70,000-50,000 troops) will be more of the same however permanent bases will be erected in Kurdistan & possibly close to Kuwait. After that time period the situation will undoubtedly still have random suicide bombings, and acts of violence, but Iraq will have what was only considered a dream under Saddam.
– Oh and to Jager, you made some good points in your refute, but I would still argue that Clinton saw Saddam as a national security threat as he said as much in his state of the union speech. Also, I often hear this argument of “well their are other despotic nation-states why don’t we attack them,” and to that I say let’s do it insha’Allah. America’s role in the first part of the 21st century will be that of a policeman, my only hope is that we need not do it alone. N. Korea can be dealt with especially if Japan can persuade China that they will be forced to re-militarize if the situation grows more dangerous. If the status-quo remains, military conflict, or increased covert ops, should not be ruled out in the next 10-15 years. Nothing would make me happier to see China, S. Korea, Japan, the U.S. and Russia all agreeing that regime change in N. Korea is desirable and do-able.
#35
Yes, the majority of Iraqis wants to get prosperity. But this will not happen as long as there are foreign troops (especially non-Muslim) on Iraqi soil. Why? Because the insurgents (who are run by die hard American haters) don’t want it to happen. And as for the Iraqi security forces… they’re in disarray. They won’t be effective for years to come.
I do agree with you on a gradual withdrawal. Pulling out tomorrow would lead to a major conflict since the neighboring countries won’t allow the Shiites to completely take over Iraq. One of the underlaying problems with the Mid East and Africa for that matter was how the colonial powers drew the borders. There were very little considerations taken to what people lived where.
And as for national security threat… This is from Clinton’s 1998 State of the Union speech:
And this is from Clinton’s 1999 State of the Union speech
Perhaps I’m reading the wrong parts, but I can’t see him mentioning Iraq as being a national security threat.
I often hear this argument of “well their are other despotic nation-states why don’t we attack them,” and to that I say let’s do it insha’Allah.
Shouldn’t that be insha’Bush? 😉
America’s role in the first part of the 21st century will be that of a policeman…
I definitely hope that the USA will act more as a world citizen under the UN banner instead of being a self-proclaimed Globo Cop.
And as for solving the North Korea issue… things aren’t as easy as you see them. China and Japan might smile when doing business, but there’s a lot of resentment still under the surface since Japan haven’t dealt with their crimes during WW2. Also, China and North Korea has strong ties. So, don’t count on China helping out too much.
#20, I have heard your argument before, that the Democratic party doesn’t have a monopoly on truth, or for that matter, doesn’t use much of it. What I haven’t heard, along with that argument, is examples of those lies/missteps/egregious spins. Listen to Rush Limbaugh for a few minutes and check his facts. Some are verifiable and quite a bit is absolutely twisted. Please don’t just parrot one source. Check your facts, get to the bottom of any issue that bothers you.
Yes, we impeached our President because he lied about having “sexual relations with that woman,” but I think lying about WMD, risk to our country, the fiscal stability of the country, and a few other things is quite a bit worse, not to mention the human rights abuses in Guantánamo and Iraq, constitutional abuses involving telephone records and conversations, and a total failure to plan for the post-invasion scenarios in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Our country has lost an enormous amount of international cache (clout, if you will) because of our fool President. Until we see ourselves as others see us and address the big problems I just outlined, we are headed for a nasty economic crash when folks (like Saudi Arabia) decide dollars aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.
#37
Excellent post, Jim.