PeterDavid.net

I really think Bush is just trying to prevent the total collapse of Iraq's government for another two years so that he can dump it in the lap of his successor.

And of course, when that happens, it will be all the democrats' fault.

When the invasion started wasn't there a general (who's name escapes me) that said we would need A LOT more troops to keep the country under control once Saddam was given the boot? Wasn't this general given the boot himself? And wasn't there at least one other advisor who warned Bush it could cost a gazillion dollars rather than the $4.00 in change that Cheney & Co. were asserting?

I don't mind conservatives/Republicans/right-wingers urging everyone to look forward not behind. After all, Bush is Their Man and it's better for them if nobody dwells on the mistakes that have already occurred - but Jesus, there was no shortage of people, many of whom had access to the president, shouting warnings about the invasion from Day One - and they were marginalized, criticized, and accused of not being patriots.

And now it turns out they were right all along. I've got this urge to go around the country and yell into every right-wingers face "See? We told you so! Years ago!" and then give them a wedgie.

What I would like to hear from Bush:

"When I went into Iraq, I believed we were doing the right thing; I thought that overthrowing a dictator was a moral thing to do, and I believed that once he was overthrown, Iraq would become a stable and functioning democracy. I made a mistake. Iraq is now unfortunately even more dangerous than it was under Saddam.

If I was faced with the same decision again, I would look for ways to contain and control Saddam without invading and overthrowing him; I see now that has only caused more chaos. I apologize to the American people for making this mistake. At this point, I ask for their support in resolving the situation. Now that we have invaded, Iraq is in chaos, and as much of a mistake as the invasion was, we will make things even worse if we just leave the situation in chaos. So I ask people to set aside their justifiable anger at my mistake, and work together to prevent this situation from having even more dire and lasting consequences for our country. Thank you."

There is a point at which more troops could help. If we sent in another million troops, we could basically be everywhere at once. That would squash just about everything. Perhaps the fighting would break out again when we left, but in the short run another million troops would stabalise things.

500,000 *might* be enough to do that. According to projections and estimates made in the late 90s, sending in another 300,000 wouldn't be enough to do the job.

20,000? I don't see how anyone could think that's enough to make a noticable difference.

Matt - that's a pretty good approach. I think Bush would generate a lot of goodwill by just saying "Look, I f*cked up."

A couple of problems with your proposed statement: "I thought that overthrowing a dictator was a moral thing to do..." is a different premise for the war than we were originally given, which was "Hey, Saddam has got nukes at the end of your street and he's gonna use them in about an hour."

Also: "If I was faced with the same decision again, I would look for ways to contain and control Saddam without invading and overthrowing him..." I would argue Saddam was indeed "controlled and contained" already, despite the tap-dancing he was doing for the UN inspectors.

Jason, I heard on the radio, and read it again in a news story somewhere that 21,500 was the maximum number the military could afford without toally decimating our forces elsewhere. That is to say, Bush asked the Pentagon how many can we send, and the Pentagon said 21,500 would max us out. There just aren't enough warm bodies.

I'm trying to cut Bush a break here; I don't expect him to say "Yeah, I lied because I thought WMD was a better selling point" or "There was really no pressing need to go after Saddam, we already had him contained". I'm just defining the bare minimum that would be acceptable for me, which is him saying "This was the wrong thing to do, and I'm not going to follow that kind of policy course anymore."

Because ultimately, that's what we all should be concerned about; that he (or a future president) hasn't learned his lesson and we'll be in for a repeat with different quagmire in the future.

I really think Bush is just trying to prevent the total collapse of Iraq's government for another two years so that he can dump it in the lap of his successor.

Yeah, Bush & Co. are just trying to run out the clock until he leaves office.

Which is apropos really -- he got into office by running out the clock as well.

So metaphorically, you're saying that he keeps on attacking Wonder Man with a restraint collar around his neck?

Let's have some fun correlating the different pieces between the story and Iraq: Simon is Iraq, the collar is criticism of Dubya (or is it our troops dying?), the Beast can be seen as the rest of the world, the checkers board is a diplomatic solution....

Everyone can come up with their own interpretations. :-)

One could easily argue that Democrats saying if they TELL Bush--again--that his plan is wrong that he will change his mind ... regardless of the umpteenth times before they have done that.

-- Ken from Chicago

P.S. Imus asked Democrats what will more hearings and commissions and studies find out that they don't ALREADY know?

P.P.S. Peter, the difference is, as the President pointed out, that if Iraq doesn't fulfill promises then they will--future tense--lose the support of the American people.

They've already lost the support of the American people.

I think at this point, you don't change Bush's mind ever. His ability to tune out even the slightest criticism or dissenting voice is legendary.

The only time he's ever changed course is when he could no longer deny it anymore, even to Barney and Laura.

Last night's speech and this increase in troops is political and historical posturing. It really is. The problem in Iraq is so much more than if we can sweep an area and keep it free of insurgents, so much larger than training Iraqi troops. The US could train every single Iraqi to become part of the Iraqi army and police force, and still it would not matter. This is what our Adiministration fails to see. The hate these people have is so deep-seeded only an across the board ceasefire would work and that logically will never happen.

What Bush is doing is giving the appearance of the US doing everything it possibly can, the appearance he is doing everything he can. Last night was Bush placing the onus on the Iraqi government, and when the violence does not lessen and things get worse due to our escalation, Bush in November can say, "Well, we tried and the fault lies with the Iraqi government." Then we'll withdraw, with the appearance of doing all the US could to make it right. Or worse, he'll propose another plan, the third of fourth of its kind in recent years. And yet, more deaths will occur this year for that posturing.

Liberals are fond of saying, "We never should have been in this mess to begin with." But the fact is we are in it, and in it deep. But what Conservatives need to realize is nothing is going to help shy of moving our entire country there and taking up residence for decades. And that is not our role. In short, we reap what we sow, and Bush keeps sowing, sowing, sowing...

It's not insanity to think that sending more troops could help. John McCain for one, thinks we need to. Not to say this number would be enough. But I mean, if we sent say 1,000 troops during the first Gulf War, they might have all been killed. and if someone suggested sending say 100,000, that wouldn't be insanity, simply because the prior sending didn't work.

also, quite frankly, it isn't doing the same thing. Sending more troops to two specific areas who are allowed to operate in ways they were not allowed to operate before is a different thing.

It may not work. it may not be the right thing. We may need more or less. but it is hardly doing the same thing.

Not that i'd expect anyone here to admit it. They just here "Bush=bad=evil"

I got an email from Michael Moore today, from the commentary bot he runs, where he said the smart thing would be to send 28 million more troops to Iraq, let 'em each shoot one Iraqi, and the million who didn't have guns could start rebuilding the country.

He's being sarcastic, of course, something Mike does real well.

Bush's obvious solution to our problems is to throw more money and lives at it. I knew six years ago that he was an idiot who was going to fuck the country up beyond repair, but apart from voting for Al Gore I couldn't think of any way to stop him. And apart from dropping a tactical nuke on him, I still can't think of a way.

This low-down hwoon-dahn has made us the most hated nation on the planet, and I'm not sure if a century of Democratic rule can repair the damage he's done.

Miles

The problem is, spiderob, that Bush's proposal of just 21,000 troops is too little, too late. Had he sent 100,000 more troops in last year (2005) and put down the insurgency, it might have made a difference. But even that window of opportunity may be closed now. Let's just say it: It's on. Iraq is in a total civil war (gee, who'da thunk it?) It's doubtful that today, 100,000 more troops would be able to contain the fighting between the Shia and the Sunnis.

Now, he's trying to prop things up with a much smaller force with a much more limited goal and that's somehow going to make things better?

That's the dog that won't hunt.

The problem is, spiderob, that Bush's proposal of just 21,000 troops is too little, too late. Had he sent 100,000 more troops in last year (2005) and put down the insurgency, it might have made a difference.

****
I'm not really disputing that. I was very surprised to hear (when the reports came out) how few troops were being put in relatively, and it is late in the game.

I think the proposal, unfortunately, is the type guaranteed to not satisfy anyone (unless by some miracle it works, which i doubt for various reasons, but I guess I will not get into them) (1) many people want troops to be coming out-either slowly (some of which may be switchable to #2 if they thought it was working), or immediately or (2) I still hear a lot of people who want and/or wanted to go in there and "take names" so to speak with overwhelming force, which this is not (and which as you suggest it may be too late for anyway). Under this scenario, these people would feel like we are just doing enough not to lose per se, but not to win either (and thus guaranteeing a loss in the long run).

Weird thing is, as liberal as I am I would probably SUPPORT a troop surge if it was coupled with a full court diplomatic press. It could be used to stabalize the country until a regional solution is found through diplomatic talks. We might even be able to get some military support from the participants.

A statement on Senator Richard Lugar's (R)IN website looks encouraging:

"I was encouraged by the President’s emphasis on a regional element in his Iraq strategy. Whenever we begin to see Iraq as a set piece – an isolated problem that can be solved outside the context of our broader interests -- we should reexamine our frame of reference. Our efforts to stabilize Iraq and sustain a pluralist government there have an important humanitarian purpose. But remaking Iraq, in and of itself, does not constitute a strategic objective...

...For this reason, I have advocated broader diplomacy in the region that is directed at both improving stability in Iraq and expanding our options in the region. Inevitably, when anyone suggests such a diplomatic course, this is interpreted as advocating negotiations with Syria and Iran -- nations that have overtly and covertly worked against our interests and violated international norms. But the purpose of the talks is not to change our posture toward those countries. A necessary regional dialogue should not be sacrificed because of fear of what might happen if we include unfriendly regimes. Moreover, we already have numerous contacts with the Iranians and Syrians through intermediaries and other means. The regional dialogue I am suggesting does not have to occur in a formal conference setting, but it needs to occur and it needs to be sustained. "

Now, granted, Senator Lugar has a habit of never saying a bad word about anybody and gushing over fellow Republicans in particular. But what if Congress forced Bush's hand to initiate a Regional Summit including Iran and Syria in exchange for his troop surge?

--Captain Naraht

P.S. Sorry for the lengthy post.

We can't bail right now. Whether you agree with why we are there or disagree, the bottom line is we are there, and we have to find an acceptable way to end the job.

What I want to know are the alternatives to Bush's plan. Everyone offers an opinion, bashing why we are there, no one seems to be presenting a solution other than what he is offering.

I saw this today, and it rings true.

"I know how to be a war protestor, I don't know how to make peace."

We need to figure out how to make peace, so that war isn't an option, not offer platitudes on why war is bad.

Dan, I'm curious...why isn't US withdrawal and acceptable way to end the job? What are we accomplishing with our presence? There's daily fighting, daily violence against civilians, and the so-called elected government has only managed to really accomplish one thing...hang a defenseless man that we handed over to them.

What would change without a US presence? I'd there's be a change in government...which will happen sooner or later anyway. And some faction will will the violent civil war that continues today. But the faction that wins will have a trained and experience combat force that had proven it can and will defend it's territory.

Either way, more people die. But at least without the US, the Iraqis get some hope for stability in the future. With us there, they'll never have that, because the US will always be a target and instigating presence that continually generates new resistance fighters.

I can't see what our presence is accomplishing either. My alternative is simple: Give both Bush and Maliki a deadline. I'm sick of hearing about how we can't have a deadline. The Iraqis aren't going to get their act together until they know there's going to be a firm point of no return when they will actually have to sink or swim on their own.

My only stipulation is that the deadline has to be before Numbnuts' term ends in 2009. No way should be allowed to just kick this to his successor.

Hmmmm. Why can't we just leave Iraq? Let Iran and Saudi Arabia fight it out between them over its future.

Bobb, it seems that the majority of those studying the issue seem to be saying that our presence there is the only thing holding the country together (for exalple the same CIA report widelu circulated that said Iraq made things more dangerous also stated a withdrawl would be a disaster IIRC), that our absence would cause mass killings on a huge scale, and a failed state in which Al Quaeda, Iran, and everyone else moved in, possibly igniting a larger war, or providing a huge base for terrorists-which would mean we'd likely be back in a few years-not with troops maybe but likely with bombings and covert action and other things. That is what the vast majority seem to say (by this i mean not just th administration or republicans), which is why people find it so difficult-they don't necessarily think we can get it together there, but they also think our absence would be catostrophic for not only iraq, and our interests, but the region.

and of course there are those who suggest it simply provides another on the long list of examples to enemies and terrorists that the US can't take sustained warfare and bleed it enough and it will quit-which on eowuld think leads to bloodier wars, because rather than themselves quitting, they know they just have to inflict enough casualties to make us go home as popular support collapse. the paper tiger. This I am not saying is what "everyone" believes, but it seems very logical, given our actions of withdrawing from X, Y, and Z for the last 30 years are cited by Al Quaeda as to why we are weak. It brings up a condundrum when you want to extricate yourself from a mess, because it leads to future events that might not be messes to become messes.

Since adding 21,000 soldiers does not seem to be a sufficient way to deal with the problems in Iraq, and since setting deadlines to the Iraqis will achieve little without dealing with the causes for its failure, the alternatives seem to be leaving now or leaving later under similarly bad or even worse circumstances.

So if the best ideas in the US today are (a) running away now (b) running away after adding 21,000 soldiers and setting deadlines, than leaving is the less bad option -- for the US. It will recover from this disasterous debacle in international relations as it has done from Vietnam.

For the middle east things are not going to be so good. The best case scenario is that with the US out, the different factions will work out some agreement and there will be be some kind of peace. A not so good but still optimistic scenario is that one faction wins and after a certain amount of bloodshed and refugees it reaches stability. Another optimistc option is that Iran is drawn into Iraq and finds itself in a similar mess. But these are the optimistic scenarios, and if we've learned anything, it is not to rely on the best case scenario.

Worse scenarios could be:
A prolonged civil war.
Slaughter of sunni and/or Shia by each other in even greater numbers, verging on the genocidal.
Large numbers of refugees.
Other countries drawn in in order to protect the Sunni from the Shia.
Iraq becoming a fromt of a Shia-Sunni War between Iran and the Arab states.
Distablizing of other governments in the region.
Exporting terrorists to other middle eastern countries and beyond.

None of these things is something the US cannot easily recover from, although I don't know what wil happen to oil prices. But for the people in the Middle East it is going to be a little unpleasant.

Dan Tabor said:

"We can't bail right now. Whether you agree with why we are there or disagree, the bottom line is we are there, and we have to find an acceptable way to end the job."

What makes you certain there is one? If I drop an egg, awareness of the potential consequences of the egg falling and unhappiness with these consequences isn't going to stop the egg from breaking when it hits the floor. It is entirely possible, indeed I would say certain, given what we know about the situation, that there is no set of options that is available to the US in these circumstances that will result in an "acceptable way to end the job." If you say that it will result in dire consequences if we can't do that, well...you might want to be prepared for dire consequences, then.

Bush is mad. He thinks he is a dictator.

IMPEACHMENT NOW!

Helpful.

Ze Frank comments on this in his video blog, even making references to Nixon.

http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2007/01/011107.html

BTW, Nixon radically lowered troop levels. LBJ had maxed out at 550,000. Nixon taking office in Jan 1969, had 334,000 troops by December 1970, by the start of 1972, 150,000, by november 1972, he had 25,000.

He also reduced the prime draft years from 7 to 1, and then eventually ended it.

no wonder he, despite popular conception, split the youth vote in 1972 election

Well, then based on your definition of insanity, all freelance commercial writers and artists are insane.

After all, who in their right mind would send out their work over and over again, hoping or expecting it to be bought by a publisher, when instead, more often than not (and sometimes always) they get nothing back but a rejection slip?

Seriously, though. I think there's some truth to your assertion. Because if you think about it, the line between crazy and determined is extremely fine.

Well, then based on your definition of insanity, all freelance commercial writers and artists are insane.

Well, creativity is gratifying.

If Bush's goal is simply to harvest middle class savings and torture and kill, then, no, I don't agree that he's insane. He's just evil.

Well, then based on your definition of insanity, all freelance commercial writers and artists are insane.

After all, who in their right mind would send out their work over and over again, hoping or expecting it to be bought by a publisher, when instead, more often than not (and sometimes always) they get nothing back but a rejection slip?

Seriously, though. I think there's some truth to your assertion. Because if you think about it, the line between crazy and determined is extremely fine.

There is a huge logical flaw in your argument. the freelance writer is not doing the same thing every time, he is sending out the work to DIFFERENT people, with DIFFERENT opinions.

Also there is a likely possibility that he alters his work as he goes along making improvements.

The analogy is a non starter. In order for it to be meet the definition the free lance writer would be sending the same piece of work to the same editor.

Posted by Jason M. Bryant

There is a point at which more troops could help. If we sent in another million troops, we could basically be everywhere at once. That would squash just about everything. Perhaps the fighting would break out again when we left, but in the short run another million troops would stabalise things.

500,000 *might* be enough to do that. According to projections and estimates made in the late 90s, sending in another 300,000 wouldn't be enough to do the job.

20,000? I don't see how anyone could think that's enough to make a noticable difference.

Hell, with the troops we already have over there, we don't even really control Baghdad. Forget the Indian Country.

Posted by: spiderrob8

I was very surprised to hear (when the reports came out) how few troops were being put in relatively, and it is late in the game.

Why surprise? It's obvious - been obvious from the beginning - that Bush is committed to fighting on the cheap - and has no idea how expensive that is.

"Don't lose the ship for want of ha'p'orth of tar" is a lesson he has never learnt - nor needed to, since, up till now, every time he's mismanaged himself into troub;le, someone's bailed him out.

But the real reason he's proposing sending only 21,000 troops is that even that few may be more than he's got to send - raight now, according to reports i heard today, the part of the Armed Forces that's not already over tere (or just back) is simply not combat ready... and the amount quoted to correct this (which will take months if not years) was about $100 billion - which, in Washington-speak means closer to half-a-trillion.

I live in daily fear that my son-in-law's Reserve unit will be sent back...

Posted by: Dan Tabor

We can't bail right now. Whether you agree with why we are there or disagree, the bottom line is we are there, and we have to find an acceptable way to end the job.

Are you familiar with the phrase "good money after bad"?

J. Alexander wrote:

>>Hmmmm. Why can't we just leave Iraq? Let Iran and Saudi Arabia fight it out between them over its future.

Just one little moral quagmire there. We (the US) helped to make this mess by invading, and in all good concience, we shouldn't completely leave it to someone else to clean up. Not to mention - what if Iran gained control of Iraq?

Does that mean I agree with Bush's plans? Not at all, but we shouldn't cut and run either.

By the way, anyone else note Bush's none-to-subtle comments about people "stepping up" to help out either as civilians (or even better, joining the armed forces so he can send them to Iraq?)

I very rarely get involved with political discussions (hence the reason that I rarely post here even though I love this blog and PADs work) but it seems that all everyone ever does is gripe and complain about how Bush is doing it wrong "again". I would be interested in reading a blog chain started by PAD with the expressed purpose of how each entrant would handle the Iraq situation (REAL ideas)where that is the only entries. In other words, you can not post a "that's insane, or that's idiotic posting after someone elses idea, only your own idea for making it better. Just a thought. Keep up the great work PAD.

Some stories just don't get happy endings.

Herewith a potted history. (The sound you hear in the background is probably Santayana, sniggering...)

Iraq was founded in 1918 from various local tribes who had lived in the Mesopotamia region, following British victory over the Ottoman empire. British colonial policy used the 'India model', which involved direct control by the RAF, this included regular bombing of villages to 'inspire a healthy respect and terror' and had Winston Churchill - yeah, him - advocating the use of gas on the Kurds. This led to a quote from MP Sir Laming Worthington-Evans "If the Arab population realised that the peaceful control of Mesopotamia ultimately depends on our intention of bombing women and children, I am very doubtful if we shall gain that acquiescence of the fathers and husbands of Mesopotamia to which the Secretary of State for the Colonies looks forward."

The main achievement here was to get tribes that had never co-operated at all to agree that they all wanted the Brits out. The 'compromise' solution was to install King Faysal as figurehead of a British backed government. This was followed by gradual reduction of British military presence through to 1930, at which point the population revolted and kicked Faysal out.

(For those wanting more info on this I recommend going to YouTube and searching on 'Rory Bremner' and 'Between Iraq and a Hard Place'. It's a British satirical show, but all the historical information is accurate and very accessible)

Presently, 'we' either stay in Iraq indefinitely and suppress the insurgents as vigorously as seems necessary, or we leave at some point and it seems fairly inevitable that all Hell breaks loose behind us. (Probably within 12 weeks instead of lasting 12 years. Such is progress!)

Personally? I'd say that we announce a complete withdrawal of all military to take place on 01/07/07. That gives the Iraqis six months to either get their act together, or to get out before the volcano blows.

We then run like buggery and leave 'em to it.

Cheers.

Is Britain going to accept the assylum seekers from Iraq after the withdrawl?

but it seems that all everyone ever does is gripe and complain about how Bush is doing it wrong "again".

I've already said what I think should be done and I fully admit that I don't have all the answers.

But, is there anything anything from the past four years that would indicate that Bush will suddenly experience a surge of competence and be able to fix this mess he's created? I don't see any indication that he's even capable of learning from his mistakes much less creating a stable Iraq. What reason do we have that this new slogon, I mean, "plan" will be any different than any of his previous ones?

Hello all. Just so everyone is operating on the same set of facts, the new strategy is not merely more of the same with a troop increase, as has been suggested.

The new strategic plan divides Baghdad into nine districts. An force of several thousand Iraqi soldiers and a U.S. support battalion of up to 1,000 troops in each district will provide daily security. Each brigade included about 20 U.S. military "embeds" or advisers.

The idea came from a successful Marine experiment in Anbar province, where the Marines put advisers alongside Iraqi at all levels. These US and Iraqi counterparts fought side by side on a daily basis. The result was that the Iraqi forces in the Anbar province were much more effective.

In all honesty, I hope it works.

I would be interested in reading a blog chain started by PAD with the expressed purpose of how each entrant would handle the Iraq situation (REAL ideas)where that is the only entries. In other words, you can not post a "that's insane, or that's idiotic posting after someone elses idea, only your own idea for making it better.

If you mean starting from the situation as it stands now, I would start with the assumption the country would still approve of a victory in Iraq, go there myself, and drag Dick Cheney's ass with me or accept his resignation.

I would work out a deal with Nancy Pelosi to let me borrow the trillions more needed if I let her restore a progressive tax. I would also rehire everyone I fired whose predictions turned out to be right and champion a restoration of a draft.

Caesar took 8 years to conquer Gaul, and he didn't do it from Rome -- he did it in Gaul. I wouldn't have 8 years, but by going to fix the situation personally I could challenge my successor to follow suit.

As a personal act of contrition, I would leave Laura and the kids $5 million each (enough to fly first class every day for the rest of their lives from the interest alone) and donate everything else I could get my hands on in support of fixing Iraq. I would pretty much plan to spend the rest of my life in the green zone in Iraq.

I posted this on another thread here a few days ago. I think it's very relevant to this discussion.
"There are those who think that Bush's push for an escalation "surge" of troops is so that he can run out the clock during his presidency and not have to withdraw, thereby "losing" in Iraq. Leave that for the next guy.
I don't think that's it at all. This guy is unhinged. He has a messiah complex and thinks he's doing the work of God.
He thinks he's fucking Moses at the Red Sea. All the people are yelling to go back, they are cornered and in fear. But Moses parts the Red Sea and they go to freedom. Comdr. Cuckoo-bananas thinks he is destined to win this great victory. The more things build against him, the more he thinks his resolve is being tested. This is Biblical shit. Cooler, more rational heads will not prevail while he struts to glory.
It's not time for impeachment, it's time to invoke the 25th Amendment. He is no longer mentally capable of fulfilling his duties. (As if he ever was!)"

Posted by Micha at January 12, 2007 08:13 AM
"Is Britain going to accept the asylum seekers from Iraq after the withdrawl?"

A trick question, in that it assumes we have something vaguely resembling control over our borders and/or our immigration policy... :(

(Glib answer to a very big/complex set of circumstances. I'll go into it if you want, but it will take this way, way off topic...)

As it currently stands, *anyone* who turns up in the UK and says 'If I go home I will be persecuted and/or killed' has a very very good chance of staying here pretty much indefinitely.

In fairness, and in my dreams, I'd suggest we pro rata it with the other alliance countries, either in relation to number of troops we each sent to Iraq or to the number of Iraqis killed by the troops we each sent...

Cheers.

Mike, Ceasar didn't have the military technology of the US at his command. I'd hope, if the US were determined to conquer anything, it'd take a good deal less than 8 years.

spiderbob, good points as to why staying is a good idea. But if that's true, it seems that the only US option that can be viewed as a success is an indefinite occupation and defense force in Iraq.

What irritates me about all this is that this action isn't laid at the feet of one man. Sure, Bush gave the order, but millions of Americans voted for Bush. And they voted for him again AFTER he screwed everything up. I agree that it seems unconscionable to suggest withdrawing might be the best overall option, but there comes a point where you have to look at your ow survival. Our bad decisions in the past cannot be compounded by additional bad decisions. Keeping Iraq out of the hands of Iran or some other unfriendly nation will cost this country uncounted hundreds of billions of dollars. We'll have to risk bankrupting ourselves in order to do that. How many here at home will suffer because of the cost of supporting that action?

I think you're weighing the very real and imminent risk of financial collapse/depression here in the US against the all-out bloodshed that could occur without the US presence in Iraq. It's a fact that the US can't financially support a long-term occupation strategy...and that's really the only one that "wins" without all-out war in Iraq. It's not a fact that Iraq lacks the ability to defend itself against Iran. The Iraqi resistance seems to be doing a pretty good job defending itself from the US...what makes anyone think they won't be just as effective against any other nation seen as an invader?

Iraq has a history of being ruled a strong military leaders. That's what they need now. It's the only thing that's going to quell the other warlords. They aren't ready for a democratic government because too few of them respect a democratic government. How many generations do we need to wait out before the warlord mentality dies off?

We went in there to find WMDs. There were none. We leave.

With that simple notion apparently off the table, we now cling to the notion that we're there to install democracy. Okay: Let's put it to the test. We ask the Iraqi government to hold a special election--a referendum--with a simple question: "Should all US troops depart Iraq within the next month."

If they say "Yes," then we leave. If they say "No," we use that as a referendum to try and unite the country via diplomatic means. At the very least, it underscores that we haven't completely foresaken the philosophies that this country supposedly stands for, as everything from our treatment of prisoners to our disdain for the Geneva Convention to our administration's open contempt for the Constitution would seem to suggest we have.

PAD

As it currently stands, *anyone* who turns up in the UK and says 'If I go home I will be persecuted and/or killed' has a very very good chance of staying here pretty much indefinitely.

Pretty much the same thing in the US.

Edhopper makes a good point about. He may very well have apocalyptic fever. God knows enough of his supporters not only believe that the end times are a-coming, but they're looking forward to them. Maybe he believes his destiny is to fight the battle of Armagedden. But I think his usual lazy impulse to just let someone else clean up his mess is also in play here. So, he probably views himself as just the catalyst for Armagedden, not the final warrior for it.

No doubt he believes that he and Laura will be safely raptured by then.

Posted by Bobb Alfred at January 12, 2007 09:49 AM
"Caesar didn't have the military technology of the US at his command. I'd hope, if the US were determined to conquer anything, it'd take a good deal less than 8 years."

"Destroy" yes, "conquer" not so sure...

Personally, I suspect that conquering Iraq would take a degree of bloody ruthlessness that would not sit well with anyone anywhere - in Iraq, in the US, around Iraq, around the world...

Cheers.

And the moment the jackboot came off their neck we'd be back to square one.

Helpful.

And truthful.

Bush is running this country like a despot.

I bet if Bush made his comment today about how easy it would be to be a dictator, versus when he actually did say it several years back, there would be a lot more nervous laughter in the room.

"we now cling to the notion that we're there to install democracy."

I think realistically we've given up on that. At this point it's about preventing it from descending into total anarchy which it's probably too late for as well.

I bet if Bush made his comment today about how easy it would be to be a dictator, versus when he actually did say it several years back, there would be a lot more nervous laughter in the room.

And about 19-30% of Americans would nod and say, "well what's wrong with that?".

Mike, Ceasar didn't have the military technology of the US at his command. I'd hope, if the US were determined to conquer anything, it'd take a good deal less than 8 years.

When the Gauls saw the Romans building bridges right in front of their eyes -- to cross a river for the purposes of kicking their asses -- they crapped where they stood. The Romans legions were not dainty.

If they say "No," we use that as a referendum to try and unite the country via diplomatic means. At the very least, it underscores that we haven't completely foresaken the philosophies that this country supposedly stands for, as everything from our treatment of prisoners to our disdain for the Geneva Convention to our administration's open contempt for the Constitution would seem to suggest we have.

I want to include a majority consensus (at least 50%) among Iraqi voters as a condition to the suggestion of my previous post. They're glad Saddam's gone, but they may support some reasonable restoration of his order.

PAD wrote:
"We went in there to find WMDs. There were none. We leave."

I'm reminded of a political cartoon I saw a couple of years back (possibly during the election?). It had George Bush standing next to an eye chart, with a man representing the Democrats in the chair in front of said chart. The chart read, in huge letters, "WMD". Under that, in slightly smaller letters, it said "CUT OFF IRAQI TERROR MONEY". Under that, a bit smaller, "ESTABLISH A FOOTHOLD FOR DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST". Below that, "END A MURDEROUS REGIME." Under that, "STOP MASS GRAVES". Bush was pointing at the second line, but the Democrat said simply, "Since WMD haven't been found, there was reason to invade Iraq." (Please understand that I'm writing this from memory, and may have specifics of the cartoon wrong, but the gist is correct. Also, unfortunately, I don't remember the artist's name)

You may not agree with any of those reasons, but it's dishonest to act as though that "WMD" was the only reason we are there.

The only thing holding that country together is the US. Unfortunately, no matter how much peace the US military PLACES upon the region, as soon as the US leaves, guess what? It goes right back to the fighting. Why can't those of you who support Bush see that?

It doesn't matter what we do. We stay there, we quell the nation, the government is made strong, the police is strong, and with our troops there all is at peace. But as soon as we leave, do you believe for one second no insurgents are going to fill that void? It will happen either way: Either now, or later. It doesn't matter.

The only difference is, with US troops there, our military is stretched thin and our boys are in harms way.

And PAD, that plan to hold an Iraqi vote and discover what the Iraqi people want as far as US presence there is exactly what should happen.

Unfortunately, Bush would say, "Well, I'm the decider. The Iraqi people don't have all the facts. I have the facts." Bah! Instead, the US is the dictator in this situation.

Robin:

"Our weapons inspectors have been prevented by Saddam's regime from finding any of his weapons of mass destruction."

"Saddam's agents were trying to buy yellowcake uranium in Niger."

"We can't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud."

Remember any of these? Do you remember a single time during Bush's sales campaign for his little war in which "democracy" or "mass graves" were even mentioned? (Might have been a little embarrassing, after all - the mass graves were partly because the rebels in Iraq in 1991 were led to believe they would have our backing, but Bush's daddy left them twisting in the wind..)

Those others may or may not have been a legitimate reason to wage war (for instance, if we're all about stopping government-sanctioned mass murder, why aren't we in Darfur?), but they were never mentioned by Bush & Co until after the fact. The point remains, and will always remain (for those of us whose memories aren't defined by VH1) that the WMDs were the sole selling point used by the administration. Hell, they're the ones who popularized the term!

The hunt for the phantom WMD were not the only reason Bush gave for invading Iraq, but they were the centerpiece of his marketing plan for selling the war to the American people. They had actually done focus testing to confirm that this was the issue most people would support. And that has to be the most reprehensible thing Bush has ever done.

After the WMDs were not found, Bush shifted focus to the various other reasons, changing them as his rationales changed.

As it is, I don't believe any of the reasons Bush has ever been the "real" reason he wanted to invade. Establishing democracy in the region has always been secondary to the US, and to his supporters in particular, compared to establishing a pliable region.

But let's move away from the justifications to the net results. The main reasons we tolerated Saddam prior to 1991 (more than tolerated, actually, in the 80s, Rummy and Dick were in bed with him) was that he provided a counter to Iran, just as we previously used the Shah in Iran to counter other forces in the region.

So, with Saddam gone and Iraq in disarray, are we supposed to act shocked that Iran is now a rising power in the region?

So let's look at those other goals:

Establish a foothold of democracy in the region: Well, there were elections, but you need more than just holding elections to have a democracy. The Soviets had elections. Iran has elections. You need freedom and stability to have democracy and Iraq doesn't have either and none on the horizon either.

Stop Mass Graves: Well, okay. People are no longer being dumped into single mass graves. Bravo. I'm sure that's a comfort to the families of the hundreds of thousands that were killed in the insurgency/civil war that their loved ones now each get their own grave.

End a Murderous Regime: That's all well in good, but then you have to replace it with something. Something other than anarchy. Right now, the smart money is still on an Iranian-style theocracy, which is what I have predicted four years ago. As the Who once put it: Meet the new boss, sames as the old boss.

Cut off Iraqi Terror Money: Well, there's an accomplishment. Of course, Saddam was a small fish in the terror money pond compared to Iran, Syria, and our "friend" Saudi Arabia, so the impact on the terror money faucet has been negligible (See: today's bombing of our embassey in Greece).

So, was this little adventure worth all the blood and money we spent on it? Let me get the Magic 8-Ball out.

"Sources point to No".

Whenever the subject of the "real" reason for invading Iraq comes up, my brain involuntarily calls up the sound of Dubya's voice (or that of an impersonator) saying, "He tried to kill my Dad."

He'll never admit it, but that's why we're there: Because the President had a personal grudge against Saddam. Enriching all the corporate friends of the administration was just an added benefit. It's got nothing to do with spreading democracy, preventing genocide or WMDs. It's a grudge, pure and simple. The trouble is, the grudge is now settled, but the fighting is still going on.

If Bush weren't the President of the most powerful nation in the world he'd actually be pitiable. I almost feel sorry for him. He acts like some mental patient with pathological delusion: whenever the world contradict his bizarre beliefs, his answer is to cling to his delusions ever more fervently. A classical case of a man in utter denial.

He acts like some mental patient

****

Wow, you guys have really really lost it yourselves haven't you.
No one now who disagrees with you can be a reasonable, sincere person who has different political beliefs. Amazing. You'd think you'd find intelligent debate here. You'd be wrong. You find those who simply want to here there view again and again and feel they have nothing to learn from anybody. Similar to how you guys feel about Bush. Amazing how we become the things we hate.

Well, spiderrob, I hate to say "they started it", but this is the way the debate has been framed for the past six years by the republicans. Anyone who disagreed with them was(take your pick): cowardly, weak, anti-American, unpatriotic, stupid, or just plain "wanted America to fail". Or, my personal favorite, they would rather see the terrorists destroy America than see Bush/America succeed.

Shoe's on the other foot. Excuse me while I don't feel much sympathy for the republican side now.

Do you remember a single time during Bush's sales campaign for his little war in which "democracy" or "mass graves" were even mentioned

*****]

Yes. Frequently he spoke of freeing the iraqi people, instituting a democratic/free regime and freeing them from a murderous despot.

here's two high profgile moments which underscore the debate that had taken place and the issues raised continuously for the entire time. (WMDs was the debated one, there was no debate over mass graves and improving the Iraqi people-but they were frequently mentioned).

Congressional resolution authorizing force 5 months before the war:
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Bush war speech in march 2003-

I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.

In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality. Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for his own military -- a final atrocity against his people. We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.

Bush speech to the nation in october 2002-
The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.

On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us.
the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty

Bush-Hussein has 48 hours to leave speech-We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land.

The repubnlican platform in 2000 supported full implemtentation of the Iraq Liberation Act-which stated It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime

Bush speech to UN 9/12/02-Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human rights found that Iraq continues to commit "extremely grave violations" of human rights and that the regime's repression is "all pervasive." Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating, burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands; children in the presence of their parents — all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens. the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans and others — again as required by Security Council resolutions.
If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis — a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people, who have suffered for too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it and the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

Again and again, Saddam's cruelty to his people and freedom for the Iraqi people, along with the WMDs claim and the "we can't wait-9/11 taught us that" claim. Sorry you don't remember. The record is there for those who care to look and be honest.

WMD + terrorism was presented as the reason why itis urgent to invade Iraq. Removing a despot + democracy was the icing on the cake.

WMD + terrorism was presented as the reason why it is urgent to invade Iraq. Removing a despot + democracy was the icing on the cake.

Posted by: spiderrob8 at January 12, 2007 06:19 PM

You'd think you'd find intelligent debate here. You'd be wrong.

Actually, I've found plenty of intelligent debate here. If you debate intelligently and with civility, you will attract others who do the same. When you do the opposite, you attract others who also do the opposite.

1Actually, I've found plenty of intelligent debate here. If you debate intelligently and with civility, you will attract others who do the same. When you do the opposite, you attract others who also do the opposite.
****

Yes, you can debate with people who call people with similar viewpoints insane, bastards and all sorts of other names.

See, people who disagree on politics can debate. If they are reasonable people and it helps to be a little open minded. or polite.

This blog has none of those facets (when it comes to politics). Very similar to the John Byrne board that way. It comes from the top on down. PAD has no respect for anyone with different viewpoints, he's nasty, and name calls. and so it goes.

If you feel that way, you know where the exit is.

WMD + terrorism was presented as the reason why it is urgent to invade Iraq. Removing a despot + democracy was the icing on the cake.

****

They were all presented, but true, the urgency came from WMDs and we can't wait anymore, 9/11 proved that, type arguments.

But as usual, the myth was spouted above that democracy, freedom, the brutality of Saddam was never an issue, never mentioned. and it is in every single speech and address.

Den: If you feel that way, you know where the exit is.

******

Because we are so reasonable and open minded, "get the hell out."

funny. Somehow i think you'd not like "America love it or leave it" arguments, but you make a simiar argument yourself.

I just never really met people like this until i came to this board and byrne's board. People with such blinders on they cannot debate politics in a good natured respected way. Most of my best friends have opposite views of mine and we can debate strongly but civilly. Unfortunately, it isn't true here.

PAD himself ignored me because i brought up WWII a few times-thje last time in a debate over ethics. I "violated" Godwin's law.

Of course, you can't "violate" Godwin's law anymore than you can violate the law of Gravity. Godwin's law states what will happen, it's not a law as in a law with penalties for violating it. It doesn't say "Don't do this." But PAD overlooked that becauase, as I said, he isn't interested in debate. That's cool. that's why he has a blog. to tell you what he thinks. byrne should learn from him.

Amazing how we become the things we hate.

We've become Yankee-educated, Alabama-National-Guard -evading, DUI-burying, Sammy-Sosa-trading, Arab-oil-money-borrowing, middle-class-savings-harvesting, Southern oligarchs? This means I can hand out Medals of Freedom to score with chicks, right?

The people who claim that it was all WMD may be over-simplifying the issue and as a result making the result more shallow. But Bush used the WMD in order to create an impression of urgency that would get Americans (and also the UN, unsuccessfully) to support an invasion, because ultimatly Americans would not have supported a full scale invasion and regime change just because Sadam was a ruthless despot. So at worse Bush was lying in order to create the proper spin in order to get Americans to go to war, at best he sincerely believed that there were WMD that required an urgent war, which means he was acting on mistaken intelligence.

Whatever the cae may be, he then went on to lead a war based on mistaken strategic assumptions, continued following the same strategy as the situation deteriorated, bringing us to the wonderful situation today in which the only options are (a) running away and hoping for the best, or (b) gambling on another risky strategy nobody really believes is going to work, and hoping for he best.

In any case, Bush did a bad job as war leader, and his mistakes were forseable.

at best he sincerely believed that there were WMD that required an urgent war, which means he was acting on mistaken intelligence
****

Bingo.

Bill Clinton: I think the main thing I want to say to you is, people can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.

But either way, the facts are there regarding liberty and Saddam's bad actions. and like 50 other minor things mentioned in the congressional resolution. But the liberty thing was crucial because it was the domino that, over decades, was hopefully going to help transform the middle east

and frankly, I don't know whether the American people would have supported it without WMDs or not-I've never seen Americans not support a president who wanted to go to war (except WWII) off the top of my head. They don't always stick with it, but they virtually always support it.

Posted by: spiderrob8 at January 12, 2007 07:04 PM

Yes, you can debate with people who call people with similar viewpoints insane, bastards and all sorts of other names.

No, I've debated here with people who disagreed with my point of view but were nevertheless respectful. The reason why you're finding that none of those people will engage you because you're exhibiting the very qualities you claim to abhor.

Posted by: spiderrob8 at January 12, 2007 07:04 PM

See, people who disagree on politics can debate. If they are reasonable people and it helps to be a little open minded. or polite.

This blog has none of those facets (when it comes to politics). Very similar to the John Byrne board that way. It comes from the top on down. PAD has no respect for anyone with different viewpoints, he's nasty, and name calls. and so it goes.

Actually, it has all of those facets. It has civil, respectful, intelligent debaters. It also has its share of hotheads. The reason why you're being engaged primarily by the latter is a reflection on your own behavior.

PAD tends to match the tone (within limits) with which he is addressed.

Want to be treated with respect and civility? Try treating others the same. You're far more combative than you wish to believe you are, and are quite guilty of that which you claim to abhor.

I guess I'm going to have to add you to the ignore pile. Which is too bad. Because, while I often disagree with you, your views are not completely without merit. And you often bring interesting facts to light. But your proclivity for starting trouble outweighs the benefits you bring.

That's three for the ignore pile. Shit. I really don't want it to grow further.

When I come back, I am going to read all of the posts in the most recent political threads -- and Captain Naraht, yes, I will comment. Although I cannot, for the life of me, fathom why you find my comments interesting enough to actually ask for them. There are many posters here who are far more well-informed and insightful. I'm just a "B-lister." :P

"I guess I'm going to have to add you to the ignore pile."

I don't think that's necessary in this case. The ignoring option should probably be reserved to people with whom you cannot have any rational discussions. But it's your choice.

Spiderbob, I said it before, you can harp on the fact that Den or PAD react in a heated aggressive way to your posts, or yo can address the issues. Bush took the advice of one group of people and ignored the advice of others, and that had consequences.

"But the liberty thing was crucial because it was the domino that, over decades, was hopefully going to help transform the middle east"

And here is the problem:
1) Some people in a think tank somewhere came up with the briliant idea of the US invading a country and creating a domino effect of democracy. A perpetual American revolution if you will. Bush adopted this approach.
2) Although the US has already involved in Afghanistan, somebody decided to make Iraq of all places the first experiment in this new theory, although Iraq was not really involved at the time in any meaningful way in the global Islamic terrorist movement.
3) When the time came to sell this new approach to the American people, instead of discussing this approach at the forefront, the issue of WMD was pushed to the forefront, creating a mistaken sense of urgency.
4) Bush then invaded Iraq, based on this approach about a democratic domino effect coupled with an equally dubious miiltary strategy, and the whole thing blew up in everybody's face.

Now, even if we assume the stoic calm of a Budhist monk, and refrain from the kind of irrational heated language that often creeps into political discussion from left and right, still somebody should be held accountable to this whole mess, and it's not Clinton. Certainly you can look at the Iraqis as partially responsible for this mess. I'm not giving them a free pass. But they were not the ones who invaded a country with weak intelligence, bad theory and a bad strategy. Bush should own up to his large share of the blame, just as he would have enjoyed a large share of the success if there was any.

Posted by: Micha at January 12, 2007 08:24 PM

"I guess I'm going to have to add you to the ignore pile."

I don't think that's necessary in this case. The ignoring option should probably be reserved to people with whom you cannot have any rational discussions. But it's your choice.

You may be right. As I said, spiderrob8 (it's not Spiderbob, actually) often brings interesting facts to light, even if he interprets them in ways that are contrary to my own interpretations.

I just hate it when people come in and cause a ruckus and then declare, "Well, this place is a ruckus! You people are suck!"

And yes, I've done it before myself. But to my credit I've had the self-awareness to recognize it and try to do better. Is it so much to ask that other people make a good-faith effort to do the same?

Ah, I'm probably just being preachy because I had too much wine with dinner tonight. I'm sure that tomorrow I'll have something on-topic to say that'll once again trick a few of you into believing I'm a rational person.

at best he sincerely believed that there were WMD that required an urgent war, which means he was acting on mistaken intelligence

Bingo.

What evidence? When Bush was going around saying Saddam had biological weapons and was buying uranium, the only people who spoke for the CIA, the IAEA, and Israeli intelligence were shrugging their shoulders and shaking their heads not knowing what Bush was talking about.

There is no count you can repeat a lie that will make it true.

I didn't mean to offend you, Spiderrob8. I didn't call you insane, nor did I say all conservatives are insane or evil. I was talking about Bush only. It wasn't an indictment of all conservatives.

I mean, it was proven again and again that his approach and strategy are wrong-headed, that they don't work, and what is his big new plan now when we desperately need a new direction?

Just doing more or less the same he did before! And pray this time it works, because, in his own words, "It has to work!"

He sounds like a desperate man to me, a man that has let wishful thinking substitute reason. Again I say, I'd feel sorry for him if he weren't the President.

So, your man is insane, our guy is just delusional...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=428433&in_page_id=1770

"Blair dismissed as 'delusional' after defending his policy on Iraq"

Oh, brave new world....

Cheers!

Okay, I just read about one-hundred-thousand eleventy-skillion posts in three Iraq-related threads and I'm exhausted. But at least I can comment now in good conscience.

A lot of you are being shrill, hyper-emotional, bordering on the irrational. Typically, I reject that kind of stuff, even if it's coming from those whose views are largely aligned with my own.

But today, I think people have a right to be shrill. As I said in a prior post, the mid-term elections were about the Iraq War as much as anything else. The people spoke loud and clear, but Bush was predictably deaf to their collective voice, thunderous as it was. They demanded change, they spoke with their votes, and Bush responded by offering more-of-the-same disguised as "new and improved."

That said, I know I'm gonna get pilloried from all sides for what I'm about to say next: I don't believe that it's right to just pull out of Iraq. I believe the consequences could be more disastrous for the Middle East, and for the U.S. in the long term, than many of you are willing to acknowledge. On the other hand, I don't believe it's right for us to remain in Iraq if all we are going to do is stay on our present course.

Leaving aside the wisdom of invading Iraq in the first place (and I don't think it was wise at all), I believe we got where are today because:

*The Bush administration committed enough troops to take Iraq but not nearly enough to hold Iraq.

*The Bush administration disbanded the Iraqi army.

*The Bush administration placed its faith in Ahmad Chalabi, who had neither credibility nor influence in Iraq.

*The Bush administration attempted to bar Baathists from having any role in the reconstruction of Iraq.

*The Bush administration failed to deal in the Sunnis when the Iraqi government was formed, an error which to this day has not been corrected.

Why Bush and his inner circle make those mistakes? Because they repeatedly refused to listen to dissenting voices. They closed their eyes and ears whenever facts were brought to light that contradicted their pet hypotheses and cherished assumptions.

In business, there is a movement called "Six Sigma." It's not worth going into detail about it -- it's yet another management theory, so what else is new? But one of the core principles of Six Sigma is that management must make "data-driven" decisions based on logical analyses of empirical evidence, rather than relying on gut feelings and possibly bad assumptions. Really, that's the only way to approach any kind of organization, whether you're talking about a business or government.

That, right then and there, is the problem. Every single assumption the Bush administration had had about Iraq has been proven wrong.

Every. Single. One.

And yet it doesn't visibly faze Bush in the least.

Captain Naraht has repeatedly advocated a regional diplomatic solution to Iraq. I believe that such a diplomatic initiative, coupled with the proper application of military force, might have a slim chance of salvaging something from this mess.

But that would require Bush to scrap his pet theories about warfare in favor of tried and true strategies. It would mean he'd have to choose the best diplomats, rather than his cronies. He'd have to abandon his black-and-white view of the universe in favor of dealing with unsavory nations like Syria and Iran. And ultimately, he'd have to monitor the situation closely, objectively evaluate things as they unfold, and make intelligent adjustments as the situation warrants.

He has shown that he lacks the ability to do any of those things. He is a rigid thinker at a time when we need a nimble, agile mind to guide us. He is the wrong man for this place and time.

Which is why I fear we are about to collectively fall over the proverbial cliff.

But one of the core principles of Six Sigma is that management must make "data-driven" decisions based on logical analyses of empirical evidence, rather than relying on gut feelings and possibly bad assumptions.
Luigi Novi: In other words, the idea is that conclusions in matters of fact and reason should be drawn using aspects of the Scientific Method. Something I've observed for some years now. Nice to know someone else has noticed this. :-)

Bill Myers stated:
"But that would require Bush to scrap his pet theories about warfare in favor of tried and true strategies. It would mean he'd have to choose the best diplomats, rather than his cronies. He'd have to abandon his black-and-white view of the universe in favor of dealing with unsavory nations like Syria and Iran. And ultimately, he'd have to monitor the situation closely, objectively evaluate things as they unfold, and make intelligent adjustments as the situation warrants.

He has shown that he lacks the ability to do any of those things. He is a rigid thinker at a time when we need a nimble, agile mind to guide us. He is the wrong man for this place and time.

Which is why I fear we are about to collectively fall over the proverbial cliff."

And thus you outline one of the flaws in my diobolical plan. But with Dems in control of Congress and the senior Republican in Foriegn Relations Committee being Senator Lugar himself, perhaps some carrot-stick approach might work with the President. Lets see how this plays out...

The other flaw in my plan is if the US simply has no diplomatic credibility anymore. Then it won't matter how sincere the US invitation, the players just won't come.

Then it's hello cliff.....

--Captain Naraht.

P.S. Bill, I realize there are other thoughtful posters here like Peter Poole the Spectacular Bloggerman, Sean Scullion, or Bill Mulligan or even spiderrob and Den themselves. It just seemed as if most of the posters in this thread had been bitten by really cranky zombies.

I needed someone to post who only goes nuts when bitten by zombie SQUIRRELS. ;n) -Capt.

From the AP two hours ago--"To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible," Bush said.

Ooooooookay. That was in response to the people who've stood up and told him that his plan isn't going to work. Ironic choice of words, there. Shall we look at all of the administration's actions that could be called irresponsible? Like maybe, I'm not sure, let's think, taking over a country without knowing what the hell you're going to do AFTER that?

Posted by: Captain Naraht at January 13, 2007 06:43 PM

I needed someone to post who only goes nuts when bitten by zombie SQUIRRELS.

Dr. William Myers: physician; scientist. Searching for a way to tap into the hidden strengths that all humans have. Then an accidental overdose of squirrel bites alters his body chemistry. And now when William Myers grows angry or outraged, a startling metamorphosis occurs...

The squirrels are not the real threat.

I just saw a headline about a giant rabbit breader from Germany who cut a deal with North Korea to bread more giant rabbits (in a giant farm apparently). They claim it's in order to deal with starvation in North Korea, but after seeing pictures of the Giant Rabbits, and Monty Python's Holy Grail, I'm worried.

Okay, folks, you heard the man. Thus endeth the running joke about me and the conniving squirrels... and thus beginneth the running joke about Micha, the German-North Korean Axis of Evil, and their army of Evil Giant Rabbits who can only be defeated with the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.

Everyone can lay off of me and pile onto Micha now. :P

All: I'd like to offer a clarification/amplification of a previous comment. When I said people "have a right to be shrill" at this time, I was trying to convey my belief that an outpouring of anger towards Bush is understandable, justifiable, and just plain human. He intends to send another 20,000 troops into harm's way in order to tweak a failed policy when he should be rebuilding that policy from the ground up.

We're talking about human lives and human suffering. It is natural that people react with strong emotion.

But simply venting strong emotion in a forum such as this will do nothing to change the current situation. And I'm not comfortable simply resigning myself to the idea of two more years of "same old, same old" in Iraq. A lot of really awful things can happen in two years' time.

My question to all of you: what should our policy be and why, and how can we convince our elected officials to move in this direction?

(I have my own contribution to make... but first I wanna see if anyone else is interested in throwing their hat into this ring.)

Addendum: Some of you may the post above and think, "Gee whiz, I already SAID what I think we should do."

But a lot of posts along those lines have consisted of little more than cries for Bush to resign, or declarations that we should pull out immediately. I'm curious about the facts you've used to draw these conclusions... and more important, how we can press our elected officials to do what we believe to be the right thing.

Hopefully the response won't be tantamount to crickets chirping in the still and empty night...

Posted by Bill Myers at January 14, 2007 09:19 AM

"... and thus beginneth the running joke about Micha, the German-North Korean Axis of Evil, and their army of Evil Giant Rabbits who can only be defeated with the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch."

Mock not the rabbit... This is the creature that defeated Napoleon:

"Berthier, the great organizer of the marches of Napoleon's Army-Corps, tried his hand at organizing a shoot in order to please Napoleon.

Every detail... was worked out with the same meticulous accuracy with which the Grande Armee had been swept from Boulogne to Austerlitz.

The carriages arrived on the stroke at the Tuilleries, the beaters were ready, the keepers in their best clothes, a beautiful lunch waiting to be eaten, and a thousand rabbits, brought the night before and dumped in the park, waiting to be shot.

But poor Berthier made one trivial mistake.

Instead of buying wild rabbits, he bought tame ones and did not know they were accustomed to being fed twice a day. When the emperor took his gun in hand and advanced into the park, the rabbits, all thousand of them, mistook him for the man who provided their daily lettuce and leapt to their feet and charged towards him.

Berthier and his staff beat them off with horse-whips, but the rabbits, who were more expert in the Napoleanic warfare than some of the Marshals, wheeled around on both flanks and actually reached the emperor's carriage before the emperor could mount and drive off back to Paris."

Maybe we should send rabbits to Iraq?

Cheers.

I just saw a headline about a giant rabbit breader from Germany who cut a deal with North Korea to bread more giant rabbits (in a giant farm apparently). They claim it's in order to deal with starvation in North Korea, but after seeing pictures of the Giant Rabbits, and Monty Python's Holy Grail, I'm worried.

As shown in the documentary film Night of the Lepus, this effort will end in tears.

(Speaking of North Korea and zombies...ok, we weren't but I'm not the Master of the Segue, gimme a break here... the absolutely GREAT book WORLD WAR Z has a chapter where, just as the poop hits the propeller, the entire,/i> population of North Korea vanishes. Not a trace or them.

The author assumes that they all went underground into the vast array of tunnels and subterranean cities that the Great Leader constructed for the nuclear war he felt was inevitable. And there...who knows? Either Kim is, at last, the God-king he always imagined himself to be, wrongly thinking that here was the last remaining human life on earth...or, more likely, the infection got in at some point and there are now 23 million screaming hungry zombies clawing their way to the surface. I expect they will reach daybreak in time for the sequel.

Great book.

Here is a link to one article about the giant rabbits and North Korea:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,458863,00.html

We're talking Rabbits the size of dogs here.

Also, where do you think the Holy Grenade of Antioch comes from? The middle East. It's all connected.

on a less serious note:

"My question to all of you: what should our policy be and why, and how can we convince our elected officials to move in this direction?"

Causing political change is very difficult. That's why the people are often fanatics or cynics or both. You also have a problem because very little can affect bush at present.

You know, some of those rabbit pictures look like they are being artificially enhanced with the use of a wide angle lens. look at http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,PB64-SUQ9MTg0NzMmbnI9Mg_3_3,00.html

The rabbit's head is bigger than it's entire lower half! There's no question that the blasted thing is a monster, no need to use a fish-eye lens to make the point.

(on the other hand, this is a GREAT technique when photographing a fish one has caught--an average sized perch can become Moby Dick if held close enough to the lens)

Just as a query, are these going to be our version of Saddam's "Human Shield"? Except this time, instead of playing upon the nonexistant terrorist/insurgent/revolutionary benevolence to not kill noncombatants, these new troops will actually help stop the bullets and shrapnel that we evidently can't afford to stop with ARMOR?!? Y'know, because even with all those BILLIONS of dollars, we still can't seem to keep our troops equipped. What the f#$% are layered on those humvees now, fruit rollups?!? I say no troops until all that damn money's been accounted for, and then we send equipment with what resources would have been used for the soldiers getting shipped out. But, if we see too many fingers in the cookie jar, we bring what we've got deployed back, take the embezzling little fecal featured pricks into an Arizona army base, and let the families of those who've been killed deliver some bloody justice upon them. Perhaps this sounds a bit "Punisher", but there's been so much incompetence and corruption with regards to this war that I'm incredibly fed up.

The classic definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result.

Usually that is either insane or merely very stupid, I agree.

The exception I can think of is if you are digging for something; oil, buried treasure, diamonds, whatever. If you aren't using heavy machinery then you must do the same thing repeatedly before finally reaching your goal, whether that is scooping up shovelfuls of dirt or swinging a pickaxe.

I suppose it's possible Bush really does believe that success in Iraq is achievable instead of being the same as (here's a reference for the ST:TNG geeks out there) trying to beat Data in a game of Stratagema when Data decides to focus completely on defense. (For the people who didn't see that episode, it's the equivalent of an indefinite stalemate.)

It's possible that Bush is thinking "Well, they can't keep this up forever. I mean, how many insurgents can there possibly be, anyway? All we have to do is outlast them."

I would say the flaw in that kind of thinking is that it rejects the possibility that more and more people are joining the insurgency or Al Qaeda as a result of Bush's policies angering them, while fewer and fewer people want to join the armed forces, and those currently in the armed forces on their fourth or fifth tours have got to be getting pretty demoralized by now.

As long as innocent people are in Gitmo, people will be angry. As long as Bush refuses to apologize to the Iraqi people and says that, if anything, THEY owe HIM, people will be angry. As long as U.S. troops over there do things to get on the bad side of the Iraqi people, they will be angry. Out of all these angry people, a certain percentage will decide that they are mad as hell, will not take it anymore, and that they will resort to violence. And that's not even taking into account the Sunni/Shi'a conflict.

So I say declare it a lost cause, get the hell out of there, let these poor bastards sink or swim on their own...hell, if some of them want to be evacuated from the country, evacuate as many as possible as was done in the final days of Vietnam.

And hell yes, somebody should apologize to them. If not Bush, then his successor. Somebody should apologize to them for America's inability to realize that by eliminating one problem (Saddam), they might create a larger problem that would make life even worse for many Iraqis...and would cause many other Iraqis who would have continued to live under the old regime to lose their lives.

Finally, for the love of god, stop pissing the world off, Dubya. If you wanted America to have more enemies when you left office than it did when you were sworn in, then Bushie, you've done a helluva job.

A former Powell aide is reporting Iran offered in 2003 to withdraw their support of Lebonese and Palestinian militant groups and give access to Iran's nuclear program, in exchange for ending hostilities with Iran, sanctions, and the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq:

"We thought it was a very propitious moment to do that," Lawrence Wilkerson told Newsnight.

"But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the Vice-President's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil'... reasserted itself."

Observers say the Iranian offer as outlined nearly four years ago corresponds pretty closely to what Washington is demanding from Tehran now.

Rob, you're digging anaolgies aren't on point. Usually, when you do those actions, you've got some indication that you're going to eventually succeed...test drilling, ground Xray scans, following a mineral vein...something indicated to you that you would find what you were looking for.

Some fool with a pickaxe digging in his backyard because he read that oil comes from the ground, and then constantly repeating that action despite a lack of success and people telling him he'll fail...that's a crazy person.

So which is Bush? Did he act on reliable evidence that his plan of sweeping in, democracy in tow, freedom riding at his side, would win over the Iraqi people and give him his 6 month victory? Or did he have people all around him telling him it would be a quagmire of epic proportions, that you can't force democracy on a a people, and that we'd foster an environment of resistance and instability that would make the world a far more dangerous place?

"Usually, when you do those actions, you've got some indication that you're going to eventually succeed...test drilling, ground Xray scans, following a mineral vein...something indicated to you that you would find what you were looking for."

For whatever reason, he thought he knew better than all the people telling him it'd be a bad idea. Maybe he thinks that God wants him to do this and that it'll all work out in the end. I don't know.

If somebody is digging in their backyard I would not personally call them "crazy." I mean, it's improbable that they'll find anything of value, but not impossible. If they are SURE they will find something, then I'd agree that they're deluded. But they're also optimistic, and Bush has described himself as an optimist.

The following are just a series of guesses. Perhaps he thinks that he has God and great military might on his side and therefore there is no problem that he can't solve, given enough time. When you think about the kind of stuff he probably heard growing up (like "America beat the Nazis and saved all of Europe," and "America is the greatest country in the world," and so forth) it's not as surprising.

He, like a lot of people, was conditioned to be--you'll have to excuse me--proud of his country to the point of conceit. He was also probably told that if he tried hard enough he could accomplish anything, even be president. Unlike for most people, this actually came true for him. So if he was told he could accomplish anything, that would have fed this belief. Now he has the resources of what's been described as "the world's only remaining superpower" to work with, and he's full of himself, and he decides that there's nothing he can't do.

So, he tried to do something even though people told him it was a bad idea. After all, a lot of people thought he wasn't presidential material and yet he wound up in office somehow, right? He probably thought that all the people telling him Iraq was a bad idea were just nattering nabobs of negativity like the ones who told him he couldn't be president.

But now he's failing. And he's too stubborn to acknowledge it. And, just like things worked out for him in 2000 even though it looked like they wouldn't, maybe he thinks they'll work out for him today despite things looking bleak. After all, God wouldn't let him fail, right?

Like I said, just guesses. I wish I could read his mind and find out for sure just what the hell he's really thinking.

Read Bush's mind? THAT would be crazy. Or make you crazy.

Try making sense of this:

Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when the so-called Great Writ can be suspended.

“There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,” Gonzales said.

Gonzales’s remark left Specter, the committee’s ranking Republican, stammering.

“Wait a minute,” Specter interjected. “The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”

Gonzales continued, “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended” except in cases of rebellion or invasion.

I don't know if the logic Gonzales is using is indicative of insanity, but I wouldn't want to be alone in a room with him.

I don't know if the logic Gonzales is using is indicative of insanity, but I wouldn't want to be alone in a room with him.

Oh god...I would, so I could scream "WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?!" into his face without Secret Service dragging me off. Or perhaps something he'd like even less.

Yeah, that's insane. "The Constitution doesn't say people have that right, it just says that they only lose the right in these two situations." He's either a complete dumbass or he thinks that everybody else is.

"But PAD overlooked that becauase, as I said, he isn't interested in debate."

You make a common error: Mistaking my lack of interest in discussing opposing views with an individual with discussing opposing views in general.

PAD