Is George Bush nuts?

Beryllium Sphere(r)

Wed Jan 10 13:39:24 -0800 2007

manage

Let's play rigorous devil's advocate for a moment. A rearguard makes perfect sense. A strategy switch to classic counterinsurgency, in which you get one area so secure that you can rebuild and then spread out from there, probably requires more troops than we've got even after concentrating them in key areas. There also don't seem to be enough US Army people to close the borders.

None of those arguments will hold up to further scrutiny, though.

Ken Pollack, the pro-invasion analyst who suggested that the "ink spot" theory of spreading successes might work, also said that it had to be tried within three to fix months or the situation would be irretrievable. He said that nine months ago.

Are we going to see the necessary change of strategy? General Petraeus headed one of the big but temporary successes, the 101st in Mosul. But on past experience it doesn't seem likely he'll be given the budget and freedom to apply what he knows.

The generals don't like the idea of a surge.

Something to think about is the AA concept of a "dry drunk", someone who has stopped consuming alcohol but still retains the distorted thought patterns:

• Grandiosity
• Judgmentalism
• Intolerance
• Impuslsivity
• Indecisiveness

It's not the same thing as "nuts", and it's not an exact match to the current President either:: the usual description includes a level of anxiety and uncertainty that certainly doesn't show.

Is George Bush nuts?

President4242

Wed Jan 10 14:36:12 -0800 2007

manage

The problem as I see it is that the surge isn't the problem- the size of the surge is.  If this is, as you say, a switch to classic counterinsurgency, it's at least 500,000 troops too light (at the standard figures of 50x force multiplier for American troops giving us a 2% of population rate for needed infantry to population).

Nuts?  Maybe not.  Incompetant again?  You bet.

Is George Bush nuts?

hal9000_sn3

Wed Jan 10 19:37:28 -0800 2007

manage

The AA concept of a dry drunk springs from the idea that for anyone to drink enough alcohol for a long enough time, after it is interfering with their life is usually a sign of an underlying defective personality. The 12 Steps of AA are mainly effective because they gently, but persuasively enable one to confront and change their lifelong patterns of behavior. The most common catch phrases used to briefly summarize the underlying cause of alcoholism is  'King Baby [syndrome]' and 'Egomaniac with an Inferiority Complex'. The five aspects you list, grandiosity, judgmentalism, intolerance, impulsivity, and indecisiveness are all the superficial attempts to cover up the feelings of inadequacy that are a root of the emotional imbalance. Another common AA saying is that insanity is defined as 'doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results'. In other words, arrogance causing inability to objectively see ones own errors.

I would say the shoe fits.

Is George Bush nuts?

Sharon

Tue Apr 24 14:08:03 -0700 2007

manage

I'm down with the dry drunk theory. hal9000_sn3 did a very good job of explaining this concept, so I won't repeat unnecessarily. But yes, dry drunk. FOR SURE.

Is George Bush nuts?

Richard Young

Wed Jan 10 14:22:59 -0800 2007

manage

A very interesting question!

To most of us in the outside world, he is both dangerous, incompetent and the wrong person for the job.  He is perceived as being way too easy to influence by the lobby/industry groups.

As for Iraq, he needs to start following the lead of the British.  The Iraqis have stated numerous times that they are sick of the gun-ho attitude of American forces.   The British however have attempted to build bridges between themselves and the various ethnic groups.  I think this is a common sense approach.  If you can't be bothered to learn the basics of another culture or their language, you will put their noses out of joint.

The one American that most other people outside of the US see as being competent is Colin Powell.  But Rumsfeld appears to have been influential in removing him (I think he envied his superior talent).

I do wish that we (Australians as well) had never entered this bloody war.  There must have been other options.  Yes Saddam was an evil man, and killed thousands of his own people.  But over 600,000 Iraqis have died since the beginning of this war.  We are entering into the realms of genocide here.

If America does send more troops into Iraq, I personally think that they need to focus more on removing the cannon fodder kids from the equation.  Use the Engineering corps skills to give some of these kids a trade and an education.  Iraq used to have a brilliant education system.

Don't let the troops live in isolation from the people of that country.  They need to be immersed in the culture.  Living on an air base with its own McDonalds is not going to endear yourself to the people!  Remember that you are the in-laws who have overstayed your welcome.

Is George Bush nuts?

Charles E Hill

Wed Jan 10 14:29:13 -0800 2007

manage

Is he smart enough to come in out of the rain?  Maybe.  More to the point, I believe he is just seriously out of touch with mainstream thought.

Bush's power in Iraq rests firmly in the hands of Congress.  They control the monies, and they have the final say.  They also don't have the collective will to do anything serious about it.  These are people who, instead of having their hands on the pulse of America, have their hands on the polls.

What did the Democrats do when they took office?  One of the first things they said was that they would NOT use funding cuts to rein in Iraq.  That is their one fundamental power and they disavow usage.

Bush is what he is because 100 Senators and 435 Congressmen give him free rein.

Is George Bush nuts?

Beryllium Sphere(r)

Wed Jan 10 14:48:57 -0800 2007

manage

he is just seriously out of touch with mainstream thought.

He would be the first to agree with you, probably. Look at all the comparisons with Churchill. If the voters disagree with him, he will figure that the voters are wrong and should either be persuaded or ignored.

When somebody like that is right, we think of them as heroes. Would rms change course if a majority disagreed with him? But when someone like that isn't acknowledging facts and commands an army...

Is George Bush nuts?

cowardly dragon

Fri Jan 12 09:17:34 -0800 2007

manage

Those people, like atheists, usually have a well-thought out belief structure that they can logically argue potent stances from.

But look at GWB's logic underlying the Iraq invasion and continued presence: um, yeah, take your pick from erroneous and fallacious arguments.

The real motivation of GWB is strictly emotional: show up dad, don't be a failure. That's not an intellectual hero, that's a serious constitutional crisis.

Is George Bush nuts?

Spider

Wed Jan 10 14:33:52 -0800 2007

manage

Another bad move by Bush.  What is he trying to prove?.  I would have thought that with over 3000 soldiers already killed  he would be getting the message. The invasion was a bad move.  I would advise to get out of Iraq as fast as you can. Let them sort out there own problems.  George W Bush is going to be one President that Americans and others will be remembered for his stupidity.  Now that the Democrats have the majority in congress can't they stop him?  He should have been impeached years ago for the lies he and his buddies told about "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. It amazes me that you still get these "expert advisors to the president"  appearing on TV saying "send in more troops".

Is George Bush nuts?

President4242

Wed Jan 10 15:26:38 -0800 2007

manage

Pottery barn rule- we broke it so we should fix it.  Or if you like, it's the Marshall plan all over again.  Problem is, Iraq ain't Germany and it ain't Japan- and it's broken far worse than either of those countries were in WWII in some very fundamental ways.

I say Bush needs to make a choice.  Either an escalation (NOT a surge) to at least 520,000 troops in country (better would be at least 2.6 million and maybe 26 million) for counterinsurgency, or yes, pull out entirely and let Iraq sort out their own problems (probably by disintegrating into at least 3, or maybe 5, separate countries).

A surge of only 20,000 troops is garbage in comparison.

Is George Bush nuts?

maethorechannen

Wed Jan 10 15:36:51 -0800 2007

manage

probably by disintegrating into at least 3, or maybe 5, separate countries

What I'd like to know is why is keeping Iraq together a goal? I don't remember any calls for Yugoslavia to stay together when that was disintegrating, why is Iraq different?

Is George Bush nuts?

Beryllium Sphere(r)

Wed Jan 10 16:12:18 -0800 2007

manage

One reason is that if it breaks up there's a chance for wider war as the neighbors fight over the pieces. Turkey might intervene to prevent an independent Kurdistan, on the grounds of either protecting their ethnic brethren in Kirkuk or preventing Turkish Kurdish separatists from having a haven. A Shiite state would be an Iranian client, which would honk off Saudi Arabia. A war between Saudi Arabia and Iran would pull the US in immediately. The Sunni fraction is on territory without oil and could turn into an instant failed state like Afghanistan.

If you think arguments over property are bad when two people divorce, imagine what would happen with oil fields involved.

Baghdad is too mixed to split up cleanly. A worse bloodbath than what's happening now is a chilling possibility.

Peter Galbraith, in _The End of Iraq_, argues that not only is Iraq broken beyond repair but that it could only be held together in the first place by regular atrocities. Yugoslavia is a good comparison.

Is George Bush nuts?

Charles E Hill

Wed Jan 10 18:52:01 -0800 2007

manage

Turkey has already said -- years ago -- they will not allow a Kurdistan to form.  This would be in northern Iraq, and cause a great upwelling in separatists in southern Turkey.

Saudi Arabia just recently said they would arm and fund the Sunnis.  Iran is arming and funding Shiites, and has for decades.  A stated goal of the Iranian Islamic Revolution was the spreading of their revolution, and a merger with Iraq into the Greater Islamic Republic or some such.

Kuwait, obviously, would be nervous as hell.  I wouldn't be surprised if Syria pared off a chunk of Iraq's northwest since it "historically" belonged to Assyria.

I'm not sure how many "countries" would be made, but it would be a blood bath that makes the current problems look like a minor inconvenience.

There are also dozens of disputed borders, islands and coastal areas that I'm quite sure would all get "renegotiated" at that point.

Is George Bush nuts?

imroy

Wed Jan 10 14:39:16 -0800 2007

manage

I would agree with the general idea of Bush being out of touch. Remember that he didn't know for several days after Katrina how bad the damage was until an aide burnt him a DVD of TV news reports for him to watch on AirForce One. And just recently after the recent mid-term election defeat, he said "...actually, I thought we were going to do fine yesterday. Shows what I know.". Indeed.

I see Bush as blissfully ignorant of most of the general goings-on in the country he's supposed to be leading, and of the world. He seems to live a life insulated from much the world by aides afraid to tell him bad news or even disagree with him. It's scary to think that such an out of touch man is leading the most powerful nation in the world. At least now there's an opposition congress and senate to limit his idiocy.

Is George Bush nuts?

President4242

Wed Jan 10 14:46:56 -0800 2007

manage

I seem to remember a rumor floating about that he didn't like his feet to touch dirt either.  He seems to get this from his Mother- who claims that she doesn't want her "beautiful mind" spoiled by thoughts of people suffering.

Is George Bush nuts?

Bobber

Wed Jan 10 15:04:27 -0800 2007

manage

The president's IQ in his Yale days was actually higher than John Kerry's so he is not stupid. 

I don't know enough about the situation to say if the surge will be effective or not.  I hope that it will be.  I hope there will be stability as a result.  I want to support our troops and I trust that the president is trying to win and establish a democratic system there.  I suspect that if the Iraqi people do not show better results then we will have to withdraw in some fashion at some point.

Is George Bush nuts?

President4242

Wed Jan 10 15:16:18 -0800 2007

manage

Incompetant != Stupid; same with ignorant.  One can be an ignorant, incompetant genius no problem.

I know enough about standard counter-insurgency techniques to know that the surge will be a dismal failure.  It'd be a gamble even with 500,000 more troops than he's been talking about.  The only way to make it a sure thing would be to put in about 26 million additional troops, and for that, we'd need more allies.

Is George Bush nuts?

Alexander Ibrahim

Wed Jan 10 15:09:13 -0800 2007

manage

I don't think the president is nuts. I do think he is incompetent and out of touch.

On this one he may be right for all the wrong reasons. I don't desire to discuss his reasons for sending more troops, but if I were President and started in office today I would send more troops.

The bottom line is that our nation screwed up over there. We, as a nation, are responsible for that mess. The nation must do what we can to clean up the mess we made.

Sending more troops to deal with the internal problems of Iraq is a stopgap measure at best. We need a dramatically different plan.

I'd still do it.

It will allow our troops to be have better mutual support. There is safety in numbers. On most missions I would rather take 20 guys with me than 10.

The main drawback to sending a bunch of troops over there is that we might accidentally create a "target rich environment" for our enemies. I trust the troops themselves to avoid this danger. Our troops are very well trained and know how to fight to survive and win.

The main command danger is that the new troops won't be used to strengthen force levels in current operations, but rather to engage in new operations. That is a command and logistical nightmare at this point. Any new forces we send must remain concentrated.

Another way to look at this is that we could keep troops present and concentrated, but maintain the same troop allocations on missions. If we do that we would be able to reduce the number of missions any particular unit is tasked with.

Of course this nullifies one of the advantages of having more troops.

More forces opens up options for different strategies, and for multiple parallel strategies. We will have more planning options if there are more feet on the ground.

This is one of those messes that is easy to create, but almost impossible to fix. I think it will get worse before it gets better.

If we just pull out right now, as some advocate, it will be better for us in the short term. It will be far worse for Iraq in the short term. It will be vastly worse for Iraq, the Middle East and the world in the long term. That includes the US. I'd hate to see us fighting this war again next generation.

To sum up, I don't know how to fix the mess we made, but step 1 seems to me to be securing our own troops and operations. If we don't do that then regardless of what we decide step 2 is, we won't be able to execute it.

Is George Bush nuts?

Charles E Hill

Wed Jan 10 19:14:03 -0800 2007

manage

The problem is, they may not want it fixed.  What if the only way to "bring peace to Iraq" is with an iron fist?  That is what Saddam did, ruled them with an iron fist.

One of our Founding Fathers said (paraphrase) that a Republic is the best form of government, assuming you can keep it.  The people in Iraq have to WANT to be free and they have to want to be free bad enough to fight for it.  Right now, the only thing they are fighting for is to settle old scores and butcher the unbelievers (everyone else but their group).

In short, we can't win.  They don't WANT freedom, at least not enough of them do.  They want peace and stability.  That can best be had with good old-fashioned British Imperialism.

In short, invade and take their ass totally over or get out.  Like it or not, there is no in between that I believe will work.

However, America doesn't have the fortitude or attitude for that.  We are not an Empire and can't properly act like one.  We'd mess it up.

So what is going to happen, is we're going to hem and haw.  Speeches will be given, and more troops will die.  In the end, we're going to do what we did in Vietnam -- just declare "victory" and pull out.  Iraq will be fucked for decades to come.

Is George Bush nuts?

Thornton

Thu Jan 11 08:53:49 -0800 2007

manage

I believe that the Iraqis want freedom, but they can't (or don't want to) separate church and state.

Is George Bush nuts?

Charles E Hill

Thu Jan 11 12:39:10 -0800 2007

manage

Therein lies a problem.  Which church?  (No, "Islam" is not specific enough.)

With a Republic, and true freedom, it is freedom for EVERYONE, not just the chosen few.  Will the Sunnis grant equal status to the Shiites and visa versa?  Neither of them can stand the Druze, much less Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and others.  What about the Kurds?

Church-State links really only work as long as the Church in power stays in the majority.  The closer they get to the line of NOT being a clear majority, the nastier and more ruthless they get.

A Theocracy, or a gov't with strong links to a religion, will be a variation of the "iron fist" I was talking about.  And it'll be a major bloodbath determining which branch of Islam is in control.

Is George Bush nuts?

Timex

Thu Jan 11 13:14:43 -0800 2007

manage

I think that your comment is a big part of the cultural picture that Washington (both the Democrats AND the Republicans) don't fully understand.

I look at the violence over there, and most of it of late (that we're being told about) is in-fighting between the Sunnis and the Shiites.  The terrorists do their thing at random moments, just to stay in the news.  Americans get caught (and killed) in the in-fighting, and then it's all over the press here.

The Iraqi people want freedom, yes.  There's no doubt in that.  The problem is that each group wants to be the ones in control, ruling with their own flavor of "freedom".  Too often, those "flavors" smack of being worse than what Saddam was doing when he was president of Iraq.

Is George Bush nuts?

President4242

Thu Jan 11 14:15:01 -0800 2007

manage

Without a separation of church and state, freedom in American terms becomes impossible.  Doubly so when you have at least 5 different churches vying for control.

Thus, no, I don't think the Iraqis want freedom- at least, not the type you're talking about.

It could be worse

N. Dan Smith

Wed Jan 10 15:50:11 -0800 2007

manage

At least Bruce can pose the above question in a public forum without the threat of retribution.  Since that is true, I will say with a hearty "Yes!" that Bush is indeed crazy.

But here is my political analysis: FUBAR.

It could be worse

Beryllium Sphere(r)

Wed Jan 10 16:39:05 -0800 2007

manage

Without fear of retribution?

Look at how the sock puppet network was activated to accuse the New York Times of disloyalty when they published awkward information. That's not argument, that's intimidation, and laying of the groundwork for prosecution.

School teacher Christine Nelson was arrested for wearing a Kerry campaign button.

Badr Zaman Badr and his brother Abdurrahim Muslim Dost spent three years in Guantanamo for a newspaper editorial. And they were on our side.

Navy veteran Donald Vance tried to blow the whistle on illegal activity at the security firm where he worked and wound up incarcerated and subjected to, what do they call it now, stress interrogation?

Is George Bush nuts?

krp

Wed Jan 10 15:50:37 -0800 2007

manage

Iraq is nothing more than Vietnam without the jungle.

We cannot *force* freedom on to others -- they have to want it and be willing to fight for it.

Like 'Nam, people given the choice of (a) freedom or (b) food on the table alongwith security will, unfortunately choose 'b' everytime.

"Pacification" failed in Vietnam just like what is happening in Iraq at the present time.

The resolutions which were passed by Congress *prior* to us invading Iraq were *not* declarations of war. They were and are resolutions which provided the president with the *unilateral* authority to invade Iraq -- just like the Tonkin Gulf resolution of Vietnam infamy.

Hence, Congress abdicated their Constitutional responsibility.

Over three thousand of our posterity are dead. Many thousands more have been physically wounded and/or maimed and *all* have been emotionally scarred for life.

War is simply a contest of wills and we have lost.

The only troop "surge" I can support is to bring all of our troops home -- now.

krp

Is George Bush nuts?

President4242

Wed Jan 10 17:40:02 -0800 2007

manage

Actually, the people in Iraq seem to be choosing c) Justice with a side helping of Revenge.  They don't seem to be interested in either freedom or security if they can have a chance of "righting past wrongs" by killing people of rival tribes.

Is George Bush nuts?

bill_mcgonigle

Thu Jan 11 22:36:01 -0800 2007

manage

That's interesting because Americans had no such long-running history to get in the way of forming a Republic.

we've had over 20 years now...

zogger

Wed Jan 10 16:00:21 -0800 2007

manage

...of the bush cartel running things, I think that is more than enough. Bush senior has been caught in a ton of blatant lies, his background is full of intrigue that resulted in all sorts of deaths and misery and drugs coming into the US and who knows what else (yep, I'll mention JFK) and his goal, which you can see on the net in video, was to establish a "new world order" which as far as I am concerned puts him into that technofeudalistic class I despise. And the son is just...a dry drunk barely coherent redneck. That's it.  I live in an area slap fulla them boys, let's just say I am not too much in favor of the "culture".  And we've been outright invaded from south of the border and *nothing* has been done about it. Talk, that's it.

The executive branch of the US government has been run so badly, for such a long time I honestly don't know if we can ever recover. It could very well collapse, it's running on inertia. We've borked the economy so bad they are ashamed to even run the full honest money supply numbers or the real cost of living numbers. We've lost most international good will. We've sold the seed corn, let alone eaten it, pawned the tools and now are selling IOUs to try and buy back old IOUs.

Nuts.

Ya, he's nuts. The system of "the CEOs rule" is nuts. The system of rule by the rogue spooks managing the CEOs is nuts and dangerous.

The R party has gone down the fertilizer recycling chute since the 64 election when the rockerfeller globalists hijacked it, we no longer even HAVE a legitimate small government freedom oriented R party. They have the same name, but it ain't the same party.

I don't have a ton of hope for the Ds, but I am willing to see more action before I judge this particular crop. The net neutrality bill is cool, but I want to see immediate end to the war, the wall street international loyal to nothing but money and power globalists reined in and slapped silly into stopping the destruction of the US middle class, OUR borders and national security put back on a "do something about it" status, a fresh from scratch REAL look at 9-11 (important!) and so on.

And kick that creature  KISSINGER out of the US, revoke his passport, anything. That meddling power mad fool just won't give up and he's still in there "advising".

we've had over 20 years now...

rubycodez

Thu Jan 18 10:52:47 -0800 2007

manage

you know what happens to journalists who irritate Kissinger?

 instead of deporting how about putting him on trial for mass murder and assassinations and such?  I think his body count for 20th century is  behind Stalin and Pol Pot and Hitler's, but still an impressive 600,000+

Is George Bush nuts?

phred14

Wed Jan 10 16:29:36 -0800 2007

manage

Let's even pretend to take this seriously, and pretend we should have gone into Iraq this way in the first place. There's one simple issue...

It's a little late.

After toppling the Iraqi government, we had a window of opportunity - I won't make claims about how long it was, or wasn't. But it clearly wasn't and isn't 3+ years. During that window of opportunity if we had:
* Made significant progress in infrastructure repairs
* Kept law and order
* Put Iraqis back to work on rebuilding their own nation
... to name a few, the picture would be entirely different, now. We did NONE of those things. It's also apparent that we never went in with enough troops to maintain law and order, in the first place. I once heard that there was some sort of pipe-dream that the Iraqis would spontaneously self-assemble into a Reagon-style free-market democracy.

At what business or political school do they teach you to count on, and do all of your planning around, such a rosy, best-case scenario?

I'll stop this thread. But let's just say that, aside from holding elections, how many things has the Bush Administration done RIGHT in Iraq? With a track record like that, why should we believe them this time?

Is George Bush nuts?

AB3A

Wed Jan 10 19:26:00 -0800 2007

manage

As Albert Einstein pointed out: insanity is when you keep doing the same thing you've been doing but expect different results.  GWB acknowledges that what we're doing isn't working.  He wants to put more boots on the ground.   So far, so good.  I seem to recall several generals saying this before the war in Iraq ever began.  I think he's headed in the right direction. 

So now he wants to put 20,000 more troops on the ground there.  I'm in agreement with most here.  This number is ridiculous.  It's not a serious effort.  We need to adjust the political climate for a much more serious effort if we have a prayer of ever pulling out of that region.

Whether we like it, whether we agree with it, we're in Iraq.  We need to find a moral and reasonable way out.  This includes helping to seal off the borders against most of the arms arriving daily from Syria and Iran.  I doubt that 20,000 troops can do that.

No GWB isn't nuts.  He's quite sane.  For matters military, he's simply incompetent.  So are many other politicians, past and present. 

In any case, we're not pulling out of Iraq any time soon, nor have we pulled out of what was left of Yugoslavia, or even the North/South Korean border.  The Democratic Party needs to recognize that a sudden pullout is even more outrageous and dangerous than staying.  What we need is an orthogonal solution to foment a bit of secularism in Iraq. 

A few cable TV channels with Arabic subtitiles would go a long way here...

Is George Bush nuts?

Christopher Culver

Wed Jan 10 20:45:21 -0800 2007

manage

A few cable TV channels with Arabic subtitiles would go a long way here...

The Middle East has had American television for decades now. In fact, it was one of the first places where satellite TV boomed, and viewership there helped make Baywatch the world's most popular show in the '90s. You're naive to think that exposure to Western media will secularize the Middle East. People there are happy to watch our crap. But at the same time they like to be able to condemn the West as pornographers, they wish that their esteemed religious figures be politically powerful, and they feel humiliation at the idea that they aren't the superpower, the U.S. and various countries surrounding them are.

nut

rubycodez

Wed Jan 10 21:01:27 -0800 2007

manage

Bush has only talked about changing since the last election blew up in his face.

The numbers of needed troops  talked about by generals who actually knew how to wage war has nothing to do with anything like 20,000 or any other tens of thousands more.  And only one step in a plan that was quite different from the tail-chasing we've been doing over there.

I disagree with saying we "can't leave with honor" and "find a moral and reasonable way out", we've already destabilized the middle east and the bad things that are going to happen will either go down in slow motion with our troops in the middle of it, or somewhat faster without them there.   Too late, and the only kind of half-assed band-aid solutions we can afford or will do won't work.


.

Is George Bush nuts?

Thomas Lord

Thu Jan 11 09:36:24 -0800 2007

manage

The President was very explicit about the strategies and tactics he is using and the reasons for them.   Most commentors here are ignoring most of what he said.

Politically, the Iraqi government is, in the moment, at a very critical point.  Power sharing and oil revenue sharing have to be more fully settled, even if only on paper, and there needs to be more confidence in the near-term stability of the government.    A somewhat nuanced reigning-in of the Iraqi's in police uniforms is needed.   The carrot that goes with this stick, for many Iraqis, is the need to repair the damage of the debaathification program by creating reconciliation forums and relaxing embargos.

The  promise that a federated Iraq has a chance needs to be just a little bit more credible, essentially to give more of the moderates in the population something to stand up and fight for.    Honestly, I think it only needs to be a little more credible.   We can give Iraqi moderates a "solid fighting chance".   Arguably, we must not try to give Iraqi moderates more than a "solid fighting chance" because (if for no other reason), if the tables were turned, that is probably what we would prefer.

Simultaneously, the attacks are not randomly scattered around the country.   By some random metric, the President came up with "80%" of attacks being in and around Baghdad.  However one measures such things, his point is clear.   The enemy is not behaving randomly:  their immediate tactical aim is to interfere with the seat of Iraqi government, precisely to deny it credibility as it works out the last few, big issues necessary to begin a living federation.   The violence around Baghdad, today, is purposefully timed to coincide with today's juncture for the government.   The President's commitment of additional troops to Baghdad is purposefully intended to counter that tactic of the enemy.    This would seem to be a no-brainer, much like when a city puts extra police on duty on the day of the Big Game.

The bulk of the 20,000 troops, therefore, are going to Baghdad and they are going to participate in a Baghdad-centric "classic counterinsurgency" in order to counter that tactic of the enemy and build credibility for the government.    We will see, in a few months.   The President spoke of the Iraqi army taking a leading role in executing the counterinsurgency program.   Significantly, the President mentioned that the Iraqi army will be cooperating with the uniformed police, and operating from within the police stations:  an excellent and mature way to massage some of the internal tensions that currently trouble Iraqi society.

It *is* a large sacrifice for us to make, at this point.    I'm sure the honorable member of Congress will forgive me for forgetting who said "The Iraqi's have to know that every time they dial 911, that doesn't mean we're sending around 20,000 of our troops to help out."    That's a crass way to put it and ignores the significance (to *us*) of this moment in tactics -- but his point is a very important one.

The additional troops to Anbar province are a larger story.   I can only speculate about the *timing* of extra troops to Anbar (so I won't, much).   The enemy's tactics in Anbar are complementary to those in Baghdad, and reveal the enemy's strategy.    On the one hand, in Baghdad, the enemy is trying to retard or even collapse the federation.   On the other hand, in Anbar, they are trying to establish a new seat of government (and base of miitary/terror operations).     The enemy's strategy isn't simply to knock over Baghdad, but to be standing by with a ready, more effective replacement, well-ready to restore power, distribute cash, clense regions of people they don't like, humilate the Americans, etc.    They anticipate a dog-pile scramble for hegemony in the Arab world and, while they are busy trying to drive the US out to bring on the dog-pile, they're also getting ready for that fight.

An extreme libertarian might say, "Tragedy is tragedy but I can't see how to help.   Let the Arab world have its struggle for hegemony, if such a large minority of them want it.  It isn't our business -- we're here, they're there."     Alas, just a friendly reminder, in this case the probable winners of such a dog-pile will wind up in control of enormous wealth.   The self-same people, again and again, have told us to our faces that they intend to use that power to disrupt our societies, collapse our governments, terminate our branches of civilization, and generally extend their hegemony our way.   It would save a lot of bother, they inform us, if we could perhaps see our way clear to surrender today and get it out of the way.    As if all that weren't enough -- the actual facts on the ground (9/11 being just one example) provide ample evidence that, not only is this enemy not kidding but they are a credible threat!

Iraqi moderates, it turns out, are every bit as much under threat of these same assholes.  Let's do what we can to help them kickstart their crude little federation.   It's what we'd want someone to do for us.

-t

Is George Bush nuts?

Beryllium Sphere(r)

Thu Jan 11 10:53:07 -0800 2007

manage

>The enemy

Would that be the Iran-backed Shi'ites, the local Shi'ites, the foreign fighters, the nationalists who don't like foreign troops, the hotheads who want revenge for dead family members, or the Ba'ath party remnants?

Until the government defines who we're fighting then the term "victory" is meaningless.

The enemy we should target is al-Qaeda, whose strategist Yusuf al-Ayeri wrote in 2003 that the best thing that could possibly happen for them would be a US invasion of Iraq. In the fall of 2003, Zawahiri publicly thanked God for the situation in Iraq.

Is George Bush nuts?

Thomas Lord

Thu Jan 11 13:24:37 -0800 2007

manage

"Who is the enemy?" is a very important question, I agree.

Now, what kind of answer will you accept?   You personally, and you "the American public"?

Shall I say: "Those who fly such-and-such a flag"?  The uncontroversial facts on the ground should convince you that a coherent fighting force exists, swearing their enmity to all we hold dear, organized on principles that do not involve hoisting a flag. 

Enemy is as enemy does.   A coherent pattern of suicide bombings and road-side bombs, mosque bombings, slaughtering of police applicants, etc. -- carried out by a minority of the population whose actions prove various modes of organization?   You know, those folks?   The ones who keep the power from staying on.   The ones who shut down schools.   The ones who's primary tactical aim these days is to prevent the formation of an Iraqi federalism?    I don't care what you call them and I agree it is hard to draw the precise boundary around membership but -- those folks are enemies.   Yours, mine, and every reasonable persons.    They don't suddenly disappear if the US uniforms fade away: these fools remain very much the globally important tools they currently are.

Petty thugs, for the most part, all agree.   A civil matter, ordinarily.   But they are coordinated by some coherent group who shepard these thugs as some sort of geopolitical platform from which to make hegemonic plays, with great violence.  (Of course, it's more complicated:  there is factional contention for control of thug-tools.)

al-Q is an especially significant component of the enemy.   It represents everything from propoganda symbol (with global reach) to specific social and trade networks.   It isn't the whole story.

You, dear reader, of this of all web sites, are smart enough to know all of this.   It isn't easy to explain and, sadly, it doesn't have easy answers -- but you know that all the simple-minded BS in tabloid politics is nothing more than a way of describing this terrible circumstance.    Damned if we do;  damned if we don't;  and frankly, Bush's only exercise of choice is this entire exercise is one of timing, on the scale of just a few years.   He (wisely, I think) siezed initiative in an unavoidable conflict and, in some way it will be hard to ever prove, has probably saved a billion lives or so.


-t

Is George Bush nuts?

President4242

Thu Jan 11 14:40:43 -0800 2007

manage

You, dear reader, of this of all web sites, are smart enough to know all of this.   It isn't easy to explain and, sadly, it doesn't have easy answers -- but you know that all the simple-minded BS in tabloid politics is nothing more than a way of describing this terrible circumstance.    Damned if we do;  damned if we don't;  and frankly, Bush's only exercise of choice is this entire exercise is one of timing, on the scale of just a few years.   He (wisely, I think) siezed initiative in an unavoidable conflict and, in some way it will be hard to ever prove, has probably saved a billion lives or so.

I'd have to say he failed in that initiative, because that billion lives don't want to be saved.  He's saving the lives of the enemy at the cost of the larger war.

"Who is the enemy?" is a very important question, I agree.

Now, what kind of answer will you accept?   You personally, and you "the American public"?

Everybody who would attack us.  In the end, that means everybody in the middle east, it appears.  We're going to have to kill a billion of them to win- and if one small sub-sect of theirs wins, they'll kill 6 billion to get to us.  If you accept their point of view, this is a war of genocide- and genocide cannot be avoided.

I'm not sure I'm there yet.  I think there's another way out.  That other way out would be to use American troops to protect America, and go cold turkey without foreign oil.  Let the Arabs have their dog-pile hegemony fight, and if any vehicle of theres attempts to approach American airspace or American waters, blow it up.  Cut them off from our market entirely.  Get our oil from Mexico and Venezula, and don't let anything crossing the Atlantic or the Pacific reach our shores. 

Enemy is as enemy does.   A coherent pattern of suicide bombings and road-side bombs, mosque bombings, slaughtering of police applicants, etc. -- carried out by a minority of the population whose actions prove various modes of organization?   You know, those folks?   The ones who keep the power from staying on.   The ones who shut down schools.   The ones who's primary tactical aim these days is to prevent the formation of an Iraqi federalism?    I don't care what you call them and I agree it is hard to draw the precise boundary around membership but -- those folks are enemies.   Yours, mine, and every reasonable persons.    They don't suddenly disappear if the US uniforms fade away: these fools remain very much the globally important tools they currently are.

So leave them to kill each other and get the hell out.  Create a containment border that doesn't allow a single living thing to cross it.  If they want that fight- let them have it.

 

Is George Bush nuts?

Thomas Lord

Thu Jan 11 19:30:09 -0800 2007

manage

I don't believe a containment border is possible.   You will have to work hard to persuade me otherwise.    Supposing it were, I think there would be moral questions about using it as you suggest but the question is moot, anyway.

-t

Is George Bush nuts?

President4242

Thu Jan 11 14:32:11 -0800 2007

manage

Politically, the Iraqi government is, in the moment, at a very critical point.  Power sharing and oil revenue sharing have to be more fully settled, even if only on paper, and there needs to be more confidence in the near-term stability of the government.    A somewhat nuanced reigning-in of the Iraqi's in police uniforms is needed.   The carrot that goes with this stick, for many Iraqis, is the need to repair the damage of the debaathification program by creating reconciliation forums and relaxing embargos.

I disagree.  Politicially, the Iraqi Government is for all intents and purposes just a puppet of Iran.  The Iraqis currently in police uniforms are little more than Shi'ite death squads.  What you describe was true in 2004 after the elections and in early 2005- that government disintegrated in the mean time since then.
The  promise that a federated Iraq has a chance needs to be just a little bit more credible, essentially to give more of the moderates in the population something to stand up and fight for.    Honestly, I think it only needs to be a little more credible.   We can give Iraqi moderates a "solid fighting chance".   Arguably, we must not try to give Iraqi moderates more than a "solid fighting chance" because (if for no other reason), if the tables were turned, that is probably what we would prefer.
The only moderates Iraq had are currently in Mexico- attempting to cross our southern border illegally and apply for asylum.  They know that Iraq has no fighting chance.

Simultaneously, the attacks are not randomly scattered around the country.   By some random metric, the President came up with "80%" of attacks being in and around Baghdad.  However one measures such things, his point is clear.   The enemy is not behaving randomly:  their immediate tactical aim is to interfere with the seat of Iraqi government, precisely to deny it credibility as it works out the last few, big issues necessary to begin a living federation.   The violence around Baghdad, today, is purposefully timed to coincide with today's juncture for the government.   The President's commitment of additional troops to Baghdad is purposefully intended to counter that tactic of the enemy.    This would seem to be a no-brainer, much like when a city puts extra police on duty on the day of the Big Game.

Once again he's dealing with old numbers.  The attacks are anyplace a border is in dispute- and while it's true that's not random, I don't believe the 80% in Baghdad number either.

The bulk of the 20,000 troops, therefore, are going to Baghdad and they are going to participate in a Baghdad-centric "classic counterinsurgency" in order to counter that tactic of the enemy and build credibility for the government.    We will see, in a few months.   The President spoke of the Iraqi army taking a leading role in executing the counterinsurgency program.   Significantly, the President mentioned that the Iraqi army will be cooperating with the uniformed police, and operating from within the police stations:  an excellent and mature way to massage some of the internal tensions that currently trouble Iraqi society.

Once again, the Iraqi Army and Police are part of the insurgency- they are part of the problem, not the solution.  In addition to that, there ar 7 million people in Baghdad alone.  Classic counterinsurgency says that you need one infantry man for each able bodied civilian.  With our force multiplier, we might be able to get by with 2%.   At least here he's realistic- if we pull EVERY soldier out of the rest of the country, and put in that 20,000 troops, we'll reach 2%.  We'll control Baghdad- and cede the south to Iran and the West to Syria.  Yep, really good plan there.

The additional troops to Anbar province are a larger story.   I can only speculate about the *timing* of extra troops to Anbar (so I won't, much).   The enemy's tactics in Anbar are complementary to those in Baghdad, and reveal the enemy's strategy.    On the one hand, in Baghdad, the enemy is trying to retard or even collapse the federation.   On the other hand, in Anbar, they are trying to establish a new seat of government (and base of miitary/terror operations).     The enemy's strategy isn't simply to knock over Baghdad, but to be standing by with a ready, more effective replacement, well-ready to restore power, distribute cash, clense regions of people they don't like, humilate the Americans, etc.    They anticipate a dog-pile scramble for hegemony in the Arab world and, while they are busy trying to drive the US out to bring on the dog-pile, they're also getting ready for that fight.

Unless we're willing to put in a 1:1 ratio with civilians, and kill 500 civilians for every American soldier killed, we won't reach classic counter-insurgency techniques there either.

An extreme libertarian might say, "Tragedy is tragedy but I can't see how to help.   Let the Arab world have its struggle for hegemony, if such a large minority of them want it.  It isn't our business -- we're here, they're there."     Alas, just a friendly reminder, in this case the probable winners of such a dog-pile will wind up in control of enormous wealth.   The self-same people, again and again, have told us to our faces that they intend to use that power to disrupt our societies, collapse our governments, terminate our branches of civilization, and generally extend their hegemony our way.   It would save a lot of bother, they inform us, if we could perhaps see our way clear to surrender today and get it out of the way.    As if all that weren't enough -- the actual facts on the ground (9/11 being just one example) provide ample evidence that, not only is this enemy not kidding but they are a credible threat!

OK, so if it's that important to win, maybe we need to do what it takes to make sure we win.  Declare Martial Law in the United States.  Take 26 million men, train them that Iraqis aren't human.  Send them in.  Kill 500 civilians for every American death.  Eventually, there will be no Iraqis left to fight.

20,000 men is a half measure that simply will not work.  Let's initiate that dog-pile scramble for hegemony, and make sure the United States controls the dog pile with scorched earth methods.

Is George Bush nuts?

Thomas Lord

Thu Jan 11 19:36:51 -0800 2007

manage

I'm sorry but there's enough details in your hypothesis here that are simply wrong, by all other accounts, so I can't take you seriously even though you know a few terms.   Iraqi gov't a puppet of Iran?  Conflation of the issues with the army vs. issues with the police?   You are spouting gibberish -- a mad-libs version of a serious discussion.   Sorry.

-t

Is George Bush nuts?

tclark

Thu Jan 11 12:17:38 -0800 2007

manage

If he were nuts, then he wouldn't be morally responsible for his behavior because he would not be capable of exercising sound judgment.

He's not nuts. He's willfully negligent.

Is George Bush nuts?

karnowski

Thu Jan 11 12:23:07 -0800 2007

manage

Bush has been completely incompetent so far, but something needs to be done. A lot of armchair critics here are putting in their two cents, but really what experience do you have here? This plan was based on an analysis from a couple of (ex)-generals I believe, and I certainly will give them more credence than anyone on technocrat. What does have to happen with the new plan however is a set of milestones and goals, and measuring the success. This surge should be sustained provided it shows measurable success in achieving the goals, and if the goals are not achieved then the surge has to be re-evaluated and other options (including exiting) need to be placed on the table.

There are no easy answers for Iraq. I don't think abandoning it is wise, and stay-the-course has proved to be a failure. My main problem with the execution of Bush's war so far (besides rushing into it in the first place, and the lies that were associated with it) is not that mistakes have been made, but the administration's inability to recognize, admit to, and correct mistakes when they did happen. Finally we're seeing a new plan that wasn't thrown together by the inexperienced air-heads in the administration, but was put together by some people with military experience. It may not work, but I think it should be tried and monitored before looking at some of the "get out of there" plans.

Is George Bush nuts?

Timex

Thu Jan 11 12:55:24 -0800 2007

manage

Whether Bush is nuts or not is immaterial, I think.

It comes down to two simple facts: Bush has a mission, and he's got authorization from Congress to carry it out.  What people think about it generally doesn't matter-- this country is *NOT* (nor has it ever been) a "democracy"- it's a republic.  If the president steps out of his authority, it is the responsibility of Congress to do something about it.  He hasn't, so they haven't.  If the PEOPLE don't like what the president is doing, they can replace their representative(s) in Congress...  That's all there is to it.

I hope that this change in action does what it's intended, but I fear that the actual problem is more along the lines of misunderstanding critical cultural differences, something that no amount of additional forces can solve.

Just remember that there are more problems in Iraq than anything that might be tied to Bush the Younger.  Infighting between the Sunni and Shiite factions of Islam have been going on for more than a thousand years.  Trying to blame that on Bush *now* (and there are some in the anti-war camp that do just that) is just plain ignorant.

Is George Bush nuts?

karnowski

Thu Jan 11 13:10:01 -0800 2007

manage

> Trying to blame that on Bush *now* (and there are some in the anti-war camp that do just that) is just plain ignorant.

I don't think anyone is blaming Bush for the hatred between the Shiite & Sunnis. I think most (including me) blame him for not foreseeing it (you imply that it's common knowledge), controlling the violence between them, quelling it, and providing enough security for non-violent Iraqi's to feel safe, so that the political process and reconstruction can proceed. By not quelling it the revenge-cycle and militias are spinning the country out of control.

Is George Bush nuts?

Charles E Hill

Thu Jan 11 14:35:45 -0800 2007

manage

Your answer explains what a great deal of the problem is.  You're clueless about the situation.

"controlling the violence between them, quelling it, and providing enough security for non-violent Iraqi's to feel safe"

The Sunni and Shi'a have been at each other's throats since the death of Mohammed back in 632 C.E., or for the last 1400 or so years.   The entire area wasn't exactly a center of pacifism prior to that, either.  Scroll down on that link to almost the bottom, where it lists the 12 Imams and the status of #12, born in 868 C.E.  Hans Christian Andersen himself couldn't have done better.

Most Arab nations don't have the Sunni/Shi'a problems Iraq does because most are predominantly one or the other. (Iraq is about a 60/40% mix.)  Rarely do they mix in large numbers.  Saddam Hussein controlled this mix with a brutal iron fist, and nothing short of that would "control the violence between them, quell it and provide enough security for non-violent Iraqi's to feel safe".  He did it with terror, a pervasive paranoia, and a willingness to commit mass murder without hesitation.  Even then, Iraq still had issues and flare-ups.

How do you "provide security" against a foe that is not only willing to die, but often looking forward to it?  Whose goal isn't necessarily tactical, but just looking for the bloodiest impact?  Keep in mind, we're talking about people who've shown no remorse in bombing hotels, schools, markets, discos, weddings, funerals and mosques during service.

Everyone and their dog has an automatic weapon in that country, with many having access to explosive and RPGs.  The borders are porous, so you can't "confiscate" the weapons -- it is like bailing water out of a submerged strainer.

In short, your solution is not only impractical but IMPOSSIBLE under any circumstance the U.S. is willing to entertain.

Is George Bush nuts?

President4242

Thu Jan 11 14:47:08 -0800 2007

manage

In short, your solution is not only impractical but IMPOSSIBLE under any circumstance the U.S. is willing to entertain.

Exactly right.  So we either need to be forced into entertaining a more violent, perhaps even genocidal, solution (Iraq would be a lot easier to govern if there were no Iraqis, I suppose), or we need to leave.  One or the other.

Is George Bush nuts?

President4242

Thu Jan 11 14:43:52 -0800 2007

manage

It comes down to two simple facts: Bush has a mission, and he's got authorization from Congress to carry it out.  What people think about it generally doesn't matter-- this country is *NOT* (nor has it ever been) a "democracy"- it's a republic.  If the president steps out of his authority, it is the responsibility of Congress to do something about it.  He hasn't, so they haven't.  If the PEOPLE don't like what the president is doing, they can replace their representative(s) in Congress...  That's all there is to it.

We tried that.  It apparently didn't work.

Just remember that there are more problems in Iraq than anything that might be tied to Bush the Younger.  Infighting between the Sunni and Shiite factions of Islam have been going on for more than a thousand years.  Trying to blame that on Bush *now* (and there are some in the anti-war camp that do just that) is just plain ignorant.

Like it or not though- the infighting stopped while Saddam was executing Shi'ites for it.  Which should give us a clue how to stop it now.  There can be no infighting if those who would do the infighting were buried in mass graves.

Is George Bush nuts?

bill_mcgonigle

Thu Jan 11 22:41:32 -0800 2007

manage

We tried that. It apparently didn't work.

This morning on NHPR they had the freshman rep from the 2nd congressional district on to react to Bush's speech. This is a guy who ran on a strong anti-war platform.

He derides the speech (predictable, not news...) so the host asks, "so, what should be our strategy then?"

He says, "well, that's the president's job to come up with a new plan, not mine."

The irony is he advertised with the slogan, "a spine is a terrible thing to waste."

f'ing politicians....

Is George Bush nuts?

Richard Young

Thu Jan 11 18:12:27 -0800 2007

manage

Maybe its because I am not American, but I can not believe a few of the assumptions stated in some of the posts here.

In some posts, people have described the Iraqis essentially as being uneducated, uncultured (which is funny to an English person coming from Americans) and lacking in will to fight for their country.

Out of the 600,000 dead Iraqis, how many of those do you think wanted this conflict?

Look through the news reports, large numbers of men have been killed just for lining up to join the police force and the army.  Yet still after they were murdered, hundreds more came to line up.  They wanted to fix the issues in their country.

That takes big balls, and deserves respect.

Remember that you are talking about people who have already been crushed by a dictator for years.  They wanted to believe the coalition when it told them that it was there to help them fix their problems.  And now you want to back away from your promises?

The war needs a new direction.  It needs a better understanding of the people it was supposed to liberate.  You will not find the few who feed the war machine if you do not have the respect of the people who are suffering under it.  There are more issues here than simply American pride.

Is George Bush nuts?

Charles E Hill

Thu Jan 11 19:42:28 -0800 2007

manage

You have some faulty assumptions of your own in there.

"Yet still after they were murdered, hundreds more came to line up.  They wanted to fix the issues in their country."

Many of the murders and atrocities have been and are being committed by members of the Iraqi military and Iraqi police forces.  Many of those people aren't interested in helping their country the way YOU are thinking, they're thinking of helping their country by getting a uniform and thus a license to murder.  "Death squad" is the term I'm looking for.

Are all of them doing that?  No, but a good number have been reported.

Keeping in mind the torture and holding center found in the Ministry of the Interior that was being used to settle grudges, I have doubts about their ability to act civilized as well.  (Don't come whining to me about American Abu Ghirab "they made me stand naked and humiliated me" torture.  I'm talking about REMOVING genitalia with a set of hot pliers as opposed to photographing it.  You know, body parts strewn about and all that.)

I doubt they wanted to coalition to "help them fix their problems", short of removing Hussein and then leaving.  They can take care of their own problems, thank-you-very-much.

As far as keeping promises, what happens when 70+% of the Iraqis want us to just get the hell out and let them sort it out?  Doesn't that count for something?

Is George Bush nuts?

Richard Young

Thu Jan 11 20:43:21 -0800 2007

manage

Some interesting points Charles.

I do agree to an extent with your assessment of the death squad problem.

Many of the problems I suspect are due to three different groups of people being represented here.  You have the people who enjoyed the status quo before Hussein was removed from power.  You then have the people who wish to fill the power vacuum. And finally you have the rest of the population who are more concerned with being able to feed the mouths of their children.

The third group of people (the majority) would have seen the invasion as a slim chance to change things for the better.  These are the people who would be let down (Remember Somalia?).

The others saw it as their opportunity to start mayhem.  These are the people who were part of the old guard, or the people waiting in the wings for the right time to strike.

Do I think that Abu Ghraib was quite as repulsive as the previous torture chambers,  probably not.  Do I think that Donald Rumsfeld should have been prosecuted for war crimes and imprisoned over it?  Yes I do.

"As far as keeping promises, what happens when 70+% of the Iraqis want us to just get the hell out and let them sort it out?  Doesn't that count for something?"

If it were true, maybe.  Do you have some form of citation to back this up?

If it were true, I see it as asking another even bigger question... If you come in and remove the class bully, and are still not liked, then wouldn't this be the time for some self reflection? 

Is George Bush nuts?

Simon

Thu Jan 11 18:35:04 -0800 2007

manage

The question is "What is the alternative?".

He has no popularity left to lose on this issue. So he might as well do what he believes to be correct, and I suspect that is "helping to tidy up the mess".

The issue with the alternatives, is that if control is not maintained in Iraq the main oil fields will fall under Iranian control, and they are claiming (and apparently plotting to wipe one country off the map, and presumably move onto the US shortly after). The study groups conclusions were from some cloud cuckoo land, where one could negotiate with these factions.

Unless something changes soon, there will be an exchange with Iran, and possibly other military action against forces that supported the recent attacks on Israel from Lebanon (not necessarily restricted to Lebanon). I'm not up on the recent Palestinian issue, but I assume part of the recent intra-Palestinian issues were fanned by foreign powers.

Putting more forces into Iraq is a very convenient way of having them in the field, and prepared. You wouldn't want to put too many in the targets of Iranian missiles though. One could abandon the area to the locals, but expect a rapid end to the copious "cheap oil" <sic> we are currently enjoying if that happens.

plan rolling forward in Iraq

rubycodez

Fri Jan 12 12:31:56 -0800 2007

manage

troops to be deployed in next couple weeks, and new plan in operation in February.  Funny incoming secretary of war dept. says even if this doesn't work we have to then do something else, because WE CAN"T FAIL IN IRAQ.  And secretary of state ConMo'LIESa, after being asked what assurance she could give that she won't be back in six months again trying to justify a plan, says if a plan doesn't work we won't stick with it.

It is clear that the funds for the war must be cut, only way this endless cycle can be broken.  Too bad the opposition party in this country is mostly spineless and has no real leadership or plan.

Is George Bush nuts?

Skyler Visconti

Fri Jan 12 15:25:16 -0800 2007

manage

Bruce, avoiding bias, I agree with you. However the reason Bush is sending more troops is even crazier. It appears to be an attempt to attract support from the conservative base. Many of them are saying, "too little, too late". Bush started pulling out troops too early which has caused the problem we have been seeing for the past few months.

Regardless of what anybody thinks of his original plan to overthrow Saddam's regime, the plan was carried out with little planning and was based on the previous war with Iraq. He did not throughly plan for what could happen in Baghdad. No war is going to be like any other, no matter of technological differences, and this war, more than any other has been depicted as being similar to every war in American history.

It is my opinion that this move to add more troops is to try to win back the conservative base, so that a republican is elected in '08. The fear, from the right, is that if a democrat is elected president in '08, ALL conservative values will be lost forever and we will be attacked again. I don't believe this will happen, but I do believe that the democratic party will lose some of it's "crazier" members. (The ones who say that Bush bombed the WTC, etc.)

In any case Bush's move this time is carefully planned, but only the political aspects of it. Most of the attacks in Iraq are not what he expects them to be. They are road side bombs, car bombs, etc. These are problems that cannot be solved with more troops. In my opinion it requires carefully trained people (preferably Iraqi people) to look for the would-be bombers, and arrest them. The Iraqis can tell difference between an Iraqi, and a Iranian, where our troops cannot. They know the subtle reactions that a would-be terrorist show to certain lines of questioning, that our troops cannot detect. Just as Iraqis could not tell the difference between a British soldier and an American one, if they were wearing the same uniform, we cannot make similar judgments of them.

Of course I base this information on the fact that MANY of the terrorists in Iraq (originally) came from outside the country. Now the situation has changed. The Iranians (and others) have started a feud between the different factions of Muslim people in Iraq. My personal fear is that this could become a situation similar to what happened in Rwanda. The difference being that we are not interested in race, but religion.