The Bush Administration policy in Iraq is one that retrenches rather than rethinks. After the surge of additional combat troops did not yield the expected positive results, the president's top military advisors are talking about the possibility of even more troops. What happens when the next surge fails to transform Iraq into a peaceful, orderly society free from massive waves of terrorism? For Republicans who have imbibed the nation-building Kool Aid on Iraq, the answer is another, larger surge. It's never the premises. It's always the execution.
Rare are the moments when the president and his lackeys reflect on the false assumptions that got us into Iraq in the first place. Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction. It wasn't close to gaining nuclear weapons. It didn't have anything to do with 9/11. It wasn't poised to attack us. It wasn't a democracy waiting to happen. Demonstrably false assumptions constituted the pre-war case for invading Iraq.
Now that the fog of pre-war has lifted, it's easy for the seeing to see just how slipshod the administration's arguments were. That the administration doesn't see it, and continues to truck on--even to the point of suggesting more men and resources--suggests that the arguments for war might really have been rationalizations for war. Now our troops, and our wallets, pay the price. Spring was the deadliest three months for Americans in Iraq. It's not getting better. It's getting worse.
"We all want progress," C.S. Lewis once wrote. "If you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man."
The intelligence concerning WMD's in Iraq was verified by a number of other countries, including Britain. Everyone likes to make it sound like Bush was touring through Iraq and thought he saw WMD's and decided it was time to start a war. Not the case. It wasn't Bush's fault he got bad intelligence. He acted upon the same information that would have been provided to anyone in his position. Why did numerous independent intelligence gathering organizations all believe Iraq had WMD's? Don't blame Bush, blame the intelligence he received.
Even giving Bush the benefit of the doubt on the issue of WMDs, he still deserves all the blame for his terrible mismanagement of the war and his pig-headed refusal to give up on a lost cause.
mullah cimoc say how possible ameriki people become the so cruel and loving the torture.
too many the ameriki man him brain now so dull not even think for how many iraki killed in war. this not pure and good usa man of geo. washington.
usa press not free. google: mighty wurlitzer +cia for instruct of how the mind control technique use in usa.
stop1984now@yahoo.com
also usa society destroy and proving to look at ameriki woman having the LBT (low back tattoo) take the meth and smoking cigerette. This not free. this the slut and whore. In wazirisitan him man protecting him daughter--never allow the slut or the smoking cigerette.
The Mullah proves we are not fighting a very bright enemy.
I agree with most of what this post says and it is true that the War/Police Action/Nation Building effort has gone poorly. But we must remember that those kinds of things do not typically go smoothly and whoever decided to undertake these efforts would have looked bad doing it. Bush only looks worse than say, Teflon Bill Clinton, because the press is ready to crucify him for anything including not wearing matching socks.
Still, it's amazing to me how people conveniently forget that Bush wasn't the only one convinced that going into Iraq was a good idea. Clinton believed that Saddam had to go and had WMD's, Kerry the same and even Hitlery Rotten Clinton said she saw documented evidence (she later said she didn't) that convinced her to vote for going into Iraq.
Historical circumstance put Bush in a position to make some hard decisions based on the best information that EVERYBODY had available and for that he has to get some credit.
That's why I chuckle when the leftists says that Bush lied (and people died) about the war but all that Clinton lied about (and nobody died) was sex. That's easy isn't it?
ok we pull out, then what? funny how nobody says what to do after we pull out. i dont care if irag has a meltdown and the rags waste each other. and if that happens then the world will cry "america where are you, how can you let this happen?" and now the church of libs. the u.n. are worried that we will leave. bush didnt contol irags borders, more troops at the outset would have helped, but you and i know el bushie dont like tight borders.
I love that Lewis quote. I may start calling myself a 'progressive'.
I agree with the last commenter. Everyone wants to be a critic, but they don't have answers either. It looks like there will be a partial withdrawl of troops in 2008. Then I'm afraid there will be another attack in the US, similar to the 9-11 attack. I did not think this would happen b-4 9-11, but they have made a believer out of me. When they say it's going to happen, I lisen.
Thanks Daniel
Again
Watch for another 9/11-WMD experience
Online Journal | July 20, 2007
Paul Craig Roberts
This is a wake-up call that we are about to experience another 9/11-WMD experience.
The wake-up call is unlikely to be effective, because the American attitude toward government changed fundamentally 70-odd years ago. Prior to the 1930s, Americans were suspicious of government, but with the arrival of the Great Depression, Tojo, and Hitler, President Franklin D. Roosevelt convinced Americans that government existed to protect them from rapacious private interests and foreign threats. Today, Americans are more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to government than they are to family members, friends, and those who would warn them about the government's protection.
Intelligent observers are puzzled that President Bush is persisting in a futile and unpopular war at the obvious expense of his party's electoral chances in 2008.
In the July 18 Los Angeles Times ( “Bush the Albatross” ), Ronald Brownstein reminds us that Bush's behavior is disastrous for his political party. Unpopular presidents “have consistently undercut their party in the next election.” Brownstein reports that “88 percent of voters who disapproved of the retiring president's job performance voted against his party's nominee in past elections. . . . On average, 80 percent of voters who disapproved of a president's performance have voted against his party's candidates even in House races since 1986.”
Brownstein notes that with Bush's dismal approval rating, this implies a total wipeout of the Republicans in 2008.
A number of pundits have concluded that the reason the Democrats have not brought a halt to Bush's follies is that they expect Bush's unpopular policies to provide them with a landslide victory next year.
There is a problem with this reasoning. It assumes that Cheney, Rove , and the Republicans are ignorant of these facts or are content for the Republican Party to be destroyed after Bush has his warmonger-police state fling. “ After me, the deluge.”
Isn't it more likely that Cheney and Rove have in mind events that will, once again, rally the people behind President Bush and the Republican Party, that is fighting the “war on terror” that the Democrats “want to lose”?
Such events could take a number of forms. As even diehard Republican Patrick J. Buchanan observed on July 17, with three US aircraft carrier battle groups in congested waters off Iran, another Tonkin Gulf incident could easily be engineered to set us at war with Iran.
If Bush's intentions were merely to bomb a nuclear reactor, he would not need three carrier strike forces.
Lately, the administration has switched to blaming Iran for the war in Iraq. The US Senate has already lined up behind the latest lie with a 97-0 vote to condemn Iran.
Alternatively, false flag “terrorist” strikes could be orchestrated in the US. The Bush administration has already infiltrated some dissident groups and encouraged them to participate in terrorist talk, for which they were arrested. It is possible that the administration could provoke some groups to actual acts of violence.
Many Americans dismiss suspicion of their government as treasonous, and most believe conspiracy to be impossible “because someone would talk.”
There is no basis in any known fact for this opinion.
According to polls, 36 percent of the American people disbelieve the 9/11 Commission Report . Despite this lack of confidence, and despite the numerous omissions and errors in the report, it has proven impossible to have an independent investigation of 9/11 or to examine the official explanation in public debate. Even experts and people with a lifetime of distinguished public service are dismissed as “conspiracy theorists,” “kooks,” and “traitors” if they question the official explanation of 9/11. This despite the fact that war in the Middle East, a long-planned goal of Bush's neoconservative administration, could not have been initiated without a “new Pearl Harbor.”
That powerfully constructed steel buildings could suddenly turn to dust because they were struck by two flimsy aluminum airliners and experienced small fires on a few floors that burned for a short time appears unexceptionable to a majority of Americans.
Moreover, people have talked. Hundreds of them. Firefighters, police, janitors, and others report hearing and experiencing a series of explosions in upper floors and massive explosions in the underground basements. This eyewitness testimony was kept under wraps for three or more years until the official explanation had taken root. The oral histories were finally forced loose by Freedom Of Information Act suits. The eyewitness reports of explosion after explosion had no effect.
Larry Silverstein, who received billions of dollars in insurance payments for the destroyed buildings, talked. He said on public television that the order was given “to pull” building 7. His stunning admission had no effect.
The Bush administration is preparing us for more terrorist attacks. The latest intelligence report says that Al Qaeda has regrouped, rebuilt, and has the ability to come after us again. " Al Qaeda will intensify its efforts to put operatives here ," says the report.
Security operatives, such as Michael Chertoff , and various instruments of administration propaganda have warned that we will be attacked before next year's election. Chertoff is not a person who wants to be known as Chicken Little for telling us that the sky is falling.
Bush has the Republican Party in such a mess that it cannot survive without another 9/11. Whether authentic or orchestrated, an attack will activate Bush's new executive orders, which create a dictatorial police state in event of “national emergency.” [See here . ]
The UK government is hand-in-glove with the Bush administration and will provide cover or verification for whatever claim the Bush administration advances. So will the right-wing governments in Canada and Australia. That takes care of the English-speaking world from which contrary explanations might reach the American people.
It is possible that Bush is now too weak, that suspicion is too great, and that there is too much internal resistance in the federal bureaucracy and military for any such scenario. If so, then my prediction prior to the invasion that the US invasion of Iraq will destroy Bush, the Republican Party, and the conservative movement will be proven true. The Democrats' strategy of doing nothing except making sure Bush gets his way will produce the landslide that they expect.
However, this assumes that Cheney, Rove, and their neoconservative allies have lost their cunning and their manipulative skills. It is difficult to imagine a more dangerous assumption for Democrats and the American people to make.
Once the US experiences new attacks, Bush will be vindicated. His voice will be confident as he speaks to the nation:
“My administration knew that there would be more attacks from these terrorists who hate us and our way of life and are determined to destroy every one of us. If only more of you had believed me and supported my war on terror these new attacks would not have happened. Our security efforts were impaired by the Democrats' determined attempts to surrender to the terrorists by forcing our withdrawal from Iraq and by civil libertarian assaults on our necessary security measures. If only more Americans had trusted their government, this would not have happened.”
And so on. Anyone should be able to write the script.
Ummm any comments?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX9gdRST6zM
In evaluating the need for a surge in troops for Iraq, policy makers should evaluate whether this would help or hurt American national security. The goals for Iraq, as stated by Bush Administration officials, are as follows: 1.)A Democratic Iraq, 2.)a stable Iraq, and 3.) An Iraq that is allied with the US in the broader Global War on Terrorism. I have listed these three goals in the order of importance they seem to be to the Bush Administration. The goals of the Bush Administration seem to be out of proper alignment. For example, it is more important to them to have a Democratic Iraq than an Iraqi government that will assist us in the war against Islamic terrorists.
If I advocated continuing with the goals of the Bush Administration, I would change the order of the goals we wish to achieve, as follows: 1.)An Iraq that is allied with the US in the broader Global War on Terrorism, 2.)an Iraq that is stable, and 3.)an Iraq that is democratic.
If we achieved all three goals, this would have huge benefits for American national security, however, the first step will be to establish security. Without this an orderly society will be impossible. The US and its allies have never had enough troops in Iraq to effectively establish security. In order to give us a chance to achieve the goals that have been laid out by the Bush Administration, we would need to be prepared to commit somewhere between 750,000 to 1,000,000 troops to Iraq and we would need to be prepared to keep up this commitment for years, and possibly decades. In other words, the "surge" of 30,000 more troops or so over a period of a few months is no where near enough to achieve the goals that have been laid out by the Bush Administration.
The Bush Administration, as well as any future Presidential Administration, will NOT be able to get the troop commitment that would be necessary to achieve the three goals mentioned above. The American people will not support such a commitment, furthermore, the Bush Administration nor anyone else occupying a high ranking position within the US government can be trusted to compentently carry this out. Given that we cannot devote the resources that would be necessary to achieving the three goals mentioned above the "surge" strategy should be abandoned.
The chances of this "surge" succeeding are less than one's chance of winning the lottery. The current surge strategy has the added cost of further straining an Army that has already been worn down. In other words, the surge is unlikely to enhance American national security. It is more likely to actually undermine American national security. It would seem to be a bad strategy.
If we are going to keep a military presence in Iraq, the mission should be redefined. The goals should be as follows: 1.) destroy Al Qaeda in Iraq and eliminate its influence within the country, 2.)destroy the militias that are backed up by Iran and roll back Iran's influence within the country.
Even if we were going to limit the mission to fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, we would still need at least 250.000 troops in the country and we would need to be prepared to keep them there for years. Right now we have about 150,000 troops in the country. At this time, the American people will not tolerate a larger commitment of troops to Iraq, furthermore, it is questionable whether or not the Army is even capable of this type of commitment right now.
Keeping 150,000 troops in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda is unlikely to enhance American national security. It is not enough and this commitment will only further degrade an Army that is already over stretched and has been worn thin. Not only does this strategy not enhance American securit but it actually would seem to undermine it.
It would seem to me that the best course of action for American national security would be to withdraw all American troops from Iraq. These troops should be used to secure America's borders.
The US should immediately under take a policy to develop more of its own oil and natural gas reserves and build more refineries. This would give us some more leverage when dealing with Venezuela and Middle Eastern countries.
The US should place a moratorium on immigration from Muslim countries and the mosques should be closely monitored. Securing the borders, developing more of our own natrual resources, and limiting immigration from terrorist supporting countries seem to be common sense policies.
They have the additional advantage of being something we can actually do. The main stream media would probably oppose these policies but policy makers should be able to get the American people behind them.
The policies that are being promoted by the Bush Administration cannot be implemented. As such, they should be abandoned.
A mark of good leadership is discovering which policies can be implemented and implementing them. Time should not be wasted trying to implement policies that cannot be implemented.
Because the Bush Administration insists on continuing with policies that cannot be implemented American national security is undermined. The Bush Administration and Republicans have shown very poor leadership here. The Democrats can end the war in Iraq tomorrow by cutting the funding. In allowing the continued American involvement in Iraq, the Democrats have undermined American national security. As such, they have shown poor leadership. There has been poor leadership all around within both political parties.
