Plan B for Iraq War
With the issue of the Iraq war still at the forefront of the presidential race, this diary shows a route likely to be adopted by many on the right. Promoted by Specter
With public support for the Iraq war declining, and with it President Bush’s poll ratings, where will US Iraq policy be one or two years from now? Daniel Pipes has been writing for some time now about a kind of mid-way policy between leaving Iraq altogether and continuing the current intense and active ground operations. In today’s NY Sun, Pipes writes:
Two positions dominate and polarize the American body politic today. Some say the war is lost, so leave Iraq. Others say the war can be won, so keep the troops in place. I split the difference and offer a third route. The occupation is lost, but the war can be won. Keep American troops in Iraq but remove them from the cities.
Here is the article: Salvaging the Iraq War
Pipes reviews the reasons why a more limited presence may be more advantageous US policy. It would also allow the US to reduce the number of troops in-country, but still maintain bases for air and limited special operations in the area. This may become the so-called fallback Plan B and I will not be surprised if, after September and the Gen, Patreaus status report, we start to hear some of the GOP Presidential front runners and Congressional Republicans adopting this plan.
Note also this is not a version of Baker-Hamilton Plan. There is no call for us to negotiate with Iran and Syria (who are our enemies) to assist us to leave Iraq.
- sandbox's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Being pragmatic
I don't read Pipes much, and while I found his "told you so" references a bit overdone, this is an excellent piece on what the future (i.e. beyond tomorrow) may hold. The ideas he lays out are strategically sound.
I question, however, whether the President has the courage to accept any advice along this line. It would be a huge loss of face for him, and although he is a lame duck with abysmal ratings, I just don't gauge him as a man who can swallow his own pride for the sake of duty.
I would also question whether the next President would be willing to consider something like this. If it's a Democrat, he or she will be under great pressure to pull out and will have campaign promises to fulfill.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
The Republican Pres nominee for 2008,
who I think will be either Rudy Guiliani or Fred Thompson, will understand that they cannot say they will keep the War in Iraq going on at the same intensity and same troop level for several more years. But they don't want to totally leave, for the reasons Pipes set forth. So this represents a position they can adopt, which does have benefits. One of the author's points is his low expectations for developing democratic institutions in Iraq and elswhere in the Arab world owing to the influence of fundamentalist islam which does not appear to comport with democracy. This represents a more realist approach.
name the enemy, win the war
Let me just say
that I couldn't be more sick of this war.
It is ever so sexy isn't it. To always be talking about 'the war'.
It is a convenient way to divide people and point out you are either with us or against us.
I am sick of the war being in the headlines non-stop, with all this you are a traitor if you don't do this or that.
I can't imagine any al-Queda element being thrilled to have permanent military bases in the Middle of Arabia.
Didn't we immediately dismantle the US military base in Saudi Arabia as per bin Laden's request right after 9/11?
And somehow folks think it is such a brilliant idea to dismember Iraq, it's people and the country side or else they are 'letting the terrorists' win.
Ronald Reagan spoke with his enemies. Was that a waste?
This sexy sexy war. It is such a distraction and makes for a great headline.
It has allowed the President to garner unprecedented authority into the executive.
Why not let American troops maintain on navy fleets and get their feet off of Iraqi soil.
Why not let the Iraqi's run their own government???
It is like trying to rebuild New Orleans with Mexican labor instead of giving the jobs to the residents. The US now imports cheap laobr into Iraq from all over the world. I am sure the Iraqi's love that, and the cheap quality of construction.
I am sure the Iraqi's love having the US tell them how they should operate their government. They only people benefiting here are corrupt politicians in Iraq and corrupt politicians in America.
They tried to build Dick Cheney's dream govt in Iraq.... no taxes, no regulation. How is that working out so far.
And what exactly do you think will happen the minute we leave. Well then I guess we aren't ever leaving.
You can have your war. I am sick of it altogether.
I'm only half stupid
Having a bad day? n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4No, are you?
I am sick of the opportunists in the White House, reframing the war every five minutes for their own ends and to manipulate the American public.
I'm only half stupid
War fatigue
Like I said yesterday (or the day before)... I believe the following will happen if we pull out:
1. Ethnic cleansing of Sunni population by Shiite majority.
note: A part of me says that this is karma coming back to bite them in the ass... but of course not all Sunnis were involved with the persecution of Shiites over the years in Iraq.
2. The Kurds will break off and form their own Republic of Kurdistan. This will upset Turkey, but Turkey will likely back down and let it occur with a suitable bribe from NATO.
3. The lower 2/3 of Iraq will effectively be run by Iran. The "al Qaida" element in Iraq will dissipate and scatter to the winds... their usefullness used up. At which point, where they scatter to becomes of utmost importance.
Note: My guess? Most go to the Afghani-Pakistani border area and terrorize the Pakistanis in an effort to overthrow Musharraf. He must not be allowed to fall, or nuclear weapons fall into the hands of radicals. Despite him not being democratically elected, we need to keep him in power. He's a secular voice surrounded by radical religious fundamentalists that want his head. To survive, he will have to be a dictator...sometimes brutal. This is regrettable, but ultimately necessary. His government must not fall.
So what should we do? My prescription:
Pull out now. Concentrate our forces on protecting Musharraf (indirectly--- using "advisors") and the Kurds (directly-- where they need it). Kurdistan becomes our "base in the middle east" that was our goal for "Iraq Proper" going in.
We declare "victory" and leave lower Iraq to the Iraqis. After all, we achieved our goals of regime change and WMD destruction (even though Saddam apparently did the latter for us at some point in the past decades).
If there is civil war and ethnic cleansing left behind in our wake, that is regrettable... but also the result of four years of mistakes by the Bush administration. The chaos that follows is squarely on this incompetent administration ... and frankly, I don't care about their civil war - as long as not one more American soldier has to die trying to referee it.
Civil wars happen all over the globe. We caused one here. Let's get out... and over the next decades convince the rest of the world that we're sorry we were so short-sighted and that we'll be better (and more honest) with them in the future. It will take a generation to repair the good will toward America from the rest of the world that was squandered in 8 years by this administration. But with a new face and philosophy at the top, it can be done.
Iraq is the kind of situation that ends empires. But we can get a fresh start with the world community by finally "beginning the end" of this mess we made.
I survived the Bush Administration
Good points
Let's say we do what you've outlined.
What about the oil?
Let's not kid ourselves. Access to oil is in our strategic interests, which will only grow more acute over the next decade. Access to oil is a mighty motivation for other states in the area.
Who moves into the power vacuum we leave behind and how might that affect our access to Iraq's oil?
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
How about if we just buy it?
Let the Iraqi's have their own oil, build up their own resource and just US capital to purchase it.
It would be so much cheaper than this never ending war.
Of course this will never happen in a million years.
I'm only half stupid
You are such a simpleton sometimes.
We AREN'T stealing their oil now as you seem to believe. We DO buy it now. The issue is one of access to even buy it if there is a hostile regime in control.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4We don't HAVE to buy it...
....as long as someone does.
If China buys it... that frees up some other entity that China was previously buying from, for us to cut deals with.
The way that global oil markets work... it doesn't matter who they sell to... as long as they're selling. The world oil market is one big pool....
we may have access to only certain sections of the pool, but if the volume in the pool is increased, our end gets filled as well.
I survived the Bush Administration
I wholeheartedly agree.
But her comment was clearly suggesting that we were somehow taking it from them today and that we somehow needed to give it back.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Ironic about OIL
When Saddam was in power under the Oil for Food Embargo,, he would flood the market with cheap oil in the blackmarket -- and gasoline was so cheap 90 cents.
Now that a certain percentage of their Oil is out of commission -- the Oil Companies are having a bonanza.
So getting Oil is not the problem -- but controlling the supply so that Oil prices are high enough to have high profits.
Of course
*slaps forehead* Why didn't I think of that.
The problem comes in, of course, in trying to get the oil out from under the ground and into my car. There's a bit of work involved in making that happen, none of which is occurring today and most of which, around the world, is handled by the American and British oil companies.
There's a lot of money underground in Iraq, and it will attract vultures. Big money does.
My question was honest: in a civil war torn Iraq, assuming continued instability for the next decade, and no American presence to provide cover, who is going to make a move for the oil?
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I answered...
Iran.
And they won't sell to us, maybe. But they'll sell to China... and Russia.
...and the oil currently going to those countries from other sources gets freed up for us to make a play at.
If British and US companies are the only ones that can get to the oil under Iraq (a dubious claim, since Iraq was pumping oil for the past decade and a half under Saddam while the US and British had imposed sanctions), then Iran will cut a deal with us to go get it for them.
I survived the Bush Administration
More questions
Yes Iraq was, but the infrastructure (physical and human) is nearly gone and must be rebuilt. Who will rebuild it? The Iraqis? (lmao ;})
The Iran angle is interesting, but is Iran's infrastructure and engineering up to the task of restarting the oil fields? Assuming yes, then would we be willing to cut a deal with them? Would we be willing to let big oil cut a deal, or would the public hue and cry be overwhelming?
The stakes get higher each year. The value of that oil grows exponentially as it's some of the cleanest on the planet IIRC.
So who moves in? China or Russia? Hmmm.
I don't know the answers. But I think any solution that ignores the oil is strategically incomplete.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
To summarize my points from other posts...
...that answer your questions...
Yes. China or Russia moves in. That's ok. That alleviates pressure on the other sources of oil that China and Russia are competing with us on. As long as someone buys the Iraqi oil, it helps the world markets... and by implication, the United States.
The war was not about oil... remember? Therefore, let the administration lie in the bed they made. We don't have to protect the oil, because this war was never about the oil... according to them.
Bush, Cheney, and their Big Oil friends won't be able to cash in on private deals they've made with the puppet Maliki government... but oh well. I'm sure they'll survive financially.
I survived the Bush Administration
I was not clear
I meant, who moves in to build the infrastructure needed to get that oil to market: China or Russia?
My money's on Russia. Putin is no fool.
For the US, the longer-term strategic implications are, do we want Russia to have such a toe hold in the Middle East and what might evolve from that?
Oil is easy in one aspect, in that the folks who have it want to sell it. But Russia is not a stable nation.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
How about Free Market
How does everyone sell their Oil.
If we leave Iraq, they will sell us Oil. The Shiites who are the majority will forever be grateful to America.
So Oil is not an issue why we should stay or leave. It will be an issue to Exxon or Chevron --who wants to get exclusive deals and dont want to compete in a free market.
answers
Woot! I get to be President for a day. ;-)
What about it? We aren't getting any significant amount of oil out of Iraq right now. And we'll cut a nice deal for the Kurdistan oil - which is a substantial amount. Might even use the Kurdish oil in our placating of Turkey.
Seriously.. Iraqi oil has been "off the market" effectively for over four years now. Won't change a thing.
Heck... if we're out of the region, we might even cut a deal with Iran eventually. We're dealing with the Vietnamese government now, aren't we?
I already said who moves into the power vacuum. In the lower 2/3 of Iraq, it will be a Shiite puppet government controlled by Iran. In the upper 1/3, it will be Kurds... who are extremely pro-US.
Iran will effectively control the lower Iraqi oil fields. And even if they dont cut deals with us, the deals they cut with Russia, China, and other nations will effectively help the world oil supply and put downward pressure on world oil markets.
..and like I said above... Iraqi oil has been off the market for more than four years already. It's not like it will effect the world market negatively if we aren't getting it. Some nations will get it.. and that will free up other nations to broker better deals with us.
Not getting the Iraqi oil directly might affect the retirement plans of Misters Bush and Cheney... as I'm sure they have set up many deals with the current puppet regime in Iraq (our puppets).
But I'm not so concerned with that. ;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
Iraq was doing fine before without us
However w/ US now arming Sunnis --- if we leave it will be a full blown civil war.
One more thing...
Every neocon voice in this country, and just about every member of the administration, told us repeatedly that this war was not about oil.
Limbaugh, Hannity, Kristol, the Weekly Standard, the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Tony Snow, etcetera... all ridiculed the anti-war protesters in 2003, and specifically their claim that this war was "blood for oil".
Remember?
I do.
Now... you, not being a member of the VRWC, were not one of them... but since the administration and their apologists went out of their way to tell us that this war was not about oil the past four years... then the answer to your question is the same text as your question itself:
Q: What about the oil?
A: What about the oil?
It was not why we were there, according to the administration. So seriously.. what about it? It's a non-factor in us being there.
They told us so. Repeatedly.
I survived the Bush Administration
And were you foolish enough
to believe them?
Of course access to oil is part of the equation. It always has been.
[I feel the need for a Madscientist impersonation: You mean politicians lie? Say it ain't so!]
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
No...
No, I wasn't.
But I find it tragic (even though humorous to a degree) that the sole rationale left for our military to be there is for the one reason that the administration denied all along...
...to protect the oil.
I want Bush to have to come before the American people and say that we have to stay there for the oil. That it was always about the oil.
That admission will be the death-knell for Neo-conservatism. Which in the long run would be worth a little higher price paid for oil.
I won't hold my breath.
I want them to admit, to the world, that their motivations in Iraq never really had anything to do with 9/11, terrorism, regime-change, WMDs, or Saddam.
It was, is, and always will be about oil to this group. Once an oil man, always an oil man.
Is it shadenfreude? Of course. I want to rub President Dumbass's nose in it.
After I've got that satisfaction, then we'll attack the problem. ;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
Let it go
The thirst for revenge is understandable. But you will never get the satisfaction you desire, and if you did, it would not be as tasty as you imagine.
Do we have to be forgiving at last?
What else can we do?
Do we have to say goodbye to the past?
Yes I guess we do.
We would do better as a nation to focus on attacking the real problems instead of assuaging our hurt emotions.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Ouch..
Quoting Rush lyrics back at me. That's sinister....
...but brilliant.
It's like kryptonite. I want my mommy.
But Wait!
I have some Rush lyrics of my own...from the same song, ironically:
The bloody revolution
All the warheads in its wake
All the fear and suffering
All a big mistake
All those wasted years
All those precious wasted years
Who will pay?
I survived the Bush Administration
And the answer is
In my original comment, and in that song. You gotta let it go. It will warp every decision you make if you don't.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
This is pure fantasy.
Although maybe you SHOULD try holding your breath on this one! ;)
The war is not now, nor has it ever been, about the US interests in the oil. We don't intend to steal it from the Iraqis. Simple as that.
And even if there is NOW an element of "protecting the oil" it is not about "protecting the oil for us" but about "protecting the oil for the Iraqi people." I trust us to make sure that they get the benefits of the oil as opposed to say, Iran.
Your partisan rhetoric is transparent. And the fact that you seek to conflate these two as being the same is a lie of the type most liberals claim with respect to Bush.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4hmmmm
So we're fighting a war on behalf of non-US interests in the oil?
That's a tough position to defend, GR.
A) You don't know what the administration "intends".
B) Let's assume you are right and we don't intend to steal it.... which I agree with by the way. I contend that we, through the puppet Maliki government, are setting ourselves up as "preferred customers" to get the best deal from the Iraqis for their oil. And not just the US in general, but US companies that are F.O.D's (Friends of Dick and Dubya).
Conflate what two? I never contended that we were going to steal the oil.
I contended that this war was mostly about oil.... even though the neo-cons running this administration screamed to high heaven that this war had nothing to do with oil.
The fact that you are conceding that the war had at least something to do with oil is a major defeat for your side (i.e. the Bush apologists).
My "partisan rhetoric" is transparent? Maybe so... but at least mine doesn't require me to try to defend a moving target like yours does.
How many times did Condi Rice et al, back in 2003, say that this war was about destroying Saddam's WMD stockpile?
After there were no significant stockpiles of WMD found, the rationale changed to "regime change".
And then after Saddam was captured it was about "creating a democracy in the heart of the middle east".
And then, when the Iraqis had a government, it became about "fighting al Qaida there, so we don't have to fight them here."
And now... when all else is failing, you admit that it is at least in part about protecting (someone's) interests in the oil...
You're thrashing... and it is not your fault. Your president, who you continually defend admirably despite his creating impossible situations to defend, is failing you. You're too vested in his success apparently to stop.
Your partisan rhetoric is the most transparent. You're, along with the rest of us, staring at a naked emperor and screaming at us about his wonderful robes that only a dwindling few (you among them) can see.
The facade has been exposed. The war was about oil all along (and I didn't say anything about "stealing" it... that's your strawman argument). Even died-in-the-wool Bush apologists are starting to concede that point.
...which was what a lot of us were saying four years ago.
I take no pleasure in saying "I told you so". I do want to make sure that this lie gets exposed... because as a country we need to make sure that the neo-conservative movement in this country has a stake driven through its heart.
We have to make sure that the Bill Kristols, Richard Perles, Paul Wolfowitzs, and Dick Cheneys of this country never get a seat at the table of power again.
Never.
I survived the Bush Administration
Re: Oil. I don't see anything wrong with saying
that the US and the rest of the world have an interest in continuing the free flow of Iraqi oil onto the world market. Likewise for other oil sources in the area. The west, through its technology developed the wells and pipelines, etc, which they could not have done on their own, so we do have an interest. That doesn't mean we should just take the oil, even if we could, but we do want it to continue the flow for obvious reasons. There were many reasons for going into Iraq and long-term continued flow of world oil may have been one of them. So what?
name the enemy, win the war
So what.....
uh huh.
Ask a mother who has lost her son, so what.
I'm only half stupid
As you may have noticed, the entire industrialized world
runs on oil. Are you saying that US and Europe and Japan have no interest in keeping the oil flowing?
name the enemy, win the war
how many....
How many non-US soldiers have spilled their blood to keep the oil flowing?
The oil will flow no matter who is in charge. It will flow if Iran is in charge. It might not flow directly to us, but it will flow.
Making sure we get a "preferred customer" discount is not worth nearly 4,000 dead American soldiers.
I survived the Bush Administration
Your point that the oil may have flowed regardless
is a good one. All I am saying is there is a certain unseriousness about those who say that they are "surprised" and somehow "betrayed" by the neo-cons, etc. that the US and the west may have an interest in keeping the oil flowing from the mid-east and that if we have to (horrors) use our military from time to time to keep it flowing, then that is immoral.
I agree that it is unfortunate we could not get more EU, Japanese, Indian, troops into Iraq to help since the start of the war. Of course the French (under Chiraq) and others were pro-Sadaam as they were getting paid off from the oil-for-food program, but that's a whole other story. BTW, I don't think the main reason we went into Iraq was oil, but the WMDs.
name the enemy, win the war
You are joking right.....
A certain unseriousness and surprise that the US would pre-emptively invade another nation for the first time in our history, essentially launching the first US crusade against a muslim country?
What is immoral is the unseriousness of the neocons who are willing to say anything, and I do mean anything at all (democrats love terrorists) to deceive people into believing that they are not doing something that they are doing.
Maybe if the US had treated these other countries pre-invasion with just the teeniest respect..... but if I recall correctly most of the 'coaltion forces had to be bribed to join the glorious fight for freedom' since many of the (ex-) US allies were saying no we don't invade Iraq.
A certan unseriousness when the neocons have used this war as an excuse to push an agenda on the America people, such as slip provisions into the Patriot Act to circumvent the normal appointment process for State Attorney Generals.
No the unseriousness comes from the neocons, who snicker behind closed doors, at how ignorant Americans are so easily manipulated and fooled while blatantly lying to the American public, as they try and establish 'their' government in the US.
Things I find disturbing is using religous doctrine for political motives.
These people are waiting with baited breath for the Second Coming, the Rapture. And part of the plan is attacking Iran. Joe Lieberman offers these guys authenticity? Rick Santorum?
Their goal of course is to attack Iran to bring on the 'End of Times', or is it so the US can have a cut of the oil action in the Middle East.
I'm only half stupid
so what?
The "so what?" is that our leaders said repeatedly, to anyone who questioned them, that this action had nothing to do with oil.
People with "No blood for oil" signs, chants, and bumper stickers were ridiculed as "moonbats" who didn't have a clue about what the war was about.
If the war was even a little bit about oil, then the administration lied to us. Repeatedly and in forceful terms.
My contention is that it was more than just a little bit about oil... that it was mostly about oil. That the war in Iraq was a business move.
Our military should not be risking life and limb to improve the economy. That's not what they're for.
...and the neocons knew they couldn't sell their real reason for going to war (to line their pockets.. and maybe as a side effect, help the US consumer pay lower prices) so they had to deny it.
...and deny it they did.
Helping lower the price of fuel is a nice goal. It is not, however, worth thousands of lives and billions of dollars to achieve.
This was neocon politicians and lobbyists padding their nest eggs. On the blood of our troops.
I survived the Bush Administration
I feel the need
for a GoRight impersonation: Bush did not lie. My standard response for these posts.
Just kidding GoRight. :-) You are the greatest!
We should have some puppet debates using stock responses from our participants. Would mine be some kind of fallacy, 'can't we all get along', an implication stated as a fact, or something else that I never knew I repetitively do?
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Sounds like a diary Prof! (nt)
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I agree.
See, now you're using MY arguments copy catter!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Let's don't
and say we did.
I did not say Bush lied ;}
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Puppet debates!!!
Let's start with SwordsCrossed Classic!
Hoplite vs David Byron
The context for this statement please? n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Just reminiscing
If we were going to have a fake debate using SC phrases I was joking that the personas could be of folks that aren't around anymore.
Hoplite, the right wing poster who called everyone cowards and children when they didn't debate precisely on his terms (and had several key phrases that he just had to use over and over and over again) and DavidByron the left wing poster who (I believe) was the first poster banned in the post-Armando era. Mostly for attacking anyone who thought it was OK to proud of your country, even if you thought it had room for improvement. See, it showed a nationalistic ferver that inevitably led to war mongering like that committed by the evil Israelis since 1948.
You get the point.
I honestly think that if you pushed the two of them together, you'd get some type of matter/anti-matter reaction.
Thanks! LOL.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I remember Hoplite
...I actually didn't mind him.
You know... for a right-wing fascist, he was ok. ;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
I like the way you think
That is an excellent point that I hadn't considered, that if China buys the oil it's no big deal. IN this globalized world..... we are all one......;)
Or is it in this globalized world he who gets to control the biggest piece of the profit margins.
I'm only half stupid
I was mostly with you ...
until the last three paragraphs:
To those I say, bah. (Or for the Monty Python fans here, to those I say nee!)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You win...
I have no effective argument to counteract "bah".
except maybe....
..... with crayons!
I survived the Bush Administration
Another Plan B, No Military Bases
Here is another Plan B
I like this plan better.
I'm only half stupid
She is lying.
Just like she did when she said they would end the war.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4An excellent illustration
of my point: if a Democrat wins, there will not be any political will to pursue a strategic solution short of complete withdrawal, an option which may not be in the country's best interests but which is an easy sell to the public.
We have become far too absolute in our thinking.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
heh heh
...with crayons!
;-)
(only the purplish one will get this.... sorry folks, for the vanity post)
I survived the Bush Administration
The priorities will change
to behead al_Queda leadership, so to speak, a much wiser course of action in everyway.
ONe of the ways to do this is to show co-operation and take some action that screams the US is not interested in occupying the whole of Arabia with military bases.
Another way is to put the US military on ships, instead of on land.
It is hard to argue that bin Laden is wrong when he has predicted every move the Bush administration has made. Meanwhile our military is wearing thin. Not because of Democrats, but because Bush orders the same men to redeploy over and over again.
Will bin Laden or other bin Laden wannabe's wait until our troops are on their 6th redeployment to go full force in some strategic area that the US doesn't have troops in? Some new city in Iraq, or Asia, or Africa.
I'm only half stupid
I hate this topic
Up 'til a certain point when we could minimize the damage and salvage any redemption from this mess, it was my number one priority.
Now it's just a mess that we no longer have the power to clean up or control.
There is simply no policy that involves our military presence that can help. NONE.
All we can do is pull out and let events take their course while providing the right incentives to those who can be dealt with peacefully.
We are weakening ourselves everyday we stay there.
Bingo.
...give that man a prize.
I survived the Bush Administration
I don't want prizes
I just want to get out of Iraq. But thanks for the gesture.
Exactly
In an effort to not look weak (ala Bill Kristol) we are weakening ourselves everyday we stay.
I also hate this topic. Especially since they keep doing the sell job AGAIN.
How times to they have to repackage and resell this war to make it look pretty to the American people?
I'm only half stupid
haha
"The new and improved Iraqi war! Now with extra freedom! On sale today!"
I survived the Bush Administration
It's not pretty.
and nobody's buying it anymore. What they keep doing is repackaging it to hide how "shoot it in the head"-ugly it really is and make it just tolerable enough to keep "guns in the public holsters".
It's as hopeless as a fugitive armed with a gun with one bullet with only a dog as hostage stuck in one story concrete building with no basement, no windows and one door that has 50 armed cops waiting at it.
To those
of you who say you are sick of this topic, I agree with you. But we must continue to think about it since this problem is not going away, and apathy isn't going to save any lives.
My preferences in order:
1. Get the heck out of dodge (see PM's post above)
2. Do what Sandbox says (except talk to Syria and Iran and get UN involvement)
3. Partition the country and do what Sandbox says (with above additions)
4. Send in even more troops
5. Stay the course!
Either way, I think the republicans are going to have a tougher time with this issue, especially when we have inter-party debates. It is too hard for them to satisfy their hawkish base and the general American public (which wants change and, depending on the poll, withdrawal soon) at the same time.
I'm not happy with the dems either, but they still have the support of the majority of the population
(sorry, cached page) when it comes to this issue.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Did you hear the latest
We are now fighting al_Queda in Iraq.
Does anyone have the stats? How many are there. A handful? Hundreds? Thousands? Has the CIA been taking a survey?
This reminds me of the chatty cathy doll, (aka Tony Snow). Pull the string and it will say, "We are fighting al_Queda in Iraq." over and over.
How many times will this string be pulled from now until Sept.
I'm only half stupid
Are you suggesting that
al Qaeda is not fighting us in Iraq?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I am suggesting
that as long as it is politically expedient for the President to do so, if he decides there is even one al-Queda, he choose to highlight as the evil enemy, we will be fighting al_Queda in Iraq.
I am actually suggesting that this is the new marketing strategy for the war, repackaged and made palitable with more freedom now available. (h/t PM)
I am suggesting that we will be told we need to 'go deep or get out', to prevent unimaginable chaos.
I am suggesting that the news will be managed with strategically planted op-eds, well placed AEI 'experts' that warn us of 'the threat' if al-Queda in Iraq is allowed to 'win' keeping this new refreshed and repackaged meme alive.
Is it gibberish on my part? Let's both of us watch the news from now until Sept to see....
Shall we make a good natured game of it. I mean it really is a bit humorous when you consider that how many times Bush mentioned al_Queda
in his speech yesterday. CNN has the count at 90 mentions.
As for al Queda in Iraq..... I don't know? Do we have any stats on that, any hard evidence? Is it the insurgency? Is it al Queda wannabes? Is it Saudi Arabia defending the Sunni's from Shiite dominated rule? I haven't seen any hard data on how many originalist al Queda are in Iraq. But to be fair I imagine that would be hard data to get.
I'm only half stupid
Juan Cole on AlQueda in Iraq
Last month I ask:
And Juan Cole said this too today:
http://www.juancole.com/2007/07/bush-falsehoods-about-al-qaeda-in-iraq.h...
Our $
at work:
Why is it that many conservatives get worked up about government projects here but this kind of government waste is only ignored and tolerated?
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Since your on public works projects
I have heard numerous times that the Iraqis have an educated workforce. If that's so, it should mean they have qualified mechanical, structural and civil engineers and architects and ability to carry out construction projects. Why can't they design and build their own hospitals, schools, bridges, pipelines, etc., etc.? Our presence in Iraq should not turn into AID or Peace Corps effort so we can win the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people. Let them build their own public works projects. We should be there for mostly military purposes, and even that effort, should focus on our air and artillary support of the Iraqi military.
name the enemy, win the war