Bush's New Iraq Strategy

[hm0504]

President Bush announced his new Iraq strategy on January 10.

[Boreas]

I am not sure why the definition of insanity being "when you keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results" keeps going through my head in relation to what they have said about Bush's "new" strategy.

[usmc1]

OK, let's see if I've got this. We're going to escalate our force by 17,000 combat and 4,500 support troops and invade, reinvade Baghdad, and with a whole new crew of yes men, this time we'll be successful.

And we're doing this because if we don't the dominoes in the Middle East will all tumble and become Al Quiada terrorists.

I only wish I had a videotape of one of LBJ's escalation speeches under which I could lay Bush's aduio from last night. And vice versa.

And those who say, well, what's your alternative. I think both Murtha and Biden have put outstanding alternatives out there.

Were the consequences not so tragically dire, I would have laughed myself sick at the spectacle of a madman beating himself on the head with a ball peen hammer to relieve the headache.

That there's kinda, sorta whut ah think, y'know?

[Baron Lake]

"new" strategy?

Sen Kennedy wondered today why Georgie took 8 monthes for his latest "re-evaulation". I think it took him that long to find 2 generals stupid enough to agree with him.
b.l.

[Naturist Mark]

I am not sure why the definition of insanity being "when you keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting the same results" keeps going through my head

I think it is "Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results."

And yes, the 'surge' strategy has been tried several times before.

The important part of the speech that was not as much commented upon is the warnings to Iran and the dropping of the former language that we would seek diplomatic solutions to our problems with Iran.

Couple that with the overnight assault on an Iranian consulate by American troops (hmmm... didn't our troubles with Iran START because of their assault on American consular property?).

This speech was not about Iraq. There is no new strategy in Iraq. We are putting more troops into Iraq because we need them close to Iran. The "decider" wants a brand new war.

-Mark

[jax]

Bush should be impeach, he lied about WMD and he knew it. How many more have to die over a civil war. We can't be the policemen of the world. The USA has WMD what would we do if some country came over here.

[Boreas]

I think it is "Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results."

Yep, you are right! I think I shall go and fix that now!

[LamontCranston]

It'd be a nice service if some institution in the news media figured out what's going on.

Far too many misdirection puzzle pieces out there and all the *investigative journalists* can do is point and laugh.

Anyone else wondering what the other 140,000 troops are doing day-to-day? What's being shipped, built and protected?

How many ships of the British and US Navy are supervising the tanker flow in and out of the Persian Gulf?

Why is Saudi Arabia pleased with all this?

If Al Sadr wasn't on the deck of 52 cards, why do we care about him now? After him there will be another evil-doer. Shifting objectives divert attention from.... what exactly?

Here's hoping there's a Woodward and Bernstien out there seeking the truth instead of a few ratings points.

[nacktman]

New?

Strategy?

When was there ever any "strategy" to begin with?

Boreas and Mark got it right ... clinical insanity doesn't have a written definition in the Psychology Dictionary any longer it has a picture of the shrub instead!

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Baron Lake:
"new" strategy?

Sen Kennedy wondered today why Georgie took 8 monthes for his latest "re-evaulation". I think it took him that long to find 2 generals stupid enough to agree with him.
b.l.

I fully agree that this "new strategy" is an old coat of paint on an "old strategy", but I chose to use the term anyway as that is what it is generally being called.

As I read through the speech, I saw again the juxtaposition in the middle of it of 9/11 and Iraq -- not Afghanistan -- and his mention of past victory in Afghanistan at the end doesn't align with reality either. This is a President who still cannot be honest and straight-forward. God help America and the world.

[oldbob]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:

The important part of the speech that was not as much commented upon is the warnings to Iran and the dropping of the former language that we would seek diplomatic solutions to our problems with Iran.

Couple that with the overnight assault on an Iranian consulate by American troops (hmmm... didn't our troubles with Iran START because of their assault on American consular property?).


-Mark

Our troubles with Iran actually began in the fifties when the CIA organized the overthrow of a democratically elected president and installed the Shah of Iran. Sadly, the United States government has favored democracies elsewhere only when the results of the elections suit the U. S. government's purposes.

Bob

[hm0504]

The Bush Doctrine: No matter how far down the wrong road you go, keep going.

That sums up the president's new and improved strategy for the Iraq War.

...
We know what Bush will do, so forget Bush. The real question is what others will do about Bush. The focal point of this disastrous war now shifts to the Democrats, Republican members of Congress and presidential hopefuls, the government of Nouri al-Maliki, and the few allies the U.S. has in this mission.

...

Read Michael Harris' latest article "Democrats must rein in Bush":
http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Columnists/Harris_Michael...7/01/12/3320078.html

[hm0504]

Looks like the Taliban are doing their own new surges in Afghanistan.

"U.S.: Taliban push after accord":
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapc....ap/index.html

[usmc1]

Capital Sources: A Marine's Call for Drawdown
A 22-year-old Marine on why he wants Congress to bring the troops home.
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Dan Ephron
Newsweek
Updated: 11:20 a.m. CT Jan 15, 2007

Jan. 15, 2007 - If there was one constituency President Bush could count on to back the war in Iraq through the past four years, it was members of the military. Now, their support is also ebbing. A poll conducted recently by Army Times, a commercial publication, showed only 35 percent of service members approve of the way Bush is handling the war, down from 63 percent in 2004. When asked if success in Iraq was likely, 50 percent said yes, compared to 83 percent two years ago.

In a sign of the erosion, more than 1,000 soldiers will urge their congressmen in a written appeal this week to "support the prompt withdrawal" of all American forces from Iraq. "Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price," the statement says. Anti-war appeals are common these days but this one is different: all the signatories are active duty soldiers and some have served in Iraq.

One of the appeal's organizers is Liam Madden, a 22-year-old Marine Corp. Sergeant now based Quantico, VA. He spoke to NEWSWEEK's Dan Ephron. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: How did [the appeal] start?
Liam Madden: I was visiting a friend last summer stationed in Norfolk, Virginia, who found a flyer for a talk on being active duty and opposing the war. David Cortright, the author of “Soldiers in Revolt”, about [G.I.] dissent during the Vietnam era, gave the talk. I think people there all had one thing in common: We all thought that if you feel strongly about something, you can't just rest on your laurels and hope things get better. You have to do something. We started coordinating with each other on how to affect change in Iraq.

What's wrong with the [Iraq] war?
It's a war we never should have launched in the first place. It's been incompetently executed and it's brought no benefit to anyone involved, including the American people and the Iraqis. It's just people dying for no benefit.


You enlisted in 2003, when the war was imminent. If this was your view, why did you sign up?
I enlisted because I needed some direction. I didn't think I was going to deal with college well, I wasn't mature enough and would have wasted my opportunity there. I enlisted for personal direction and for the opportunities the Marine Corps offered. I don't think I knew for sure we were going to invade based on the evidence that was presented.

How did you react when you were told you would be going to Iraq?
I felt it was my job and it's something I would do to the best of my ability. I wasn't going to allow myself to make a big deal about it. It was part of my contract. It was important for me to complete four years in the Marine Corps to the best of my ability. So the issue [of whether] to go wasn't even a question.

Tell me about the moment you found out you'd be deployed there.
We were in Japan. Our scheduled deployment was going to be to the Philippines and we were in the middle of a big exercise preparing for that. One day, they told us not to bother because we'd be in a ship on the way to Iraq within a week. It just stunned us all.

This was around September, 2004. How fully formed were your opinions on the war by then?
I had the same opinions but to a lesser degree. At that point, I think it was still salvageable in my eyes. I didn't think it was going to be mismanaged as badly as it has been or that we were necessarily committed to the five to 10 year ordeal that it now seems we are. I thought it was, get in, do the job and get out.

What did you see in your seven months there?
The main mission of my unit was to patrol long stretches of road. I didn't get to interact with people all that often. My primary job was ensuring communications went well.... But we cleared the city in Haditha and facilitated elections. To my discouragement, neither of those things really helped stabilize Iraq. I oppose the war in Iraq for reasons anyone who's paying attention might oppose the war. It's not that I came back traumatized. It's an illegal war. It's against U.N. Security Council resolutions we helped write. It's costing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and billion dollars. It's unconscionable to me.


What will you do if your unit redeploys to Iraq?
My contract ends soon but there's a good chance I would be called up in the inactive reserves. They're in need for them. Technically, I would have to go if I'm called up but what I would do depends on where I was in my life and what I had to lose. It would force me to make a very serious life judgment.

What risks are active duty soldiers taking by signing the appeal?
We're not asking anyone to do anything illegal. We're asking soldiers and service members to call on their Congressmen to end the war. Congress has the power of the purse. They don't have to continue to fund the war. The people who are signing the appeal are active duty, active reservists and active guardsmen. These are people who don't hate the military but they oppose this policy.

But aren't you barred from signing political petitions while on active duty?
We can't distribute petitions if they're about war. But this is not a petition. It's an appeal to our Congressmen, which is protected under the military whistleblowers act.

What's been the reaction in your unit?
I've had a lot of positive feedback, even among people who don't agree. They respect my right to have my opinion. That's the general tone. There was one negative response. After my first press conference, a really media savvy high-ranking officer in the Marine Corps found my name and number and told me how much he disapproved of what I was doing, saying I was a coward and I was aiding the enemy. But I ended up having a dialogue with this guy. It evolved into something pretty positive in emails for a couple of weeks.

How do you respond to those charges—that you're aiding the enemy and demoralizing troops?
How does what I'm doing embolden the enemy? I think you embolden the enemy by deploying hundreds of thousands of troops to the Middle East and validating the view that we're imperialists. We're asking for a reasonable end to this conflict.

[hm0504]

Thanks for post that usmc1.

Usually, Bush can count on an appearance with the troops for a good photo-op but apparently the recent one, a post "new strategy" speech at Fort Benning, didn't go according to plan as Bush received a distinctly tepid response from the soldiers there. More about the damage control:
1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...AR2007011100389.html
2) http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/0...-fort-benning/