Yes. That "leave em to stew in their own juices and kill each other approach" really worked well for us before, didn't it?
Posted on 01/12/2007 7:29:24 PM PST by NapkinUser
Wednesday night, George Bush seemed to play his last card in the Iraq war. It was not impressive. Consider.
First, he warned of the awful consequences of a U.S. defeat: "Radical Islamic extremism would grow ... in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons."
Bush then warned of the awful consequences of the Baker commission proposal to "announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces." "(T)o step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear the country apart and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale."
Twin those two warnings, and what is Bush saying?
His critics favor a course in Iraq that risks the fall of Baghdad, Iraq torn apart, slaughter of our friends, a surge in Islamic terror, the toppling of moderate Arab states, chaos in the Gulf, billions in oil revenue flowing to al-Qaida killers and a nuclear Iran.
And how do we avert so monstrous a calamity?
A "surge" of 21,500 troops, 15 percent of the U.S. forces already in Iraq, to pacify the capital. And even that troop commitment is "not open-ended."
This is just not credible. For, if the situation is as dire as Bush says and the potential disaster as horrific as he describes, the logical course would be to treble the number of troops in Iraq and commit to fight indefinitely.
How explain the disconnect? Is Bush absurdly exaggerating the consequences of a pullout?
No. U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East are indeed at risk because of the hubristic folly of our political elite in putting them there, when they launched this insane war.
But Bush cannot now commit to fight to victory, because the war is lost in the United States. Two-thirds of the American people are unwilling to make the sacrifices to save Iraq. Though they do not want a defeat and may not realize the consequences of a defeat, they are willing to risk a defeat, rather than continue to read of American kids being IED'ed to death and dismemberment in Baghdad and Anbar. The people want out and are saying to hell with the consequences.
That is the political realty that underlay the president's modest proposal of a "surge" to avert what he warns is a strategic disaster.
But Bush has to know the card he played is not going to save the pot into which he has plunged his legacy, the credibility of his country and America's standing as a superpower.
Which leads me to believe Bush has yet another card to play, an ace up his sleeve. What might that be?
Midway through his speech, almost as an aside, Bush made a pointed accusation at and issued a direct threat to -- Tehran.
To defend the "territorial integrity" of Iraq and stabilize "the region in the face of extremist challenge," Bush interjected, "begins with addressing Iran and Syria."
"These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."
Now, any networks providing "advanced weaponry and training" to jihadists and insurgents are outside Iraq. Otherwise, they would have been neutralized by air strikes already.
So, where are they? Answer: inside Syria and Iran. And Bush says we are going to "seek out and destroy" these networks.
Which suggests to this writer that, while the "surge" is modest, Bush has in mind a different kind of escalation -- widening the war by attacking the source of instability in the region: Tehran.
"I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region," said Bush. "We will deploy ... Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies."
But there is no need for more carrier-based fighter-bombers in Iraq. And the insurgents have no missiles against which anyone would need Patriot missiles to defend. You only need Patriots if your target country has missiles with which to retaliate against you.
What Bush signaled in the clear Wednesday is that air strikes on Iranian "networks" are being planned. That would produce an Iranian response. That response would trigger U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, for which Israel and the neocons are howling.
And should this scenario play out, what would Hillary, Biden, Kerry, McCain, Giuliani, and even Pelosi and Obama do? Hail Bush as a Churchill. At first.
And Bush would have another legacy than a lost war in Iraq. Like Menachem Begin, only big-time, he would have his own Osirak.
"Pat's a has-been demogogue preaching to an ever-dwindling amen-corner."
The only dwindling I'm seeing is the support for the Iraq war.
Israel knows that their Jews are decidedly different from Americanese jews. Why ours remain clueless and vote 'Rat is totally beyond me. I does not get it neither.
"That doesn't means they all have fingers on triggers."
But they have them very close by.
Despite what you read and see in the papers and on TV, most Iraqis do not want a civil war. Unless you're just crazy for carnage, it makes no sense to go this far and give way to chaos, which no one can say and non one knows will lead to a good outcome for US interests. Most Iraqis want a democracy, peace, and order. Iraqi soldiers are fighting and dying for the current government numbers greater than our own servicemen. Despite being targeted by suicide bombers, Iraqis still join the police and army every chance they can. We have allies today even in Fallujah There, just a couple of days ago, 900 men showed up to sign up for the police force. It's not as bleak as most people believe. Too many people want to go off the deep end in their analysis and recommendations.
I disagree. In an infantry battalion, most of them are trigger pullers. Those are line units. Outside of the HHC, those guys are 11B.
Well, I agree that the press doesn't understand how much additional force is being added. As an aside, I hope they are thinking about bringing the mercenaries in Iraq under the UCMJ. Technically they are civilians, but they are armed and many are ex-military, and they could be made useful.
Do you really think that PJB is as prominent and influential as he was fifteen years ago or are you just kinda sayin' stuff?
If you paint Al Maliki in the same light as the NVA, it becomes more apparent why he isn't putting very much effort into defeating insurgents. Perhaps he's just playing along with Bushes "democracy" dream until America gets frustrated and leaves, then he'll do what he really wanted to do all along- wipe out the Sunni's and other minorities at long last. It also makes why Al Sadr (mookie) is still breathing make sense, and why the moderate Shiites, led by that old half dead Mullah Sistanni are deathly silent. It's not a good situation no matter how you look at it. The Sunni's screwed themselves by not participating in the new government, and taking the insurgent route instead, Mookie wasn't killed when he should have been along with his band of cut throats, Now the hardliners have the power and Bush is forced to support them, while the moderate Shiites are hiding in fear of Sadr and gang and are out of the picture.
They were the ones whose Mullah Sistanni was in agreement that Government should be secular and separate from religion. So unless Bush can break the Sunni insurgency and get the Sunni who do want a democracy back into the picture, and can get rid of Mookie and clan, it doesn't look good, at least not in my view. He needs to smash some things hard to pull it off.
If used properly. They also can get in the way.
We'll know very soon if al Maliki is going to keep his word. Lately, he's been very firm against al Sadr in his rhetoric. We'll see soon if his deeds add up.
Bit of history. Zachary Taylor used Texas rangers as scouts during his invasion of Mexico. They were a mean bunch, and hard as hell to manage, but Taylor found a role for them.
Its an exponential curve.
That's true, But does Bush have the will to do what needs doing is the question. He can't fight a PC war anymore, and if he tries, then he'll fail I'm afraid. The remaining baathists have to be taken out, even if it means taking out Saddams entire town, Sadr city needs leveling and some other cities in the south need cleansing as well.
Then there is the regular stream of foriegn fighters streaming in to deal with. Of course every airstrike will be on a wedding party of house full of women and children as well, so Bush really has to do something about media.
Shooting them if they are "imbedded" with terrorists would be a 'unfortunate accident'- offering them ZERO protection is another, kicking them out of the green zone and forcing them to take their chances would clear them out.
I guess we will just have to wait and see how things develop however; no matter how much armchair generaling we do, we can't possibly know what's going on and what situations there are on the ground over there. And we sure aren't going to get the truth from media either.
Well if nothing else I hope Bush's move has our enemies scratching their heads wondering what the hell is he doing?
So, you think we should go nuclear on Iraq then?
Reduce it to rubble?
Bury hundreds of thousands of men, women and children under that rubble?
I just want to understand exactly what it is you mean. Perhaps you don't mean going nuclear, just loading up 100 B-52's with 50 MK82's each and carpet bombing Mosul or Baghdad?
Yes. That "leave em to stew in their own juices and kill each other approach" really worked well for us before, didn't it?
That picture sure brings back horrid memories'
"So, you think we should go nuclear on Iraq then?"
I never said that. I'm just observing how other countries were brought under control in the past.
"Yes. That "leave em to stew in their own juices and kill each other approach" really worked well for us before, didn't it?"
You know as well as I do that Jihadists need no excuse for what they do. Our policies could have varied a thousand different ways and those people still would have attempted what they did on 911.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.