IRAQ A GOOD IDEA?

[vernecarty]

Our children's and grand-children's future is being threatened.  So...I say they should be suppressed.

Thomas Maddux

The threat is greater than you know and supression will not utlimately matter.
Why?
Do the math.
They are procreating (as a matter of strategy), at four times the rate of Westerners so it is only a matter of time...

[brian]

The president can be persuasive in the content of his speeches and eloquent in his delivery.

eloquent??  :rofl:
he doesn't get accused of that very often.

On the war, he should constantly quote what al-Qaida and other extremist organizations state is their objective for us.

i don't think the problem with bush's strategy has been a lack of fear-mongering, but rather the loss of credibility that goes along with an extended campaign of fear-mongering based on lies and distortions.

another problem with the white house's stragedy is its polarizing approach. domestically, they have disparaged anyone who sees flaws in their plans as unpatriotic and a terrorist-lover.  they have surrounded themselves with stalwart neo-conservatives and are unwilling to acknowledge any other perspectives as having credibility. they are well-protected from any unwanted outside perspective.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/heroic_secret_service_agent_takes 

internationally, his policies have effectively divided our friends while uniting our enemies. this is very dangerous. it has paralyzed the world's ability to deal with iran, for instance. there are no good options in iraq, only ones with varying degrees of catastrophic results. this is why we should never have destabilized the country in the first place. most of the rest of the world knew this very well, which is why they did not support an invasion in the first place.

Iraq would surely be overrun by al-Qaida fanatics who would then establish a radical Islamic state like they did in Afghanistan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda#Questions_about_the_plausibility_of_the_link

saddam's dictatorship was the only thing holding iraq together, keeping al-qaeda from gaining any footholds there. by removing him, disbanding iraq'a army, dismantling iraq's economy, and all of the other foolishly reckless actions we took there, we created the perfect place for these bitterly divided factions to battle it out militarily.



so either they can battle it out with us deeply involved, costing us hundreds of billions of dollars (so far...) or they can battle it out without us helping things along. either way, a failed state in the middle-east is a terrible result, and bush's choice to blindly pursue this course of creating one is an unforgiveable and irreparable error.

our army has been stretched so thin by these conflicts that we are no longer able to handle new threats, such as iran. the ability of our military strength to deter emerging threats to our security has been deeply compromised, despite the hundreds of billions of dollars we put into the effort. it will take years to build up our reserves and readiness to former levels - if we pull out now.

the white house has worked hard at selling the idea that we are so morally superior to other nations that any immoral act we commit against them is justified, in a war of choice. this is an extremely dangerous attitude for the most powerful nation on the planet to embrace. a little humility about some of the extremely immoral actions we have committed in our time would be appropriate. the countries that hate us generally have really good reasons for it. don't get me wrong, i love the usa, but we have done some awful things to weaker countries over the years.

with the fall of the soviet union and the end of the cold war, we were in a unique position of being the most powerful nation on earth by a very large margin. no nation had ever been so powerful in the history of the planet. bush sr did a slightly better job than clinton in using this position of power to build international consensus and cooperation. our current president, however, has squandered our international credibility and caused the world to lose faith in our leadership, resorting to a 'might makes right' approach that divides our friends and unites our enemies. as a country, we have been self-indulgent, taking for granted our position of power in the world, and not bothering to educate ourselves about what is actually happening and what our role in it has been. that is what our children and our children's children will pay the price for. if this conflict begins to spread to other countries, such as iran, it will be draining our resources and spilling american blood for decades.

i don't know what the answer is. but it is a certainty that the man who got us into a mess like this is not the kind of man who could ever get us out of it.

So...I say they should be suppressed.

they should be surpressed for being muslim? wow 
holy wars breed the very radicalism you are condemning. not to mention the moral issues around militarily surpressing people because of their religious beliefs.

verne, i completely agree with your observations of what happens to the people who work for this administration. they end up being the fall guys. it says a lot about how these people operate.

brian

[Oscar]

Brian,

First of all, let me deal with this:

Quote from: Tom Maddux on March 17, 2007, 11:54:32 am
So...I say they should be suppressed.


they should be surpressed for being muslim? wow 
holy wars breed the very radicalism you are condemning. not to mention the moral issues around militarily surpressing people because of their religious beliefs.

verne, i completely agree with your observations of what happens to the people who work for this administration. they end up being the fall guys. it says a lot about how these people operate.

brian

I was referring to radical Muslim Jihadists and those who support them.  I certainly was not calling for a holy war against all Muslims.  If I gave that impression I did not express myself clearly.  Nevertheless, I am quite in favor of defending both my life and my freedom, (and yours), against those who would attempt to deprive us of either.  I have been called many names in my 65 years...but Polyanna is not one of them.

You said:

i don't think the problem with bush's strategy has been a lack of fear-mongering, but rather the loss of credibility that goes along with an extended campaign of fear-mongering based on lies and distortions.

It would be useful if you were specific about the "lies". Most of the folks I have heard making this accusation are talking about the apparently erroneous belief in the presence of WMD's in Iraq before the war. 

It is undeniable that they did not find many WMD's when they went in. I remember reading about one large cache of gas laden artillery shells that they found, but not much else.  However, don't forget that the secret services of Russia, England, France, Germany, Israel, and Jordan all believed they were there.  Also, don't forget that the Senate Intelligence Committee had exactly the same information as GWB before they voted to go to war.

...internationally, his policies have effectively divided our friends while uniting our enemies.

I do not believe that this is true.  Right now the Left is in charge in most European countries, and they hate and fear the USA.  They always have.  They don't hate us because of Iraq.  They hate Christianity, Capitalism, and free market economic policies. They know that large numbers of Americans believe in all or most of these things.  THAT is what they hate.

Recall, for example, that when Spain had a conservative government they supported the war. (Bush's lies sure did fool a lot of folks eh?)  After the Al Quaida attack on the commuter trains, they voted in a leftist government which promptly left the war.

During the Cold War, the leftists blamed Russian aggression on the USA, and constantly called for unilateral disarmament by all NATO countries.  Ronald Reagan's upgrades to our forces were vehemently condemned.  (He was stupid y'know)

internationally, his policies have effectively divided our friends while uniting our enemies. this is very dangerous. it has paralyzed the world's ability to deal with iran, for instance.

Actually, the paralysis of European countries is caused by the pathetic condition of their military preparedness.  The large armies and fleets of the Cold War era are gone...gotta spend more on government giveaways y'know.
England's current naval program is designed to reduce their fleet to 19 major units....19!

saddam's dictatorship was the only thing holding iraq together

True enough.  It is evident that we had a lot to learn about the influence of radical Islam in the area.  We also did not have a good picture of what would happen if he were removed.  Here, in my view, is the major failing of GWB and his crew.  There simply was no plan to administer the country.  I do, however, agree with the decision to disband the army.  It was nearly completely composed of Sunni's who had oppressed and murdered the Shiite's and Kurds for 30 years.  No popularly elected government had a chance of succeeding as long as that much power was concentrated in a hostile army.

Brian, you seem to have fallen into the habit of making sweeping moral condemnations of people you don't like.  The problem with this is you have to actually know what is moral and what is not.  You seem to feel that you do. 

Would you mind explaining just how that works?

Tom

[vernecarty]

This may be a bit off topic but can anyone explain to me what it is about so many associates of this current administration that issues in the remarkable stench of coruption, deception, malfeasance and things of the sort??!!
Now we have the case of Mr. Wolfowitz having the unspeakable arrogance and even greater doltishness to engage in the most egregious act of nepotism in using his position as president of the world bank to advance the career of his lover.
When the rest of the world begins to look at this country's supposed best and brightest with such contempt and an air of moral and ethical superiority you know we are in trouble.
Mr Wolfowitz, excercise a little dignity and resign from your post so sparing us the sickening prospect of your explaining to us how you could have been so incredibly stupid and corrupt...

[Oscar]

This may be a bit off topic but can anyone explain to me what it is about so many associates of this current administration that issues in the remarkable stench of coruption, deception, malfeasance and things of the sort??!!
Now we have the case of Mr. Wolfowitz having the unspeakable arrogance and even greater doltishness to engage in the most egregious act of nepotism in using his position as president of the world bank to advance the career of his lover.
When the rest of the world begins to look at this country's supposed best and brightest with such contempt and an air of moral and ethical superiority you know we are in trouble.
Mr Wolfowitz, excercise a little dignity and resign from your post so sparing us the sickening prospect of your explaining to us how you could have been so incredibly stupid and corrupt...

Verne,

I do not follow the political news very much.  What are you talking about?

Tom Maddux

[vernecarty]

Verne,

I do not follow the political news very much.  What are you talking about?

Tom Maddux

Mr Paul Wolfowitz is considered by many to be  the chief architect (along with Cheney) of the American policy with regard to our invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam Hussien. He ran the show before Paul Bremmer from Kissinger associates was sent over there to try and straighten out the unbelieveable mess that has ensued. He was most recently at the fore-front of the announcement (as one of the contract's architects) of the news that the Iraqi governement had been
presented with a formula (written in English no less) for how the international community under the gracious auspices of the World Bank would "help" Iraq bring its oil to the thirsty world market.
Anyway, apparently not to long after his installment as president of the World Bank, he strong armed the movement, over the objections  of many of his wiser colleagues. of his girlfirend to a post in the State Department at a huge increase in salary (190,000.00) yet kept her on the World Bank payroll!!
Considering that one of the most challenging tasks the World Bank has is to try and keep corrupt officials and governments who receive development monies from stuffing it into their pockets and the pockets of their friends and relatives, Wolfowitz with this one stroke has demonstrated either unbelieveable stupidity or unbelieveable hubris.
He  has apologised for his "mistake" but the fact of the matter is there is no way he can remain effectively in that post after what he did.
No wonder so many developing nations resent us...they believe, and it is often true, we want everyone else to play by the rules...

[brian]

from tom below:

I was referring to radical Muslim Jihadists and those who support them.  I certainly was not calling for a holy war against all Muslims.  If I gave that impression I did not express myself clearly. 

i apologize for leaping to that conclusion. i can see that it was unwarranted. i have heard others articulate 'holy war against muslims' kinds of beliefs and i let that influence my interpretation of your comments.

However, don't forget that the secret services of Russia, England, France, Germany, Israel, and Jordan all believed they were there.  Also, don't forget that the Senate Intelligence Committee had exactly the same information as GWB before they voted to go to war.

we got the intel from germany, who got it from a mentally-ill underling who had fallen out of favor with saddam and was allowed to move to germany with his family and live there for free in return for his intel. he was a proven liar, and was highly motivated to pretend to have information important enough to justify germany giving him and his family safe refuge and a stipend. that’s why none of these other countries wanted to join in our invasion of iraq - they knew exactly how shaky the intel was. plus we sent out undercover investigators to confirm the intel and they came back saying it didn't pan out. they were hushed up.

Brian, you seem to have fallen into the habit of making sweeping moral condemnations of people you don't like.

that’s not a sweeping condemnation of me is it?

from verne:

Anyway, apparently not to long after his installment as president of the World Bank, he strong armed the movement, over the objections  of many of his wiser colleagues. of his girlfriend to a post in the State Department at a huge increase in salary (190,000.00) yet kept her on the World Bank payroll!!

additionally, he had set himself up as a champion of integrity, leading the noble charge against corruption in the World Bank. so much for that. also, you know what his girlfriend got a job doing? writing up recommendations for how the new government in iraq should be structured! i assume she strongly endorsed cronyism.

one of the biggest mistakes this administration made in iraq, and elsewhere, was in valuing blind loyalty over competence. in the interviews of who would be going over to re-build iraq with $20 billion, people were asked who they voted for in 2000. many talented, experienced economists, engineers, ambassadors, etc were passed over because they were pro-life, or not against gay marriage, etc. the people in key positions typically had very little to no experience, but were very loyal, so they would unhesitatingly implement catastrophic decisions. for instance, the 20-something fellow tasked with re-building the iraqi stock market had only had one job in his life - at a mortgage firm, dealing with real estate. the guy tasked with restructuring the iraqi economy had been an economics college professor his entire life - no practical experience at all, but big on his pet theories. he made the decision to get rid of all debt and all savings of the iraqi state-run companies, just like that. this effectively destroyed the strong viable companies (which had the most savings) and greatly boosted the most bloated, useless companies (which had the biggest debts). the strong companies promptly collapsed, while the weak ones puttered on with infusions of our cash - because their inefficiency employed larger numbers of people. somehow bremmer managed to spend $20 billion without restoring reliable electricity, clean water, basic hospitals, basic educational facilities, etc - not even to the capital city. $12 billion of his spending is unaccounted for - something congress was questioning him about several weeks ago. there are loads of examples of these kinds of decisions. the resulting (totally reasonable!) unhappiness in the general population heightened tensions, and since bremmer had disbanded the army and police force there was no security. mix age-old religious conflicts and some power-hungry clerics into the equation and you have civil unrest. bush responds by stubbornly plunging headlong down this same path, learning nothing, and now we have civil war. we can't stop a civil war by "surging" our troops up a little. it requires carefully crafted compromise, something this administration does not believe in and is not capable of.

an excellent book about what has gone on in Iraq, if anyone is interested:
Imperial Life in the Emerald City http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Life-Emerald-City-Inside/dp/1400044871/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-8216520-7164807?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177095122&sr=8-1

it was written by a guy who lived in the green zone in baghdad, watching the situation go from mediocre to horrible nightmare through a series of incompetent decisions, mixed with corruption. he interviewed many of the key players throughout the process of getting iraq's new government in place and attempting to re-engineer iraqi society in bush's image. we have completely ruined that country. the shootings at virginia tech are nothing compared to the violence and chaos they experience every day that is a direct result of the instability WE brought upon them. attacking iraq had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with fighting terrorism, that is a flat-out lie by the bush administration. that’s not even a debatable point any more, its a historical fact. saddam was the best check we had AGAINST al-qaeda getting a foothold in iraq. now that’s gone and they are all over the place.

bush's policies have, however, given terrorism its biggest boost in decades by simultaneously increasing polarizing religious tension in the world, while building up terrorism into a far more menacing threat than it actually is. terrorists are a motley collection of  disaffected minorities that have to rely on the shock value of the crimes they commit to inspire fear because they are utterly incapable of carrying out an actual war (and not that great at carrying out their crimes). all terrorists are looking for is a platform of fear from which to proclaim their message and bush, as their best pr rep, has built them the biggest platform he could muster. he did this because it was in his political interest to do so - it was the only way to advance his personal agenda. he planned to invade iraq well before 9/11, and the fear 9/11 inspired combined with a few well-chosen lies gave him the support he needed. because so much of our military force has been sucked into the foolhardy conflict in iraq, afghanistan is rapidly falling back into the hands of the Taliban.

a recent example of the way bush lies: bush claimed that the democrats were not considering the best interests of the american troops because they tied a troop withdrawal plan into his military spending bill. he made the claim that the military only had enough money to last until april without this funding bill, and now he would have to veto it which would delay funding past this critical date. when the Congressional Research Service confirmed that the military had plenty of funds to last until june, it was dismissed as simply being wrong. now the pentagon itself has come forward and confirmed that they have plenty of funds to last until june.
the story blogged: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/19/bush-iraq-spending/
bush was lying, as usual, to make it look like the democrats were putting the troops at risk. the democrats have actually been working really hard to help scale back the exploitation of our troops by the bush administration.

there are lots of examples. are you familiar with the plame investigation? its been in the news for over a year now, culminating in this conviction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Libby
so its still unresolved, since libby refused to admit that vp cheny told him to out valerie plame as a secret service agent in order to shut up her husband who had provided solid intelligence that there were no weapons of mass destruction in iraq BEFORE the president started announcing to the american public that there was. since libby protected cheny, he was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice and will serve time, and cheny is off the hook. its typical of how this administration works.

this is why its such a horrible idea to vote for someone just because they use God-speak and go to church on sunday. they do that cause polls show that it helps them get votes. thats it.

wow, i really didn't expect to write this much.

brian

[DavidM]

Good Job Brian, I'm glad to read that someone is following the political news!

I agree that Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Tenent, Libby maybe "fall guys" but they aren't too far away from Cunningham, Abramoff, Ney, and Delay.

[Oscar]

Folks,

Here is a perspective from someone who has "been there".

................................


Lt Col Says It All

(Shared by Chief Ed Tatyrek)

"I'm Tired"

Two weeks ago, as I was starting my sixth month of duty in Iraq, I was forced to return to the USA for surgery for an injury I sustained prior to my deployment. With luck, I'll return to Iraq to finish my tour.

I left Baghdad and a war that has every indication that we are winning, to return to a demoralized country much like the one I returned to in 1971 after my tour in Vietnam.  Maybe it's because I'll turn 60 years old in just four months, but I'm tired:

I'm tired of spineless politicians, both Democrat and Republican who lack the courage, fortitude, and character to see these difficult tasks through.

I'm tired of the hypocrisy of politicians who want to rewrite history when the going gets tough.

I'm tired of the disingenuous clamor from those that claim they support the Troops' by wanting them to 'Cut and Run' before victory is achieved.

I'm tired of a mainstream media that can only focus on car bombs and casualty reports because they are too afraid to leave the safety of their hotels to report on the courage and success our brave men and women are having  on the battlefield .

I'm tired that so many Americans think you can rebuild a dictatorship into a democracy over night.

I'm tired that so many ignore the bravery of the Iraqi people to go to the voting booth and freely elect a Constitution and soon a permanent Parliament.

I'm tired of the so called 'Elite Left' that prolongs this war by giving aid and comfort to our enemy, just as they did during the Vietnam War.

I'm tired of antiwar protesters showing up at the funerals of our fallen soldiers. A family who's loved ones gave their life in a just and noble cause, only to be cruelly tormented on the funeral day by cowardly protesters is beyond shameful.

I'm tired that my generation, the Baby Boom -- Vietnam generation, has such a weak backbone that they can't stomach seeing the difficult tasks through to victory.

I'm tired that some are more concerned about the treatment of Captives than they are the slaughter and beheading of our citizens and Allies.

I'm tired that when we find mass graves it is seldom reported by the Press, but mistreat a prisoner and it is front page news.

Mostly, I'm tired that the people of this great nation  didn't learn from history that there is no substitute for Victory.

Sincerely,
Joe Repya,
Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army
101st Airborne Division

[DavidM]

Tom, I read this around a year ago. I suspect it is written by a very patriotic individual who actually believes what he wrote. However, he totally disregards the facts mentioned in Brian's post. It would be nice if we were really over there doing the right things and all that was needed was  "hard work".  But the sad truth is  we live in a world where "A Rich Man's War is a Poor Man's Fight". The longer we go at it the upper classes in this country are going to benefit, while the middle lower classes pay the price. My advice is beat them at their own game. Invest in their companies and get as much back they stole from you while you can! btw  HBO did a documentary on people who had "been there" I will see if the transcripts are on line and post the address.

http://movies.aol.com/truestories/the-ground-truth

[Oscar]

Dave,

1. It may be old, but it reflects the feelings of a lot of folks, including many who have been involved.

2. There is a sense in which all wars are"'rich man's wars".  It is also true, however, that this is a gross oversimplification of reality.  Boeing Aircraft made millions during WW2 selling B-17s and B-29s to the AAF.  Does that mean that they should not have done it?  Did not the "lower classes" benefit from the prevention of the Fascist states of Germany and Japan taking over the world?

Speaking as a member of the lower class, I happen to think that they did. (My folks were poor southern whites with grade-school educations.  I know all about poor.) 

2. The Muslim Jihadis are out to de-stabilize and take over the governments of near eastern states. Imagine how much trouble the world is going to be in if we end up with a nuclear armed Iran dominating Iraq and controlling their oil resources.  When they screw up the world economy your stock prices just might end up in the tank.

BTW, what is your recommendation for preventing this?

Tom Maddux

[brian]

concerning where this letter came from:

The resurgent circulation of the "I'm Tired" message on the Internet in <NOBR>April 2007</NOBR> was likely spurred by the fact that Repya, who now lives in Eagan, Minnesota, and has played an active role in Minnesota politics for the last decade, announced on <NOBR>10 April</NOBR> 2007 that he would challenge incumbent Ron Carey for election as chairman of the Republican Party of Minnesota.

in other words its political propoganda, not genuine sentiments. repya is trying to win the approval of the republican party.

there are several generals who have spoken out against rumsfeld, cheny and bush's decisions - most notably General John Batiste, who was the military commander in Iraq. this is extremely unusual during wartime, and a clear sign of just how poor republican leadership has been. these brave men are putting their life-long careers on the line to speak out.

from http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/24/reid-to-support-iraq-funding-bill/ :

Throughout all of this, our military has performed heroically. Our troops have done everything asked of them, and more. Our troops toppled a dictator and gave the Iraqis a chance to establish a new government and a new way of life. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration did not provide them a strategy that matched their sacrifice. Iraq is now in a state of civil war, with no end in sight, and our valiant troops are caught in the middle.

Instead of accepting this reality, President Bush stubbornly refuses to change course. Instead of listening to his military commanders who say there is no military solution in Iraq, he has plunged our forces further into sectarian infighting. Instead of accepting a bipartisan path in Iraq offered by the Congress and even the Iraq Study Group, the President stubbornly clings to his failed “my way or the highway” approach to governing America.

Major General John Batiste, who commanded the First Infantry Division in Iraq says this about the President’s failed Iraq policy: “Here is the bottom line: Americans must come to grips with the fact that our military alone cannot establish a democracy… We cannot sustain the current operational tempo without seriously damaging the Army and Marine Corps…our troops have been asked to carry the burden of an ill-conceived mission.”

Earlier this year, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said the problems in Iraq are more complex than Vietnam, and military victory is no longer possible. i highlighted this in counterpoint to repya's claim that the only thing both vietnam and iraq needed is more stubborn resolve to fight

General George Casey, formerly commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and currently Chief of Staff of the Army, said, “It’s always been my view that a heavy and sustained American military presence was not going to solve the problems in Iraq…”

Six months ago the Iraq Study Group said the situation in Iraq was “grave and deteriorating.” The civil war in Iraq has only gotten more pronounced since then.

videos of what General Batiste has to say:
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=batiste

batiste in the news, on iraq:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=batiste+bush+iraq

babtiste is gravely concerned with how bush's decisions have crippled the military without slowing the deterioration of the situation he has created in iraq. when the general who served there is telling us this, i think we would be foolish not to listen. its incredible that bush still claims he listens to his generals - he most certainly does not, any more than he listens to congress or the american public. 65% of the iraqi's want us to leave. 64% of americans want us to leave. just how seriously does bush take the precepts of democracy?

brian

[outdeep]

in other words its political propoganda, not genuine sentiments. repya is trying to win the approval of the republican party.

Can I then expand that principal to say that any statement made by anyone in politics is not genuine and simply propoganda for their party?  Or should I just apply this to folks I don't happen to agree with?

[Mark C.]

  Both of the Generals you mentioned, Brian, have made commercials against Bush's policy and one of them is writing a book.  This makes these men just as suspect as the pro-Bush Republican that Tom quoted.

  Any war in hindsight can be critiqued and as a result terrible failures re. it's execuation will always be discovered--- it's just the nature of these kind of conflicts.  The real issue is in stepping back and looking at the options available:   If we leave, it is like Tom says, a nuclear powered Iran will rush in and fill the vaccum; this cannot be allowed!

  History has shown that generals are very poor when it comes to that "stepping back" and getting the big picture that I mentioned above.  This is why in the US the President is Commander in Chief and hopefully he will be the kind of person who will sacrafice political expediency in order to advance more lasting and higher objectives.

  War in Iraq is a very painful and costly involvement for our people, but the cost of just packing up and going home would have ramifications that most certainly would cost us much more in the future.

  If Bush were just pursuing some kind of political agenda he would do what is popular and choose to appease the majority that want us to leave.  Bush's willingness to "stay the course" shows he has a greater commitment to what is best for the long term in face of political loss for him in the short term--- he is a honorable man (even if you disagree with his views).

                                              God bless our fighting men and women now, and those who have given their lives in the past to preserve our freedom let us never forget!              Mark C.

[Oscar]

Brian,

You said:

babtiste is gravely concerned with how bush's decisions have crippled the military without slowing the deterioration of the situation he has created in iraq. when the general who served there is telling us this, i think we would be foolish not to listen. its incredible that bush still claims he listens to his generals - he most certainly does not, any more than he listens to congress or the american public. 65% of the iraqi's want us to leave. 64% of americans want us to leave. just how seriously does bush take the precepts of democracy?

1. I heartily agree that there have been a series of blunders and failed ideas in our attempts to pacify Iraq.  It is a mess and drastic changes are needed. Bush and his advisers have made the same kinds of mistakes in trusting the wrong advice again and again.

It is interesting to compare this situation with other similar situations from the past.  In the Civil War Lincoln faced the same sort of problems.  For the first two years of the war he went through a series of Generals who promised to deliver the goods.  McClellan, Burnsides, Meade and others.  We faced a series of military disasters at places like Bull Run/Manassas, (twice), Antietam, Chancellorsville, Shiloh, (we won that one but at a horrible cost), Fredricksburg, and others. Tens of thousands were killed and wounded as a result of their incompetence.  All of them could just not seem to defeat and destroy  the Army of Virginia in spite of a huge advantage in men and resources.

The problem is this: How do you know which strategy will work until you put it to a real world test?

Finally, U. S. Grant was put in charge.  His philosopy was: a. Bring overwhelming force to bear. b. A willingness to sustain large numbers of casualties over an extended period of time.  Lincoln's political opponents fumed, raged, and heaped vitriol on both Lincoln and Grant from late 1863 to 1865.  But they were proved right in the end.

A more recent example is Harry Truman.  He trusted the "great" general Douglas MacArthur who seriously botched the job of driving the Communists out of Korea.  He left office with very low approval ratings.  He is now considered one of our greatest presidents.  His long-term vision of containment of Communism proved to be successful.  Again, it was when he fired MacArthur and brought in Matthew Ridgeway that we began to win in Korea.  He implemented his "meat grinder" tactics which finally destroyed the huge Chinese army...but only at the cost of a lot of casualties.

Bush has been trying to win on the cheap.  The results of this folly are evident.

You also said:

its incredible that bush still claims he listens to his generals - he most certainly does not, any more than he listens to congress or the american public. 65% of the iraqi's want us to leave. 64% of americans want us to leave. just how seriously does bush take the precepts of democracy?

Actually, he is listening to the precepts of the Constitution.  He told the public what he would do if re-elected, and they sent him back.  Surprise surprise!!   He is trying to do it. 

Our constitution was designed to be a representative democracy, not a direct one.  Ancient Athens demonstrated the weaknesses of a direct democracy.  Public opinion can be minipulated by rhetoric and media images.  The idea that public policy should be run by media poles is an invention of the media itself. 

The power of the media was demonstrated in the Vietnam era.  They focused on the casualties, ignored victories, heaped criticism on Johnson, excused Kennedy for getting us involved beyond the advisor stage.  They portrayed the North Vietnamese as patriots fighting for "freedom".  They called Ho Chi Minh "The George Washington of Vietnam.  They finally got enough support in Congress to cut off funding for the South Vietnamese a year after we had left.  As a result a couple of million people were brutally murdered and many millions more have lived in poverty and without basic human rights for 30 years.


So, Bush is simply trying to do what he told us he would do right up front.  BTW, I don't think you will really see any pull-out from Iraq even if Hillary gets elected.  She knows just as well as Bush what the stakes are, and they are VERY high.

Tom Maddux