The newly released study on Iraq has claimed that, if matters continue as they are, “The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized.”
The report went on to observe that the Pope is Catholic and bears defecate in woodlands.
Geez, is it possible for Americans to become *more* polarized?
Much is also being made of Gates candidly stating that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq. However, I don’t think he actually said we’re *losing* it. It reminds me of Otto in “A Fish Called Wanda” declaring that we didn’t lose Vietnam, angrily claiming, “It was a tie.”
Personally, I’m thinking it’s only a matter of time before the Democratically elected head of Iraq is unDemocratically capped or subjected to a violent militia-driven overthrow. Maybe *that * will finally qualify as a civil war to Bush.
PAD
• 
>C’mon now, guys… this is Peter David’s message board! Surely we can do more than simply call each other names. It doesn’t befit someone of his stature to have that kind of thing happen on a blog with his name on it.
PAD can defend himself very well, after all he owns the delete button. The question is more if he will deem the clap and pj have been spewing worth a response. I doubt it.
>Seems to me that when the isolationists win, events like what happened in Rwanda occur.
LOL! That is so funny. Isolationists are at fault for Rwanda? ROTHLMAO! Yah, isolationists are so at fault that I never heard the neocons once start an arguement with a lefty to advocate an invasion to bring the tribal cleansing to an end. In fact the only people who begged for us to do something were the left leaning people who you are denigrating with your posts.
>I love how you can totally gloss over all the foreign policy decisions the US made concerning Iraq between the years 1992 and 2000 as if they didn’t exist and have nothing to do with the situation we are currently in.
Oh is that so, well how about a little history lesson. Who’s mess are we dealing with now? George Bush 41! The idiot father instead of heading Saddam off BEFORE he invaded had our ambassador give Saddam the green light!
“September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop buildup, but went on to say:
“We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late ’60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly.”
Some have interpreted these statements as diplomatic language signaling an American “green light” for the invasion.”
We could have told Saddam he couldn’t invade Kuwait without a response from the us. We could have moved troops into the area to scare him off. We could have called for the UN to speak out against an invasion in 1990. It’s not like Saddam had made his intention known or that the Kuwaiti and Iraqis had been involved in multiple negotiations over territorial boundries and slant drilling for a long time. No Bush 41 was neutral on the subject until of course Saddam DID invade and then it’s INVASION, INVASION! WE MUST DRIVE SADDAM OUT!
So I agree let’s not gloss over history, let’s discuss the complete incompetance of both father and son!
>acknowledge there is some ancillary benefit to our actions.
God, I feel like I’m watching Fox News! What benefits? Fox news is always yelling about “no one reports the good”… Bunny thing is even they don’t have any good to report. Yawn. Typical repub empty claptrap.
>”Darin: The same for you. Stop whining and get over there and support the troops.”
>Now here’s an example of a thoughtless statement.
Right on the money in my opinion. Anyone who advocates war should also be the same person out fighting it. I don’t care how old you are, put yourself into the same position as you do others. But then Bush didn’t show up for duty, his daughters are to busy partying and getting kicked out of south american countries to fight in their father’s war. Chaney avoided services, none of the newly elected repubs have ever served… Yet these are the same people who keep accusing the left of not supporting the troops. They can’t even fight in the war they advocate and they have the audacity to accuse others of letting down the troops…
So if you think this war is so important, GET OVER THERE! NOW! I don’t care how old you are, I don’t care if you served years ago, if you are willing to put others in harms way then you should be willing to put yourself right next to them! There are plenty of things you can do and make far better money than our troops who are in the cross hairs do. Civilian support staff are being paid 6 figures just to drive trucks between bases. The silence of your inaction is deafening!
Mr Peter,
Nice of you to make this into a partisan rant. At no point in any of my posts will you note any indication of party policy or leanings.
Funny thing is, I have no great love for either 41 or 43 and can blessedly profess to having never voted for Bush outside of forays on a drunken Saturday night.
Since however, I have elicited your righteous indignation, lets pursue your avenue of reasoning further…
[sarcasm filter on] Besides, I have to take a break from sitting around with Bill Buckley, drinking martinis in front of the fire and dreaming up new ways to throw another couple of gen x’ers or y’ers (or whatever letter your using to identify yourself these days) on the fire so we can manage to keep the unemployment numbers articficially low and try and convince everyone we’re experiencing another boom. Cluck, cluck, cluck. [sarcasm filter off]
Acknowledged, our foreign policy has been botched for a very long time. Also, acknowledged there is no great coalition of the willing springing forth to unify together in the defense of Iraq and freedom.
Instead of typing all in caps (the keyboard equivalent of screaming), I have yet to see you offer up any solutions for the quagmire Iraq has become.
Let’s say Bush is horribly wrong for his decisions (which is something to the effect Colin Powell warned well in advance of the invasion the you break, you buy it reference). There isn’t even an argument about that, I concede that to you.
It remains the decision was made, it’s history, there is no going back. You can be as angry as you want to be, scream as loud as you want to the moon or to anyone who will listen but, what is confronting our nation now Is coming up with a solution.
The most appropriate point in this discussion so far has been Mr. Tang‘s observation: What we do NOT do well is counterinsurgency and low level conflicts, which is where you must combine political and military solutions to eradicate terrorists. The mistake of this adminstration is using high intensity conflict tactics to pursue a low conflict strategy.
Do you honestly believe a complete pullout of all Americans in Iraq is in the best interest of anyone or are you willing to let the situation fester for another two years so it is the primary focus of the next executive to hold the office of president? Neither option seems palatable.
Also, no one wants to seem to acknowledge all the other agendas in the region. Turkey’s agenda, Iran’s agenda, Syria’s agenda – everybody has a chip in the game right now – a total abdication of an American presence in the region sounds good to you?
See, here’s the thing – I read a bunch of angry comments and I’m thinking most of the people writing those comments don’t know what it is to wait on line for gasoline, to have rationing on odd or even days depending on their plate.
Hey, let’s go even further, let’s get together and go demonstrate and we can all hop into your SUV and drive down there, how about that? Oh never mind, let’s just each of us drive our own SUVs to the demonstration.
Better still, let’s raise the price of gasoline up over $6.00 a gallon, works for me. I just can’t wait to see what the heating bills on all the McMansions are. I want to see you have a choice between filling up your obese gas guzzling turd and feeding your family, or maybe a choice between heating your home and feeding your family.
Maybe you don’t live somewhere where you drive so your attitude is such you could give a rat‘s ášš about the price of gasoline. Well, let’s just jack those fuel prices way, way up so the cost of your groceries (which are mainly trucked around the country) goes through the roof and leaves your wallet full of dust and not much else.
Let‘s pump up your rent to offset the increased costs your landlord has heating or cooling your apartment – the price of oil goes up and the price of energy goes up as well. Your electric bill will go up and that free time you have surfing the net will become all the more precious.
Or maybe, just maybe, you’re still suckling at the teat of mommy and daddy, so paying bills isn’t high on your list of priorities (that’s the old rub about the net folks).
Mmmm… war? Important, I don’t think I would quite put it that way. War isn’t important so much as a necessary part of how humanity goes about settling its differences. Unless your writing from some idyllic eden where there aren’t things like crime or violence because I seem to see those things around me every day. I think it’s unfortunate, I wish the world were a better place but all the wishing I have won’t change the reality of the world.
I relish your indignation, your anger, the bile you spew. Yes, I’m one of those FOX News, right wingers the world is oh so very black and white and oh so simple – I am the villain in your skewed world view (excuse me, BWAH HAA HA!). I am in awe of your reasoning, I bow before your markedly superior intellect. I will have to use the ‘nyah, nyah’ defense the next time I attempt to get into an balanced discussion of issues.
Also, if you can point me to one of those six figure jobbies, I’ll tell you right now I’ll take my chances. I’d drive a truck for six figures.
Ðámņìŧ, I was sure I closed that tag!
I think the Otto analogy is a good one. I made a compilation video to see if we could take that analogy any further.
You can see that here.
Mister_pj:
(God, where to begin?)
Wow, our standing throughout the world will be diminished? Excuse me while I go over and shed a few crocodile tears, I find myself terribly disaffected by the specter of such an event. Our nation is not the bìŧçh/whørë of the world trying to sidle up to all the other nations in an attempt to be their friend or to be popular.
Nobody wants to see the U.S. as the world’s bìŧçh, despite the desires of SOME people that the U.S. act like the world is ITS bìŧçh.
But you don’t seem to realize that even a “superpower” has limited resources!
This particular superpower is, as even Bush realizes, addicted to oil and has no oil, and is dependent on other nations for its oil.
This particular superpower has also, under Bush, gone into DEBT. It’s dependent on other nations for money. Once I heard Dennis Miller ask what this deficit thing was. “Do we owe something this money? If we do, fûçk ’em!” That’s stupid. You know what happens if you don’t pay your debts? People won’t lend you any more money. So, what then? What happens when China, or whoever, calls in the debt and we say “fûçk you”? Nobody in the world will be willing to help pull us out of the financial quicksand we stumbled into again…ever! So it’s in our best interest to keep the nations we owe money to HAPPY. If they dislike us, they can call in the debt and we’ll be pretty well screwed.
I am not so naïve as to believe we don’t have a vested interest in the region but, acknowledge there is some ancillary benefit to our actions. I recall the chestnut: All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Allowing the situation to continue to fester like a boil was not an option.
Yes…but “good” men cannot be everywhere at once! Look, evil is going to triumph somewhere, like it or not. The U.S. simply does not have the manpower or resources to go around the world stamping it out wherever it lurks, which is all over the place. Anybody who thinks that Saddam Hussein’s government was the only one that treated its people with extreme cruelty is woefully ignorant.
And maybe if so many troops weren’t tied up in Iraq, and if we hadn’t made the U.N. reluctant to work with us by pìššìņg them off, we could form a U.N. peacekeeping force to go into Darfur and *do something*.
Winning and losing become random terms when there are no clear cut definitions of the success or failure criteria.
Leave aside that we austensibly invaded Iraq for a set of reasons that with benefit of 20 seconds analysis turn out to be spurious, there turns out to have been no post victory plan other than ‘these guys will welcome us as liberators and embrace democracy’.
It would actually be arguably better if we’d acted as an occupying force and crushed resistance by meeting force with extreme force. (Go look up ‘pax romana, pax britannica and pax roxelana’)
As a Brit I’ve worked with a number of Americans over the years and I will offer two very generalised observations;
1) You always seem to be genuinely surprised when people don’t like you, or your country, or your country’s actions.
2) You frequently follow up the surprise with outrage, insults and/or violence instead of considering that maybe you are at fault in some areas.
Cheers.
As a Brit I’ve worked with a number of Americans over the years and I will offer two very generalised observations;
1) You always seem to be genuinely surprised when people don’t like you, or your country, or your country’s actions.
2) You frequently follow up the surprise with outrage, insults and/or violence instead of considering that maybe you are at fault in some areas.
Well, to be fair, you did say they were generalized observations. I would, however, point out that (A)- at the very least, everyone I know who didn’t vote for Bush (which translates to about half the voters) would have no problem at all accepting the idea that there are people who don’t like us; (B)- plenty of those on the conservative side freely aknowledge that as well, though they may be more likely to consider the source and not take such attitudes to heart; and (C)- if your co-workers actually resort to “violence” when confronted with someone who states a simple difference of opinion, you may want to consider a different line of work. They seem to be hiring some rather unstable people.
My own experience with British people is that they are, by and large, lovely folks with a great sense of silly humor, though perhaps with a tendency for overgeneralizations.
“if your co-workers actually resort to “violence” when confronted with someone who states a simple difference of opinion, you may want to consider a different line of work. They seem to be hiring some rather unstable people.”
Indeed they were.. the individual I had in mind was an ex-CIA security consultant we had in while setting up a datacentre in Newcastle. He went to the local police station to try and arrange armed guards for the site, and used to relax by going round the docks looking to start bar-room brawls… He was pretty far out on the probability curve, regardless of nationality, especially if he thought anyone was slagging off the ‘US of A’.
Cheers.
“But I do have to get on with my life away from the blogosphere, so this will be my final post on this thread. You all have the last word.”
Cutting and running? I’m shocked. What would George W. Bush say? I’m asking because, y’know, if you parroted his words any more than you are now, you’d be perched on his shoulder shouting, “Pieces of Eight! Pieces of Eight!” So I figure if anyone could say what he would say, it’s you.
PAD
Truth is, I’ve had my ášš in the grass
All the more reason to re-enlist. The government has stop-lossed thousands of soldiers because they say need to keep experienced people. So your experience would likely be welcomed to help keep the newer soldiers alive.
Here’s where you can start.
http://www.goarmy.com/ArmyCareerExplorer.do?page=applyOnline
http://www.goarmy.com/contact/find_a_recruiter.jsp?hmref=cs
A ex-CIA security consultant who starts bar fights for fun? Yeah, I’d say he’s pretty out there. Did they ever think that maybe they wouldn’t NEED so much security if they didn’t have this clown going out and making enemies?
(And how tough WAS this guy? He goes to a foreign country and picks fights with strangers? I know the English are fabled for politeness but wouldn’t the odds favor him ending up dead in a ditch somewhere before too long?)
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 7, 2006 06:46 AM
2) You frequently follow up the surprise with outrage, insults and/or violence instead of considering that maybe you are at fault in some areas.
Violent crime has sharply risen in the U.K. in recent years. And football “hooliganism” in Britain has resulted in riots where numerous people have been killed. The latter problem doesn’t occur with anything close to the same frequency or severity in the U.S.
You are not helping your case by making gross overgeneralizations about the U.S., nor by attempting to overlook flaws in British culture. No society is perfect, but that’s no excuse for stereotyping.
There are many, many people in the U.S. who are upset about our loss of stature as a result of the Iraq war. Many of us didn’t want to our government to invade Iraq in the first place; many more now recognize too late that it was a mistake. Rather than witnessing the behavior of one American and making wild generalizations, you would be better served to learn about the world around you and THEN form your opinions.
Oh — Captain Naraht, I saw your post and I do intend to respond. I just haven’t had time. Your inquiry deserves a thoughtful answer and I’d like to make sure I give it one. I have the day off tomorrow — that should help. 🙂
And Den…don’t make the mistake of trying to fight terrorism soley by military might.
Okay, I’m confused. When did I make this mistake?
Looks like I missed all the fun last night while I was teaching. I don’t really know that I have much all to add, other than the fact that I find it astounding that people still believe that WMDs were found in Iraq, a claim even Bush has given up on. I guess that’s where the fightin’ 30-percenters come from.
As for the report itself, what struck me is that they included language warning Bush that their suggestions need to be implemented all or nothing and told him that he shouldn’t try to take their advice and try to implement them piecemeal.
I think that’s the one piece of advice will take and he decides to eventually ignore everything and just continue to “stay the course.”
No, most of congress voted for the war, but most of the democrats voted against it.
No, the 9-11 commission established Iraq did not support Al Qaeda. This isn’t the first time you’ve been corrected on your factual inaccuracy.
But, yes, Iraq was a sponsor of terrorism, paying out $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers from the same oil-for-food kick-backs he paid Ðìçk Cheney $73 million with. When do we declare war on Wyoming?
Yeah, those pesky WWII-generation-Bush republicans are just so sick of being political outsiders of those Vietnam-dodging-Bush republicans.
Why do you keep mispelling fascism? Do you have some kind of problem with faces? Is that your real problem with weapons inspections — too tolerant of faces?
Gotta love the Gov’t. It does a heackuva job of spending millions of $ on a report that…pretty much confirms what the rest of the world has known for the past 18 months.
And on a related topic…has anyone else gotten the impression that the real reason why Bush 41 broke down crying last week wasn’t beause he was so proud of Jeb…but because he was thinking about how Bush 43 has pretty much ruined Jeb’s shots at a successful bid for the White House?
“I’ve enjoyed stirring up the pot here.”
Begs the question–believer in what he says or just saying things for a reaction?
I was going to make some cattle-mutilation/Wyoming joke, but right now I can’t think of a coherent one that would be funny to anybody outside my head(they that live in it, though, are currently doubled over in hysterics) so insert your own HERE.
And on a related topic…has anyone else gotten the impression that the real reason why Bush 41 broke down crying last week wasn’t beause he was so proud of Jeb…but because he was thinking about how Bush 43 has pretty much ruined Jeb’s shots at a successful bid for the White House?
Most definitely. I think he’s realized that the idiot son has so badly tranished the family name that it’s doubtful that even his smart son’s children will have a political career now.
And that’s why he got so teary eyed about the 1994 governors race in Florida. Remember in 1994, both Dubya and Jeb ran for governor of their respective states. Dubya won and Jeb lost. That gave the idiot son the headstart to work on a presidential bid. Bush 41 was probably thinking that if only Jeb had won in ’94 instead, he’d be the one in the White House and wouldn’t have needed Baker to pull his ášš out of the fire again.
NBC Nightly News last night asked some people their opinions about the report. One woman called it “Monday Morning Quarterbacking”.
Quite frankly, I think that woman needs some sense knocked into her.
Many people, myself included, predicted before this bs war started that it would be likened to Vietnam, that it would be a quagmire, that it would be a colossal failure that would only spread terrorism in the world.
But now it’s Monday morning QB’ing? What a crock, what an utter joke some Americans have become.
mister_pj –
I love how you can totally gloss over all the foreign policy decisions the US made concerning Iraq between the years 1992 and 2000 as if they didn’t exist and have nothing to do with the situation we are currently in.
Let’s see… Saddam didn’t have WMD and he wasn’t invading his neighbors.
Seems like those foreign policy decisions were working.
Emperor Bush unilaterally decided otherwise, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Where is all that high minded furor and rage when it comes to taking a stand to put a stop to events like this?
See below.
Seems to me that when the isolationists win, events like what happened in Rwanda occur.
Darfur.
And guess what? I see no furor there, just like there was non with Rwanda. Embarassing.
We are no more isolationist now than we were 10-15 years ago. Our leaders just ignore these places because they have no oil.
If you’re going to make such claims about isolationism, you should at least be truthful about them.
but, acknowledge there is some ancillary benefit to our actions.
And what would that benefit be? It certainly hasnt’t been a benefit to the Iraqi people, who may be dying in even greater numbers now than they were under Hussein.
It certainly hasn’t been beneficial to Americans, who have to pay for this ridiculous war while the real war-mongers like Bush and Cheney have profited.
The whole lot of them should be hung for war-profiteering.
Bill Myers said: “Oh — Captain Naraht, I saw your post and I do intend to respond. I just haven’t had time. Your inquiry deserves a thoughtful answer and I’d like to make sure I give it one. I have the day off tomorrow — that should help. :)”
Thanks Bill.
Most of the posters here still arguing about Iraq itself and not the report. I like the discussion, but I’d like to hear people’s opinions on how the thing can work or what the challeges are to the report. I come to this blog because it keeps the name-calling to a minimum and the thoughtful discussion flowing.
As much as I historically disagree with Mister P, I can’t fault his reasoning when he states: “There are a lot of conflicting goals for the players in the region. Turkey or Iran don’t really want to see an independent Kurdish state. Iran wouldn’t mind seeing a Shia dominated government which it could rule by proxy. Saudi Arabia and Jordan are concerned about having a Shia dominated alliance along their northern borders. It’s not a simple situation and it won’t be solved with a simple solution.
If the EU would become more actively involved along with the Arab League things might improve but again, each group has an agenda of their own none of which may be in the best interests of the majority of people in Iraq (and I am not saying we don’t have an agenda of our own). Abandoning those people is an even bigger crime than leaving Saddam in power would have been.”
That’s the sort of thoughtful comment (whether you agree with it or not) that keeps me coming back to Peter’s blog. My response would be “How do we get the Arab Legue and the EU together? By a comprehensive diplomatic strategy that accounts for all agendas.” Not something being done there for a while. At least since Yitzak Rabin was murdered.
If we all are responding to the report with a collective “well, duh” what are some of your thoughtful suggestions to make it work?
–Captain Naraht
“… but the idea of going into Baghdad, for example, or trying to topple the regime wasn’t anything I was enthusiastic about. I felt there was a real danger here that you would get bogged down in a long drawn-out conflict, that this was a dangerous, difficult part of the world…”
– Ðìçk Cheney, 1996
Apparently 9/11 addled his mind so much that, even when the result were the same has he predicted 5 years earlier, he still went forward with them.
what are some of your thoughtful suggestions to make it work?
I’m not sure I have any. I have no confidence whatsoever that Bush will do anything other than “stay the course” (a phrase he has used several dozen times, then outright lied and said he never used it before).
We are holding the Iraqi government’s hand right now, and I think the only way to get them to have a chance of succeeded is to tell them that we’re not going to stay there forever, and show them that we’re going to follow through with leaving.
So far, the Iraqis have shown no initative, their militia is in shambles, and I wouldn’t trust their police either.
Bush has created a situation where, imo, we cannot win. At this point, there is only “how long before we leave?” and “who’s heads should roll for this fiasco?”
“… but the idea of going into Baghdad, for example, or trying to topple the regime wasn’t anything I was enthusiastic about. I felt there was a real danger here that you would get bogged down in a long drawn-out conflict, that this was a dangerous, difficult part of the world…”
– Ðìçk Cheney, 1996
You know what amazes me about this comment? The bushapologists will throw out every quote they can find that Clinton made about Saddam in order to justify an invasion he never initiated, but develop a strange case of collective amnesia when it comes to Cheney’s statements from the same time period about why we shouldn’t invade Iraq.
The only possible solution now that seems to me to have a chance to bring peace to the Iraqi people is a massive training of a viable police and military force from within.
This is not impossible–there is nothing genetically deficiant with Iraqis and great soldiers have been made out of less promising material. The greater problem I’d fear would be infiltration by Al Qeada and other forces.
There should be a crash course in training americans to learn the languages needed. Massive infiltration of the insurgency. Use of the kurds in large part for the police force–in exchange for a promise of virtual independence of Kurdistan (Turkey can be told that their acceptance of this is a requirement for any chance of entrance into the EU, though I think that is probably a dead issue and I don’t blame the Europeans for feeling that way.)
Might be too late–we should never have dissolved the Iraqi army–but it’s better than the frighteningly large number of people I’ve seen who seriously suggest that it’s too bad we can’t put Saddam or someone equally totalitarian back on the throne.
The only possible solution now that seems to me to have a chance to bring peace to the Iraqi people is a massive training of a viable police and military force from within.
Yeah, but isn’t that what we were supposed to have been doing for the past three years? I agree that there isn’t anything genetically wrong with the Iraqis, so the problem then has to be on us. I just heard that our embassay in Baghdad has 1,000 employees, but only 33 of them speak Arabic.
You’d think teaching our personnel how to speak Arabic would have been a priority sometime since 9/11.
You’d think. Weren’t a bunch of arab speaking military men kicked out under the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy? Good to have our priorities, er, straight.
Here, let me make this easy for some of you. You’re right, about everything… about Bush, about the WMD, the mistakes our government has made, the incredible waste of money and lives, it’s made people the world over hate us and we are a horrible, horrible, misguided society for doing what we did – it’s all true – you win!
Now, what is the solution for this country that is royally f**ked if we just pick up all our toys and go home? Do we have any responsibility to put things right or do we just run away? Does anyone ask the question about the aftermath? Is it a fixable situation? What are our options?
Far be it for me to be an apologist for an administration I find barely tolerable (and that’s putting it mildly) but, that aside how do we move forward? If the problem is dealt with see my earlier comment about letting the situation fester and then no matter who wins a race in 2008 they will spend much of their energy trying to figure out a solution.
Oh and regarding Mr. Alfred’s comment: And on a related topic…has anyone else gotten the impression that the real reason why Bush 41 broke down crying last week wasn’t beause he was so proud of Jeb…but because he was thinking about how Bush 43 has pretty much ruined Jeb’s shots at a successful bid for the White House?
Way to give a guy douche chills first thing in the morning, I could feel the ol’ sphincter tightening up at the prospect (Jeb successful). We can only hope the damage is so severe.
In regard to Mr. Brown’s comment And maybe if so many troops weren’t tied up in Iraq, and if we hadn’t made the U.N. reluctant to work with us by pìššìņg them off, we could form a U.N. peacekeeping force to go into Darfur and *do something*. Hëll man! Don’t you know that‘s in a continent we’ve already raped and pillaged?! If there is nothing in it for us why be so dámņ high minded!? (again, sarcasm through the cold characters of the interenet may fail to come through but I would agree heartily with you on that)
mister_pj –
it’s all true – you win!
Yeah, you’ll really see all of us who were right jumping up and down for joy.
I’ve said it before: sometimes, it doesn’t pay to be right.
But we’re certainly paying for Bush being wrong.
Is it a fixable situation?
Imo, no.
Do we have any responsibility to put things right or do we just run away?
Going by Powell’s “Pottery Barn” rule, yes, we do a responsibility to Iraq. But we also have a responsibility to our troops not to send them on any missions that are doomed from the start.
Does anyone ask the question about the aftermath?
Every day.
Is it a fixable situation?
Magic 8-Ball says: Highly Doubtful.
What are our options?
And there is the rub. Leaving is a bad option. Staying is a bad option. Trying to get Iran and Syria to play ball with us is a bad option. There really aren’t any good options, at least in the short term. That’s really the central conclusion of the study group. Can we fix it? I don’t know. I hope so.
Like Craig said, I take no pleasure in being right about this mess.
What would it take to do a presidential recall election? It isn’t like Gray Davis did anything as severe as invade Utah.
“what are some of your thoughtful suggestions to make it work?”
The big question is just how far Bush is going to act on the suggestions made in the report. Even now, Jack Crouch II is supposedly putting together “options” for the president that will “borrow” from the panel. This isn’t an apple barrel. You can’t pick the good ones and leave the not so good ones for other people.
One thing that struck me is what Farouq al-Sharaa said. “The entire international community may not be able to solve it. But let them be a little bit modest and accept whoever has the capability to help.” That might be the best course I’ve heard. We made the mess, but instead of just walking around spreading it around like broccoli we don’t want to eat, maybe we should turn to other countries and say, “Hey, give us a hand here, will ya?” Might even restore some of the standing we lost with people.
One bad thing about staying: it continues to degrade our military capability.
One, personnel are being worn out (post traumatic stress syndrome) and worn down—this is outside the deaths and injuries. We’re maintaining re-enlistment rates, but I suspect that a great deal of it is because the soldiers do not want to leave their comrades back in Iraq in the lurch.
Two, our equipment is being degraded, worn out and broken, and I believe it is NOT being rebuilt and replaced as quickly as it is being gone through. This includes ordinance and weaponry, but more importantly, heavy equipment, construction equipment, etc., some of which has been drawn from the National Guard here in the states. That, of course, is their purpose, but if it’s not being maintained and replaced, this is stretching our capabilities for response overall.
No good solutions here at all.
Captain Naraht’s Horta Junta Presents:
The Comprehensive Summit for the Middle East:
The Players: USA, Syria, Turkey, Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Israel. the EU, Russia.
The Broad Agenda:
1. The Kurdish Opportunity
2. The Palestinian Opportunity
3. The Sunni and Shite Opportunity
only then…
4. The Future of Iraq
The Dream team of US Diplomats: James Baker III, Jesse Jackson, Colin Powell, James Earl Carter, Senator Richard Lugar (R)IN, Madeline Albright, and of course, Condi Rice.
Mission Statement: “The World won’t get no better, if we just let it be…(insert na-na-na’s). The World won’t get no better…we got change it girl, just you and me…”
–The Captain
Posted by: Mike at December 7, 2006 11:47 AM
What would it take to do a presidential recall election?
An amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Some of you may be thinking, “Uh-oh, Bill responding to Mike equals trouble…”
Worry not. Going forward, anyone who wants to cause trouble will have to do so without my assistance. I am going to ignore future attempts to provoke my anger, because, well… I can.
This isn’t an apple barrel. You can’t pick the good ones and leave the not so good ones for other people.
That assumes that the recommendations are all good. The fact that this was a bipartisan group in no way ensures that it was a wise one. It could be argued that they were so eager to reach unanimous consent on every suggestion that they compromised when they should have recommended something more specific.
I’m not overly encouraged by what I’ve read thus far–the idea that Iran and Syria could possibly help the situation seems amazingly naive and removed from reality. Adding “the right of return” to issues the Israelis must negotiate also seems a non-starter. We might convince the Israelis to give their enemies a knife but I don’t expect we will persuade them to press it against their throat.
The Dream team of US Diplomats: James Baker III, Jesse Jackson, Colin Powell, James Earl Carter, Senator Richard Lugar (R)IN, Madeline Albright, and of course, Condi Rice.
Condi acting as the stenographer, right?
The Dream team of US Diplomats: James Baker III, Jesse Jackson, Colin Powell, James Earl Carter, Senator Richard Lugar (R)IN, Madeline Albright, and of course, Condi Rice.
Replace Jimmy Carter with Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson with someone serious.
I’m not overly encouraged by what I’ve read thus far
I think you may be right there, Bill. From the looks of it, it gives Bush just enough cover to get him through the remainder of his term, yet also gives the obligatory “mistakes were made” acknowledgement to appease the democrats.
Replace Jimmy Carter with Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson with someone serious.
How about letting Carter stay and replacing Jackson with Clinton?
Bill Mulligan, I know you have a strong point-of-view about Carter, but he IS a skilled diplomat. He proved it when he helped broker peace between Israel and Egypt.
If diplomacy skills are needed, you reach out to proven diplomats.
Communique from the Horta Junta:
In defense of Jesse Jackson: While I don’t agree with everthing he says, he HAS negotiated the release of prisoners no one thought would see the light of day. He is an out-of-the-box thinker the Team would need.
Considering the roster of the rest of the Dream Team he is a nice addition who if he says or does something nuts, the more pragmatic members (Lugar, Albright, Baker) will keep him grounded.
–Captain Naraht
Comminique from the Horta Hunta:
First Summit Meeting: January 31st 2007, Sponsored by Egypt and held in Cairo, to take up agenda issues 1-3.
Second Summit Meeting: September 1st 2007, Sponsored by Jordan and held in Amman, to take up agenda issue 4.
–The Captain
And on a related topic…has anyone else gotten the impression that the real reason why Bush 41 broke down crying last week wasn’t beause he was so proud of Jeb…but because he was thinking about how Bush 43 has pretty much ruined Jeb’s shots at a successful bid for the White House?
Not quite. When 41 broke down, he was talking about Jeb’s maintenance of “honor.” Contrast that to how utterly dishonorably his eldest son has acted and I could easily understand why Bush Sr. broke into tears.
Bill Mulligan, I know you have a strong point-of-view about Carter, but he IS a skilled diplomat. He proved it when he helped broker peace between Israel and Egypt.
And in further defense of Carter, while he wasn’t a great president by any stretch of the imagination, he is greatly respected by many of the players from whom we’d need cooperation in such an effort, which is something this administration sorely lacks.
If diplomacy skills are needed, you reach out to proven diplomats.
So again, I’ll ask: Why Condi? When has she ever demonstrated any proven diplomatic skills? What great agreements has she brokered? Yeah, yeah, she was appointed Secretary of State – by the same administration that appointed a guy with no real experience in emergency management to run FEMA, so that really proves nothing.
Condi Rice is still the duly appointed Secretary of State of the United States of America and whether you or I or Joe Six-pack agree or disagree with her, she MUST be involved in the process. Period.
–Captain Naraht
BTW, if you haven’t seen today’s NY Post, you’ll see a nice example of that “fair and balanced” reporting Murdoch’s organization is so famous for:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12072006/frontback.htm
Condi Rice is still the duly appointed Secretary of State of the United States of America and whether you or I or Joe Six-pack agree or disagree with her, she MUST be involved in the process. Period.
But what if you want the effort to succeed?
“But what if you want the effort to succeed?”
The same could be said of including ANY of the players. For three years the plkayers have been saying we won’t include thus-and-so. Well, were has it gotten us? I say include people in the process who disagree. You have to start somwhere. Regardless of your critisism of Rice, I don’t think she would sabotage the thing. Even Nixon went to China.
—Captain Naraht
What would it take to do a presidential recall election?
An amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Next best thing: Impeachment.
Mr. Sasha, I just want to be sure of one thing – you really want Ðìçk Cheney to be president?