The classic definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result.
We’ve been sending troops into Iraq. The result? Civil War, fighting, and young people dying.
Bush’s solution? Send troops into Iraq.
Different result?
No reason to believe so.
Someone should do a dictionary entry for “Insanity” with Bush’s picture next to it.
PAD
• 
I really think Bush is just trying to prevent the total collapse of Iraq’s government for another two years so that he can dump it in the lap of his successor.
And of course, when that happens, it will be all the democrats’ fault.
When the invasion started wasn’t there a general (who’s name escapes me) that said we would need A LOT more troops to keep the country under control once Saddam was given the boot? Wasn’t this general given the boot himself? And wasn’t there at least one other advisor who warned Bush it could cost a gazillion dollars rather than the $4.00 in change that Cheney & Co. were asserting?
I don’t mind conservatives/Republicans/right-wingers urging everyone to look forward not behind. After all, Bush is Their Man and it’s better for them if nobody dwells on the mistakes that have already occurred – but Jesus, there was no shortage of people, many of whom had access to the president, shouting warnings about the invasion from Day One – and they were marginalized, criticized, and accused of not being patriots.
And now it turns out they were right all along. I’ve got this urge to go around the country and yell into every right-wingers face “See? We told you so! Years ago!” and then give them a wedgie.
What I would like to hear from Bush:
“When I went into Iraq, I believed we were doing the right thing; I thought that overthrowing a dictator was a moral thing to do, and I believed that once he was overthrown, Iraq would become a stable and functioning democracy. I made a mistake. Iraq is now unfortunately even more dangerous than it was under Saddam.
If I was faced with the same decision again, I would look for ways to contain and control Saddam without invading and overthrowing him; I see now that has only caused more chaos. I apologize to the American people for making this mistake. At this point, I ask for their support in resolving the situation. Now that we have invaded, Iraq is in chaos, and as much of a mistake as the invasion was, we will make things even worse if we just leave the situation in chaos. So I ask people to set aside their justifiable anger at my mistake, and work together to prevent this situation from having even more dire and lasting consequences for our country. Thank you.”
There is a point at which more troops could help. If we sent in another million troops, we could basically be everywhere at once. That would squash just about everything. Perhaps the fighting would break out again when we left, but in the short run another million troops would stabalise things.
500,000 *might* be enough to do that. According to projections and estimates made in the late 90s, sending in another 300,000 wouldn’t be enough to do the job.
20,000? I don’t see how anyone could think that’s enough to make a noticable difference.
Matt – that’s a pretty good approach. I think Bush would generate a lot of goodwill by just saying “Look, I f*cked up.”
A couple of problems with your proposed statement: “I thought that overthrowing a dictator was a moral thing to do…” is a different premise for the war than we were originally given, which was “Hey, Saddam has got nukes at the end of your street and he’s gonna use them in about an hour.”
Also: “If I was faced with the same decision again, I would look for ways to contain and control Saddam without invading and overthrowing him…” I would argue Saddam was indeed “controlled and contained” already, despite the tap-dancing he was doing for the UN inspectors.
Jason, I heard on the radio, and read it again in a news story somewhere that 21,500 was the maximum number the military could afford without toally decimating our forces elsewhere. That is to say, Bush asked the Pentagon how many can we send, and the Pentagon said 21,500 would max us out. There just aren’t enough warm bodies.
I’m trying to cut Bush a break here; I don’t expect him to say “Yeah, I lied because I thought WMD was a better selling point” or “There was really no pressing need to go after Saddam, we already had him contained”. I’m just defining the bare minimum that would be acceptable for me, which is him saying “This was the wrong thing to do, and I’m not going to follow that kind of policy course anymore.”
Because ultimately, that’s what we all should be concerned about; that he (or a future president) hasn’t learned his lesson and we’ll be in for a repeat with different quagmire in the future.
I really think Bush is just trying to prevent the total collapse of Iraq’s government for another two years so that he can dump it in the lap of his successor.
Yeah, Bush & Co. are just trying to run out the clock until he leaves office.
Which is apropos really — he got into office by running out the clock as well.
So metaphorically, you’re saying that he keeps on attacking Wonder Man with a restraint collar around his neck?
Let’s have some fun correlating the different pieces between the story and Iraq: Simon is Iraq, the collar is criticism of Dubya (or is it our troops dying?), the Beast can be seen as the rest of the world, the checkers board is a diplomatic solution….
Everyone can come up with their own interpretations. 🙂
One could easily argue that Democrats saying if they TELL Bush–again–that his plan is wrong that he will change his mind … regardless of the umpteenth times before they have done that.
— Ken from Chicago
P.S. Imus asked Democrats what will more hearings and commissions and studies find out that they don’t ALREADY know?
P.P.S. Peter, the difference is, as the President pointed out, that if Iraq doesn’t fulfill promises then they will–future tense–lose the support of the American people.
They’ve already lost the support of the American people.
I think at this point, you don’t change Bush’s mind ever. His ability to tune out even the slightest criticism or dissenting voice is legendary.
The only time he’s ever changed course is when he could no longer deny it anymore, even to Barney and Laura.
Last night’s speech and this increase in troops is political and historical posturing. It really is. The problem in Iraq is so much more than if we can sweep an area and keep it free of insurgents, so much larger than training Iraqi troops. The US could train every single Iraqi to become part of the Iraqi army and police force, and still it would not matter. This is what our Adiministration fails to see. The hate these people have is so deep-seeded only an across the board ceasefire would work and that logically will never happen.
What Bush is doing is giving the appearance of the US doing everything it possibly can, the appearance he is doing everything he can. Last night was Bush placing the onus on the Iraqi government, and when the violence does not lessen and things get worse due to our escalation, Bush in November can say, “Well, we tried and the fault lies with the Iraqi government.” Then we’ll withdraw, with the appearance of doing all the US could to make it right. Or worse, he’ll propose another plan, the third of fourth of its kind in recent years. And yet, more deaths will occur this year for that posturing.
Liberals are fond of saying, “We never should have been in this mess to begin with.” But the fact is we are in it, and in it deep. But what Conservatives need to realize is nothing is going to help shy of moving our entire country there and taking up residence for decades. And that is not our role. In short, we reap what we sow, and Bush keeps sowing, sowing, sowing…
It’s not insanity to think that sending more troops could help. John McCain for one, thinks we need to. Not to say this number would be enough. But I mean, if we sent say 1,000 troops during the first Gulf War, they might have all been killed. and if someone suggested sending say 100,000, that wouldn’t be insanity, simply because the prior sending didn’t work.
also, quite frankly, it isn’t doing the same thing. Sending more troops to two specific areas who are allowed to operate in ways they were not allowed to operate before is a different thing.
It may not work. it may not be the right thing. We may need more or less. but it is hardly doing the same thing.
Not that i’d expect anyone here to admit it. They just here “Bush=bad=evil”
I got an email from Michael Moore today, from the commentary bot he runs, where he said the smart thing would be to send 28 million more troops to Iraq, let ’em each shoot one Iraqi, and the million who didn’t have guns could start rebuilding the country.
He’s being sarcastic, of course, something Mike does real well.
Bush’s obvious solution to our problems is to throw more money and lives at it. I knew six years ago that he was an idiot who was going to fûçk the country up beyond repair, but apart from voting for Al Gore I couldn’t think of any way to stop him. And apart from dropping a tactical nuke on him, I still can’t think of a way.
This low-down hwoon-dahn has made us the most hated nation on the planet, and I’m not sure if a century of Democratic rule can repair the damage he’s done.
Miles
The problem is, spiderob, that Bush’s proposal of just 21,000 troops is too little, too late. Had he sent 100,000 more troops in last year (2005) and put down the insurgency, it might have made a difference. But even that window of opportunity may be closed now. Let’s just say it: It’s on. Iraq is in a total civil war (gee, who’da thunk it?) It’s doubtful that today, 100,000 more troops would be able to contain the fighting between the Shia and the Sunnis.
Now, he’s trying to prop things up with a much smaller force with a much more limited goal and that’s somehow going to make things better?
That’s the dog that won’t hunt.
The problem is, spiderob, that Bush’s proposal of just 21,000 troops is too little, too late. Had he sent 100,000 more troops in last year (2005) and put down the insurgency, it might have made a difference.
****
I’m not really disputing that. I was very surprised to hear (when the reports came out) how few troops were being put in relatively, and it is late in the game.
I think the proposal, unfortunately, is the type guaranteed to not satisfy anyone (unless by some miracle it works, which i doubt for various reasons, but I guess I will not get into them) (1) many people want troops to be coming out-either slowly (some of which may be switchable to #2 if they thought it was working), or immediately or (2) I still hear a lot of people who want and/or wanted to go in there and “take names” so to speak with overwhelming force, which this is not (and which as you suggest it may be too late for anyway). Under this scenario, these people would feel like we are just doing enough not to lose per se, but not to win either (and thus guaranteeing a loss in the long run).
Weird thing is, as liberal as I am I would probably SUPPORT a troop surge if it was coupled with a full court diplomatic press. It could be used to stabalize the country until a regional solution is found through diplomatic talks. We might even be able to get some military support from the participants.
A statement on Senator Richard Lugar’s (R)IN website looks encouraging:
“I was encouraged by the President’s emphasis on a regional element in his Iraq strategy. Whenever we begin to see Iraq as a set piece – an isolated problem that can be solved outside the context of our broader interests — we should reexamine our frame of reference. Our efforts to stabilize Iraq and sustain a pluralist government there have an important humanitarian purpose. But remaking Iraq, in and of itself, does not constitute a strategic objective…
…For this reason, I have advocated broader diplomacy in the region that is directed at both improving stability in Iraq and expanding our options in the region. Inevitably, when anyone suggests such a diplomatic course, this is interpreted as advocating negotiations with Syria and Iran — nations that have overtly and covertly worked against our interests and violated international norms. But the purpose of the talks is not to change our posture toward those countries. A necessary regional dialogue should not be sacrificed because of fear of what might happen if we include unfriendly regimes. Moreover, we already have numerous contacts with the Iranians and Syrians through intermediaries and other means. The regional dialogue I am suggesting does not have to occur in a formal conference setting, but it needs to occur and it needs to be sustained. “
Now, granted, Senator Lugar has a habit of never saying a bad word about anybody and gushing over fellow Republicans in particular. But what if Congress forced Bush’s hand to initiate a Regional Summit including Iran and Syria in exchange for his troop surge?
–Captain Naraht
P.S. Sorry for the lengthy post.
We can’t bail right now. Whether you agree with why we are there or disagree, the bottom line is we are there, and we have to find an acceptable way to end the job.
What I want to know are the alternatives to Bush’s plan. Everyone offers an opinion, bashing why we are there, no one seems to be presenting a solution other than what he is offering.
I saw this today, and it rings true.
“I know how to be a war protestor, I don’t know how to make peace.”
We need to figure out how to make peace, so that war isn’t an option, not offer platitudes on why war is bad.
Dan, I’m curious…why isn’t US withdrawal and acceptable way to end the job? What are we accomplishing with our presence? There’s daily fighting, daily violence against civilians, and the so-called elected government has only managed to really accomplish one thing…hang a defenseless man that we handed over to them.
What would change without a US presence? I’d there’s be a change in government…which will happen sooner or later anyway. And some faction will will the violent civil war that continues today. But the faction that wins will have a trained and experience combat force that had proven it can and will defend it’s territory.
Either way, more people die. But at least without the US, the Iraqis get some hope for stability in the future. With us there, they’ll never have that, because the US will always be a target and instigating presence that continually generates new resistance fighters.
I can’t see what our presence is accomplishing either. My alternative is simple: Give both Bush and Maliki a deadline. I’m sick of hearing about how we can’t have a deadline. The Iraqis aren’t going to get their act together until they know there’s going to be a firm point of no return when they will actually have to sink or swim on their own.
My only stipulation is that the deadline has to be before Numbnuts’ term ends in 2009. No way should be allowed to just kick this to his successor.
Hmmmm. Why can’t we just leave Iraq? Let Iran and Saudi Arabia fight it out between them over its future.
Bobb, it seems that the majority of those studying the issue seem to be saying that our presence there is the only thing holding the country together (for exalple the same CIA report widelu circulated that said Iraq made things more dangerous also stated a withdrawl would be a disaster IIRC), that our absence would cause mass killings on a huge scale, and a failed state in which Al Quaeda, Iran, and everyone else moved in, possibly igniting a larger war, or providing a huge base for terrorists-which would mean we’d likely be back in a few years-not with troops maybe but likely with bombings and covert action and other things. That is what the vast majority seem to say (by this i mean not just th administration or republicans), which is why people find it so difficult-they don’t necessarily think we can get it together there, but they also think our absence would be catostrophic for not only iraq, and our interests, but the region.
and of course there are those who suggest it simply provides another on the long list of examples to enemies and terrorists that the US can’t take sustained warfare and bleed it enough and it will quit-which on eowuld think leads to bloodier wars, because rather than themselves quitting, they know they just have to inflict enough casualties to make us go home as popular support collapse. the paper tiger. This I am not saying is what “everyone” believes, but it seems very logical, given our actions of withdrawing from X, Y, and Z for the last 30 years are cited by Al Quaeda as to why we are weak. It brings up a condundrum when you want to extricate yourself from a mess, because it leads to future events that might not be messes to become messes.
Since adding 21,000 soldiers does not seem to be a sufficient way to deal with the problems in Iraq, and since setting deadlines to the Iraqis will achieve little without dealing with the causes for its failure, the alternatives seem to be leaving now or leaving later under similarly bad or even worse circumstances.
So if the best ideas in the US today are (a) running away now (b) running away after adding 21,000 soldiers and setting deadlines, than leaving is the less bad option — for the US. It will recover from this disasterous debacle in international relations as it has done from Vietnam.
For the middle east things are not going to be so good. The best case scenario is that with the US out, the different factions will work out some agreement and there will be be some kind of peace. A not so good but still optimistic scenario is that one faction wins and after a certain amount of bloodshed and refugees it reaches stability. Another optimistc option is that Iran is drawn into Iraq and finds itself in a similar mess. But these are the optimistic scenarios, and if we’ve learned anything, it is not to rely on the best case scenario.
Worse scenarios could be:
A prolonged civil war.
Slaughter of sunni and/or Shia by each other in even greater numbers, verging on the genocidal.
Large numbers of refugees.
Other countries drawn in in order to protect the Sunni from the Shia.
Iraq becoming a fromt of a Shia-Sunni War between Iran and the Arab states.
Distablizing of other governments in the region.
Exporting terrorists to other middle eastern countries and beyond.
None of these things is something the US cannot easily recover from, although I don’t know what wil happen to oil prices. But for the people in the Middle East it is going to be a little unpleasant.
Dan Tabor said:
“We can’t bail right now. Whether you agree with why we are there or disagree, the bottom line is we are there, and we have to find an acceptable way to end the job.”
What makes you certain there is one? If I drop an egg, awareness of the potential consequences of the egg falling and unhappiness with these consequences isn’t going to stop the egg from breaking when it hits the floor. It is entirely possible, indeed I would say certain, given what we know about the situation, that there is no set of options that is available to the US in these circumstances that will result in an “acceptable way to end the job.” If you say that it will result in dire consequences if we can’t do that, well…you might want to be prepared for dire consequences, then.
Bush is mad. He thinks he is a dictator.
IMPEACHMENT NOW!
Helpful.
Ze Frank comments on this in his video blog, even making references to Nixon.
http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2007/01/011107.html
BTW, Nixon radically lowered troop levels. LBJ had maxed out at 550,000. Nixon taking office in Jan 1969, had 334,000 troops by December 1970, by the start of 1972, 150,000, by november 1972, he had 25,000.
He also reduced the prime draft years from 7 to 1, and then eventually ended it.
no wonder he, despite popular conception, split the youth vote in 1972 election
Well, then based on your definition of insanity, all freelance commercial writers and artists are insane.
After all, who in their right mind would send out their work over and over again, hoping or expecting it to be bought by a publisher, when instead, more often than not (and sometimes always) they get nothing back but a rejection slip?
Seriously, though. I think there’s some truth to your assertion. Because if you think about it, the line between crazy and determined is extremely fine.
Well, creativity is gratifying.
If Bush’s goal is simply to harvest middle class savings and torture and kill, then, no, I don’t agree that he’s insane. He’s just evil.
Well, then based on your definition of insanity, all freelance commercial writers and artists are insane.
After all, who in their right mind would send out their work over and over again, hoping or expecting it to be bought by a publisher, when instead, more often than not (and sometimes always) they get nothing back but a rejection slip?
Seriously, though. I think there’s some truth to your assertion. Because if you think about it, the line between crazy and determined is extremely fine.
There is a huge logical flaw in your argument. the freelance writer is not doing the same thing every time, he is sending out the work to DIFFERENT people, with DIFFERENT opinions.
Also there is a likely possibility that he alters his work as he goes along making improvements.
The analogy is a non starter. In order for it to be meet the definition the free lance writer would be sending the same piece of work to the same editor.
Posted by Jason M. Bryant
Hëll, with the troops we already have over there, we don’t even really control Baghdad. Forget the Indian Country.
Posted by: spiderrob8
Why surprise? It’s obvious – been obvious from the beginning – that Bush is committed to fighting on the cheap – and has no idea how expensive that is.
“Don’t lose the ship for want of ha’p’orth of tar” is a lesson he has never learnt – nor needed to, since, up till now, every time he’s mismanaged himself into troub;le, someone’s bailed him out.
But the real reason he’s proposing sending only 21,000 troops is that even that few may be more than he’s got to send – raight now, according to reports i heard today, the part of the Armed Forces that’s not already over tere (or just back) is simply not combat ready… and the amount quoted to correct this (which will take months if not years) was about $100 billion – which, in Washington-speak means closer to half-a-trillion.
I live in daily fear that my son-in-law’s Reserve unit will be sent back…
Posted by: Dan Tabor
Are you familiar with the phrase “good money after bad”?
J. Alexander wrote:
>>Hmmmm. Why can’t we just leave Iraq? Let Iran and Saudi Arabia fight it out between them over its future.
Just one little moral quagmire there. We (the US) helped to make this mess by invading, and in all good concience, we shouldn’t completely leave it to someone else to clean up. Not to mention – what if Iran gained control of Iraq?
Does that mean I agree with Bush’s plans? Not at all, but we shouldn’t cut and run either.
By the way, anyone else note Bush’s none-to-subtle comments about people “stepping up” to help out either as civilians (or even better, joining the armed forces so he can send them to Iraq?)
I very rarely get involved with political discussions (hence the reason that I rarely post here even though I love this blog and PADs work) but it seems that all everyone ever does is gripe and complain about how Bush is doing it wrong “again”. I would be interested in reading a blog chain started by PAD with the expressed purpose of how each entrant would handle the Iraq situation (REAL ideas)where that is the only entries. In other words, you can not post a “that’s insane, or that’s idiotic posting after someone elses idea, only your own idea for making it better. Just a thought. Keep up the great work PAD.
Some stories just don’t get happy endings.
Herewith a potted history. (The sound you hear in the background is probably Santayana, sniggering…)
Iraq was founded in 1918 from various local tribes who had lived in the Mesopotamia region, following British victory over the Ottoman empire. British colonial policy used the ‘India model’, which involved direct control by the RAF, this included regular bombing of villages to ‘inspire a healthy respect and terror’ and had Winston Churchill – yeah, him – advocating the use of gas on the Kurds. This led to a quote from MP Sir Laming Worthington-Evans “If the Arab population realised that the peaceful control of Mesopotamia ultimately depends on our intention of bombing women and children, I am very doubtful if we shall gain that acquiescence of the fathers and husbands of Mesopotamia to which the Secretary of State for the Colonies looks forward.”
The main achievement here was to get tribes that had never co-operated at all to agree that they all wanted the Brits out. The ‘compromise’ solution was to install King Faysal as figurehead of a British backed government. This was followed by gradual reduction of British military presence through to 1930, at which point the population revolted and kicked Faysal out.
(For those wanting more info on this I recommend going to YouTube and searching on ‘Rory Bremner’ and ‘Between Iraq and a Hard Place’. It’s a British satirical show, but all the historical information is accurate and very accessible)
Presently, ‘we’ either stay in Iraq indefinitely and suppress the insurgents as vigorously as seems necessary, or we leave at some point and it seems fairly inevitable that all Hëll breaks loose behind us. (Probably within 12 weeks instead of lasting 12 years. Such is progress!)
Personally? I’d say that we announce a complete withdrawal of all military to take place on 01/07/07. That gives the Iraqis six months to either get their act together, or to get out before the volcano blows.
We then run like bûggërÿ and leave ’em to it.
Cheers.
Is Britain going to accept the assylum seekers from Iraq after the withdrawl?
but it seems that all everyone ever does is gripe and complain about how Bush is doing it wrong “again”.
I’ve already said what I think should be done and I fully admit that I don’t have all the answers.
But, is there anything anything from the past four years that would indicate that Bush will suddenly experience a surge of competence and be able to fix this mess he’s created? I don’t see any indication that he’s even capable of learning from his mistakes much less creating a stable Iraq. What reason do we have that this new slogon, I mean, “plan” will be any different than any of his previous ones?
Hello all. Just so everyone is operating on the same set of facts, the new strategy is not merely more of the same with a troop increase, as has been suggested.
The new strategic plan divides Baghdad into nine districts. An force of several thousand Iraqi soldiers and a U.S. support battalion of up to 1,000 troops in each district will provide daily security. Each brigade included about 20 U.S. military “embeds” or advisers.
The idea came from a successful Marine experiment in Anbar province, where the Marines put advisers alongside Iraqi at all levels. These US and Iraqi counterparts fought side by side on a daily basis. The result was that the Iraqi forces in the Anbar province were much more effective.
In all honesty, I hope it works.
If you mean starting from the situation as it stands now, I would start with the assumption the country would still approve of a victory in Iraq, go there myself, and drag Ðìçk Cheney’s ášš with me or accept his resignation.
I would work out a deal with Nancy Pelosi to let me borrow the trillions more needed if I let her restore a progressive tax. I would also rehire everyone I fired whose predictions turned out to be right and champion a restoration of a draft.
Caesar took 8 years to conquer Gaul, and he didn’t do it from Rome — he did it in Gaul. I wouldn’t have 8 years, but by going to fix the situation personally I could challenge my successor to follow suit.
As a personal act of contrition, I would leave Laura and the kids $5 million each (enough to fly first class every day for the rest of their lives from the interest alone) and donate everything else I could get my hands on in support of fixing Iraq. I would pretty much plan to spend the rest of my life in the green zone in Iraq.
I posted this on another thread here a few days ago. I think it’s very relevant to this discussion.
“There are those who think that Bush’s push for an escalation “surge” of troops is so that he can run out the clock during his presidency and not have to withdraw, thereby “losing” in Iraq. Leave that for the next guy.
I don’t think that’s it at all. This guy is unhinged. He has a messiah complex and thinks he’s doing the work of God.
He thinks he’s fûçkìņg Moses at the Red Sea. All the people are yelling to go back, they are cornered and in fear. But Moses parts the Red Sea and they go to freedom. Comdr. Cuckoo-bananas thinks he is destined to win this great victory. The more things build against him, the more he thinks his resolve is being tested. This is Biblical šhìŧ. Cooler, more rational heads will not prevail while he struts to glory.
It’s not time for impeachment, it’s time to invoke the 25th Amendment. He is no longer mentally capable of fulfilling his duties. (As if he ever was!)”
Posted by Micha at January 12, 2007 08:13 AM
“Is Britain going to accept the asylum seekers from Iraq after the withdrawl?”
A trick question, in that it assumes we have something vaguely resembling control over our borders and/or our immigration policy… 🙁
(Glib answer to a very big/complex set of circumstances. I’ll go into it if you want, but it will take this way, way off topic…)
As it currently stands, *anyone* who turns up in the UK and says ‘If I go home I will be persecuted and/or killed’ has a very very good chance of staying here pretty much indefinitely.
In fairness, and in my dreams, I’d suggest we pro rata it with the other alliance countries, either in relation to number of troops we each sent to Iraq or to the number of Iraqis killed by the troops we each sent…
Cheers.
Mike, Ceasar didn’t have the military technology of the US at his command. I’d hope, if the US were determined to conquer anything, it’d take a good deal less than 8 years.
spiderbob, good points as to why staying is a good idea. But if that’s true, it seems that the only US option that can be viewed as a success is an indefinite occupation and defense force in Iraq.
What irritates me about all this is that this action isn’t laid at the feet of one man. Sure, Bush gave the order, but millions of Americans voted for Bush. And they voted for him again AFTER he screwed everything up. I agree that it seems unconscionable to suggest withdrawing might be the best overall option, but there comes a point where you have to look at your ow survival. Our bad decisions in the past cannot be compounded by additional bad decisions. Keeping Iraq out of the hands of Iran or some other unfriendly nation will cost this country uncounted hundreds of billions of dollars. We’ll have to risk bankrupting ourselves in order to do that. How many here at home will suffer because of the cost of supporting that action?
I think you’re weighing the very real and imminent risk of financial collapse/depression here in the US against the all-out bloodshed that could occur without the US presence in Iraq. It’s a fact that the US can’t financially support a long-term occupation strategy…and that’s really the only one that “wins” without all-out war in Iraq. It’s not a fact that Iraq lacks the ability to defend itself against Iran. The Iraqi resistance seems to be doing a pretty good job defending itself from the US…what makes anyone think they won’t be just as effective against any other nation seen as an invader?
Iraq has a history of being ruled a strong military leaders. That’s what they need now. It’s the only thing that’s going to quell the other warlords. They aren’t ready for a democratic government because too few of them respect a democratic government. How many generations do we need to wait out before the warlord mentality dies off?
We went in there to find WMDs. There were none. We leave.
With that simple notion apparently off the table, we now cling to the notion that we’re there to install democracy. Okay: Let’s put it to the test. We ask the Iraqi government to hold a special election–a referendum–with a simple question: “Should all US troops depart Iraq within the next month.”
If they say “Yes,” then we leave. If they say “No,” we use that as a referendum to try and unite the country via diplomatic means. At the very least, it underscores that we haven’t completely foresaken the philosophies that this country supposedly stands for, as everything from our treatment of prisoners to our disdain for the Geneva Convention to our administration’s open contempt for the Constitution would seem to suggest we have.
PAD
As it currently stands, *anyone* who turns up in the UK and says ‘If I go home I will be persecuted and/or killed’ has a very very good chance of staying here pretty much indefinitely.
Pretty much the same thing in the US.
Edhopper makes a good point about. He may very well have apocalyptic fever. God knows enough of his supporters not only believe that the end times are a-coming, but they’re looking forward to them. Maybe he believes his destiny is to fight the battle of Armagedden. But I think his usual lazy impulse to just let someone else clean up his mess is also in play here. So, he probably views himself as just the catalyst for Armagedden, not the final warrior for it.
No doubt he believes that he and Laura will be safely raptured by then.
Posted by Bobb Alfred at January 12, 2007 09:49 AM
“Caesar didn’t have the military technology of the US at his command. I’d hope, if the US were determined to conquer anything, it’d take a good deal less than 8 years.”
“Destroy” yes, “conquer” not so sure…
Personally, I suspect that conquering Iraq would take a degree of bloody ruthlessness that would not sit well with anyone anywhere – in Iraq, in the US, around Iraq, around the world…
Cheers.
And the moment the jackboot came off their neck we’d be back to square one.
Helpful.
And truthful.
Bush is running this country like a despot.
I bet if Bush made his comment today about how easy it would be to be a dictator, versus when he actually did say it several years back, there would be a lot more nervous laughter in the room.
“we now cling to the notion that we’re there to install democracy.”
I think realistically we’ve given up on that. At this point it’s about preventing it from descending into total anarchy which it’s probably too late for as well.