Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
I Was Wrong; Bush Does Have A Plan
Topic Started: Jun 16 2006, 04:11 PM (334 Views)
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Apparently, Bush does have a plan....

A man, a plan … Baghdad
Rosa Brooks
LA Times: June 16, 2006


FINALLY! The Bush administration has a plan for Iraq.

A new one, I mean. The old plan — accept flowers from grateful Iraqis, locate WMD, create democracy and the rule of law, depart in five months — had definite appeal, but it didn't work out.

The new plan is that we're going to get the Iraqis to come up with a plan.

That's why the president paid a surprise visit to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki this week. Perhaps sensing that Maliki's response to a cheery "See you shortly!" from George W. Bush might be something along the lines of "Not if I see you first," Bush dropped in on Baghdad's Green Zone unannounced, giving Maliki only five minutes' notice of his arrival.

That's leadership for you. As the president explained: "One reason I went to Iraq yesterday, no matter how secretive the trip was, was to get a firsthand feel for how those people are thinking over there…. I understand leadership…. You've got to have a plan. And that's what I found in Iraq."

In fact, he found that the Iraqis have a "plan to succeed," "a robust plan" and "a plan to improve security." They also have a "plan to bring militias and other armed groups under government control," a plan a "plan … to improve the Iraqi judicial system," "a plan to revitalize the Iraqi economy" and "plans on electricity and energy."

The president may have mentioned other nifty Iraqi plans too, but after I got past 20 references to the word "plan" in the transcript of Bush's post-Baghdad news conference, I lost count. (The president also managed to use some form of the word "success" 33 times.)

But let's not get distracted here. The bottom line, for you doubters, is that Bush really does have a new Iraq plan. It consists of making it "clear to the government there that … it's really up to them to put a plan in place and execute it." Now is that a plan or what?

The Republican congressional leadership also has an Iraq plan. In a confidential (oops!) memo, for instance, House Majority Leader John A. Boehner instructed Republicans planning for this week's floor debates on Iraq to just … change the subject.

It's "imperative" to shift the focus to "the dangers we face as a nation in a post-9/11 world," Boehner's memo advised. And when in doubt, Republicans can always fall back on vilifying the Democrats. "We must conduct this debate as a portrait of contrasts," Boehner urged, painting "a clear choice between a Republican Party aware of the stakes and dedicated to victory, versus a Democrat Party without a coherent national security policy that sheepishly dismisses the challenges America faces in a post-9/11 world."

The House Republican plan to change the subject and blame the Democrats is almost as good as the Bush plan to get the Iraqis to come up with an Iraq plan. After all, Sun Tzu famously said that "all warfare is deception," and "divert and distract" is a tried and true method of warfare. They don't call the Republicans the national security party for nothing!

What's that? Diversion and distraction tactics are supposed to be used against the enemy on the battlefield, not against the American electorate? Hey, whose side are you on here?

About those Democrats. Naturally, they have a few Iraq plans too. And though the various Democratic plans differ in their details, they're all built on the common-sense recognition that the Iraq war has been a disaster for Iraqis and for U.S. efforts to combat global terrorism; that our ongoing, open-ended presence in Iraq is part of the problem; that we need to begin a phased drawdown of troops — now.

The funny thing is, if Bush had spent more than a few hours in Baghdad on Tuesday, he might have realized that the Democratic plans for Iraq are remarkably in sync with Iraqi aspirations for Iraq.

For instance, Maliki has said he wants Iraqis to take over security from the U.S.-led coalition in 18 months, and a recent poll found that 87% of ordinary Iraqis want a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. If Bush were really serious about helping the Iraqis determine their own destiny, he would do what his critics have long urged: Develop a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Now, that would be a plan.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Here's a plan - put all you dip**** Bush bashing idiots on a slow boat to Cuba. Stay gone at least long enough for us to fumigate the country.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FrankM
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Rick Zimmer
Jun 16 2006, 07:11 PM
Apparently, Bush does have a plan....

A man, a plan … Baghdad
Rosa Brooks
LA Times: June 16, 2006


FINALLY! The Bush administration has a plan for Iraq.

A new one, I mean. The old plan — accept flowers from grateful Iraqis, locate WMD, create democracy and the rule of law, depart in five months — had definite appeal, but it didn't work out.

The new plan is that we're going to get the Iraqis to come up with a plan.

That's why the president paid a surprise visit to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki this week. Perhaps sensing that Maliki's response to a cheery "See you shortly!" from George W. Bush might be something along the lines of "Not if I see you first," Bush dropped in on Baghdad's Green Zone unannounced, giving Maliki only five minutes' notice of his arrival.

That's leadership for you. As the president explained: "One reason I went to Iraq yesterday, no matter how secretive the trip was, was to get a firsthand feel for how those people are thinking over there…. I understand leadership…. You've got to have a plan. And that's what I found in Iraq."

In fact, he found that the Iraqis have a "plan to succeed," "a robust plan" and "a plan to improve security." They also have a "plan to bring militias and other armed groups under government control," a plan a "plan … to improve the Iraqi judicial system," "a plan to revitalize the Iraqi economy" and "plans on electricity and energy."

The president may have mentioned other nifty Iraqi plans too, but after I got past 20 references to the word "plan" in the transcript of Bush's post-Baghdad news conference, I lost count. (The president also managed to use some form of the word "success" 33 times.)

But let's not get distracted here. The bottom line, for you doubters, is that Bush really does have a new Iraq plan. It consists of making it "clear to the government there that … it's really up to them to put a plan in place and execute it." Now is that a plan or what?

The Republican congressional leadership also has an Iraq plan. In a confidential (oops!) memo, for instance, House Majority Leader John A. Boehner instructed Republicans planning for this week's floor debates on Iraq to just … change the subject.

It's "imperative" to shift the focus to "the dangers we face as a nation in a post-9/11 world," Boehner's memo advised. And when in doubt, Republicans can always fall back on vilifying the Democrats. "We must conduct this debate as a portrait of contrasts," Boehner urged, painting "a clear choice between a Republican Party aware of the stakes and dedicated to victory, versus a Democrat Party without a coherent national security policy that sheepishly dismisses the challenges America faces in a post-9/11 world."

The House Republican plan to change the subject and blame the Democrats is almost as good as the Bush plan to get the Iraqis to come up with an Iraq plan. After all, Sun Tzu famously said that "all warfare is deception," and "divert and distract" is a tried and true method of warfare. They don't call the Republicans the national security party for nothing!

What's that? Diversion and distraction tactics are supposed to be used against the enemy on the battlefield, not against the American electorate? Hey, whose side are you on here?

About those Democrats. Naturally, they have a few Iraq plans too. And though the various Democratic plans differ in their details, they're all built on the common-sense recognition that the Iraq war has been a disaster for Iraqis and for U.S. efforts to combat global terrorism; that our ongoing, open-ended presence in Iraq is part of the problem; that we need to begin a phased drawdown of troops — now.

The funny thing is, if Bush had spent more than a few hours in Baghdad on Tuesday, he might have realized that the Democratic plans for Iraq are remarkably in sync with Iraqi aspirations for Iraq.

For instance, Maliki has said he wants Iraqis to take over security from the U.S.-led coalition in 18 months, and a recent poll found that 87% of ordinary Iraqis want a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. If Bush were really serious about helping the Iraqis determine their own destiny, he would do what his critics have long urged: Develop a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Now, that would be a plan.

One question, Rick. Are you endorsing Rosa Brooks by that post? She is absolutely notorious for her harebrained columns, and that column typifies why. Why in the world would you ever post a Rosa Brooks column? You just exposed (reenforced?) the quality of your judgment and awareness.

I can't even think of a counterpart on the Right who writes such superficially reasoned columns. I'd never post something by, say, Pat Buchanan because I wouldn't want to be associated with that kind of mentality. But that would be because of his thinly(?) veiled bigotry, not the quality of his mind and reasoning.

Consider that column. The first six paragraphs consist of a petty and juvenile belittling of Bush. For all of her smugness, did she say anything factual to support her assessment?

Then in the seventh paragraph she arrives at this gem of a "bottom line:"

" But let's not get distracted here. The bottom line, for you doubters, is that Bush really does have a new Iraq plan. It consists of making it "clear to the government there that … it's really up to them to put a plan in place and execute it." Now is that a plan or what?"

Ah, yes, QED. She has now convinced me that is the new Bush Iraq plan. I mean you really, really have to be kidding me here. The woman is a complete idiot!

Then she caps it all with here final statement: "If Bush were really serious about helping the Iraqis determine their own destiny, he would do what his critics have long urged: Develop a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops."

Are we going to go around on that one again? Do I want to develop a migraine headache again?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
FrankM
Jun 17 2006, 04:53 AM
One question, Rick. Are you endorsing Rosa Brooks by that post? She is absolutely notorious for her harebrained columns, and that column typifies why. Why in the world would you ever post a Rosa Brooks column? You just exposed (reenforced?) the quality of your judgment and awareness.

I can't even think of a counterpart on the Right who writes such superficially reasoned columns. I'd never post something by, say, Pat Buchanan because I wouldn't want to be associated with that kind of mentality. But that would be because of his thinly(?) veiled bigotry, not the quality of his mind and reasoning.

Consider that column. The first six paragraphs consist of a petty and juvenile belittling of Bush. For all of her smugness, did she say anything factual to support her assessment?

Then in the seventh paragraph she arrives at this gem of a "bottom line:"

" But let's not get distracted here. The bottom line, for you doubters, is that Bush really does have a new Iraq plan. It consists of making it "clear to the government there that … it's really up to them to put a plan in place and execute it." Now is that a plan or what?"

Ah, yes, QED. She has now convinced me that is the new Bush Iraq plan. I mean you really, really have to be kidding me here. The woman is a complete idiot!

Then she caps it all with here final statement: "If Bush were really serious about helping the Iraqis determine their own destiny, he would do what his critics have long urged: Develop a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops."

Are we going to go around on that one again? Do I want to develop a migraine headache again?

Oh c'mon Frank.

The very writing style makes this less than a substantive review of what is going on.

At the same time, this column to me is as credible as saying that Bush should not be criticized for not giving a deadlne to the Iraqis because one should assume the Iraqis have been given a deadline because giving them a deadline is what logically should be done.

If you do not like what is written here, can you tell me what Bush's plan is?

Edited to add:

In fact, Bush tells us the troops will stay until the job is done. Can you tell me what constitutes the job being done, according to Bush?

He has also said, we will succeed in Iraq. can you tell me what success there looks like, according to Bush?

If you do not like people conjecturing about these things, even if an off-handed manner as is done in the column, can you tell me when Bush has substantively explained 1) the mission, 2) the plan, 3) the goal or 4) the criteria for bringing the troops home?
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FrankM
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Rick Zimmer
Jun 17 2006, 08:49 AM
FrankM
Jun 17 2006, 04:53 AM
One question, Rick. Are you endorsing Rosa Brooks by that post? She is absolutely notorious for her harebrained columns, and that column typifies why. Why in the world would you ever post a Rosa Brooks column? You just exposed (reenforced?) the quality of your judgment and awareness.

I can't even think of a counterpart on the Right who writes such superficially reasoned columns. I'd never post something by, say, Pat Buchanan because I wouldn't want to be associated with that kind of mentality. But that would be because of his thinly(?) veiled bigotry, not the quality of his mind and reasoning.

Consider that column. The first six paragraphs consist of a petty and juvenile belittling of Bush. For all of her smugness, did she say anything factual to support her assessment?

Then in the seventh paragraph she arrives at this gem of a "bottom line:"

" But let's not get distracted here. The bottom line, for you doubters, is that Bush really does have a new Iraq plan. It consists of making it "clear to the government there that … it's really up to them to put a plan in place and execute it." Now is that a plan or what?"

Ah, yes, QED. She has now convinced me that is the new Bush Iraq plan. I mean you really, really have to be kidding me here. The woman is a complete idiot!

Then she caps it all with here final statement: "If Bush were really serious about helping the Iraqis determine their own destiny, he would do what his critics have long urged: Develop a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops."

Are we going to go around on that one again? Do I want to develop a migraine headache again?

Oh c'mon Frank.

The very writing style makes this less than a substantive review of what is going on.

At the same time, this column to me is as credible as saying that Bush should not be criticized for not giving a deadlne to the Iraqis because one should assume the Iraqis have been given a deadline because giving them a deadline is what logically should be done.

If you do not like what is written here, can you tell me what Bush's plan is?

I'll tell you what the heart of the plan objective is, and it's long term.

It's to develop a substantial middle class in Iraq that has a real piece of the economy, including but not limited to oil. This way they will have a true stake in maintaining peace and harmony internally and externally. Along with that will come popular upward pressure to ensure a government truly answerable to the citizenry and not able to get away with stifling or punishing open criticism.

There are many knotty details in implementing the plan towards this objective and as usual that's where the devil is. But generally you will see a diminishing Western presence in the policing and an emerging long-term presence in catalyzing and investing in the Iraq economy. They have an educated and relatively secular-oriented populace there (in sharp contrast to, say, Afghanistan) and they have potential to do a lot more than just oil. For example we have already started outsourcing there as we've been doing in, for example, India.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
FrankM
Jun 17 2006, 06:04 AM
[I'll tell you what the heart of the plan objective is, and it's long term.

It's to develop a substantial middle class in Iraq that has a real piece of the economy, including but not limited to oil. This way they will have a true stake in maintaining peace and harmony internally and externally. Along with that will come popular upward pressure to ensure a government truly answerable to the citizenry and not able to get away with stifling or punishing open criticism.

There are many knotty details in implementing the plan towards this objective and as usual that's where the devil is. But generally you will see a diminishing Western presence in the policing and an emerging long-term presence in catalyzing and investing in the Iraq economy. They have an educated and relatively secular-oriented populace there (in sharp contrast to, say, Afghanistan) and they have potential to do a lot more than just oil. For example we have already started outsourcing there as we've been doing in, for example, India.

Is this what you have gotten from Bush? Or is this what you hope the plan is?

Why do you think it is up to the Americans to accomplish this? Are you really willng to have more Americans killed in Iraq to bring this about?

There are lots of countries where this end result will be a good thing. Is there another country you think we should invade, occupy and sacrifice our troops to obtain this?

Or is Iraq the only one?
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Frank, excellent attempt. Unfortunately, Rick lacks the intelligence to grasp a larger picture. He's stuck on stupid, trapped in the shallow waters of his hatred.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
I can't even think of a counterpart on the Right who writes such superficially reasoned columns.


Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter. Oh yeah, and Ann Coulter.

Sometimes, her reasoning isn't even superficial, it's merely conclusory or non-existent.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FrankM
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Rick Zimmer
Jun 17 2006, 09:12 AM
FrankM
Jun 17 2006, 06:04 AM
[I'll tell you what the heart of the plan objective is, and it's long term.

It's to develop a substantial middle class in Iraq that has a real piece of the economy, including but not limited to oil. This way they will have a true stake in maintaining peace and harmony internally and externally. Along with that will come popular upward pressure to ensure a government truly answerable to the citizenry and not able to get away with stifling or punishing open criticism.

There are many knotty details in implementing the plan towards this objective and as usual that's where the devil is. But generally you will see a diminishing Western presence in the policing and an emerging long-term presence in catalyzing and investing in the Iraq economy. They have an educated and relatively secular-oriented populace there (in sharp contrast to, say, Afghanistan) and they have potential to do a lot more than just oil. For example we have already started outsourcing there as we've been doing in, for example, India.

Is this what you have gotten from Bush? Or is this what you hope the plan is?

Why do you think it is up to the Americans to accomplish this? Are you really willng to have more Americans killed in Iraq to bring this about?

There are lots of countries where this end result will be a good thing. Is there another country you think we should invade, occupy and sacrifice our troops to obtain this?

Or is Iraq the only one?

Do I think this was the original plan when we first invaded Iraq? No. Why do I think it's our plan now? Because it so obviously plays to our strengths in a plan that would justify the sacrifices to date -- not just ours but that of innocent Iraqis. Does our administration care about the latter? At least to the extent that it shapes world opinion, it does. I don't know how much, say, Cheney and Rumsfeld care about world opinion but you better believe Bush does or you don't know Bush at all. And you especially better believe Rice does. Not from a conscience viewpoint necessarily but because she understands full well the strategic importance of favorable world opinion.

In any case, this plan successfully implemented would help ensure our economic interests are respected in the Iraq economic development. Hey Iraq, you screw us in the energy department, we'll screw you by pulling out our economic investments and help. That's admittedly a simplistic way of putting it, but I think it reflects the gist of it.

As obvious as this plan is to me, I'll hedge it by acknowledging that, not being privy to a likely immense amount of pertinent information, this plan might be a total misfit for the actual reality that neither you or I know. (I know I don't know and if you do know you've pulled off one of the most clever decoys I've ever seen. :tongue: :biggrin: )

OK, off to the beach!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Rick Zimmer
Jun 17 2006, 08:12 AM
FrankM
Jun 17 2006, 06:04 AM
[I'll tell you what the heart of the plan objective is, and it's long term.

It's to develop a substantial middle class in Iraq that has a real piece of the economy, including but not limited to oil. This way they will have a true stake in maintaining peace and harmony internally and externally. Along with that will come popular upward pressure to ensure a government truly answerable to the citizenry and not able to get away with stifling or punishing open criticism.

There are many knotty details in implementing the plan towards this objective and as usual that's where the devil is. But generally you will see a diminishing Western presence in the policing and an emerging long-term presence in catalyzing and investing in the Iraq economy. They have an educated and relatively secular-oriented populace there (in sharp contrast to, say, Afghanistan) and they have potential to do a lot more than just oil. For example we have already started outsourcing there as we've been doing in, for example, India.

Is this what you have gotten from Bush? Or is this what you hope the plan is?

Why do you think it is up to the Americans to accomplish this? Are you really willng to have more Americans killed in Iraq to bring this about?

There are lots of countries where this end result will be a good thing. Is there another country you think we should invade, occupy and sacrifice our troops to obtain this?

Or is Iraq the only one?

Tipping points.

Strategically so valuable, they have been fought over for millenia.

Iraq is one of the handful that exist in the world. Do a bit of history reading, particularly in world geopolitical facets with a military view. There are a heckuva lot of reasons to be in Iraq, when viewed through that lens...
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FrankM
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Jolly
Jun 17 2006, 10:04 AM
Rick Zimmer
Jun 17 2006, 08:12 AM
FrankM
Jun 17 2006, 06:04 AM
[I'll tell you what the heart of the plan objective is, and it's long term.

It's to develop a substantial middle class in Iraq that has a real piece of the economy, including but not limited to oil. This way they will have a true stake in maintaining peace and harmony internally and externally. Along with that will come popular upward pressure to ensure a government truly answerable to the citizenry and not able to get away with stifling or punishing open criticism.

There are many knotty details in implementing the plan towards this objective and as usual that's where the devil is. But generally you will see a diminishing Western presence in the policing and an emerging long-term presence in catalyzing and investing in the Iraq economy. They have an educated and relatively secular-oriented populace there (in sharp contrast to, say, Afghanistan) and they have potential to do a lot more than just oil. For example we have already started outsourcing there as we've been doing in, for example, India.

Is this what you have gotten from Bush? Or is this what you hope the plan is?

Why do you think it is up to the Americans to accomplish this? Are you really willng to have more Americans killed in Iraq to bring this about?

There are lots of countries where this end result will be a good thing. Is there another country you think we should invade, occupy and sacrifice our troops to obtain this?

Or is Iraq the only one?

Tipping points.

Strategically so valuable, they have been fought over for millenia.

Iraq is one of the handful that exist in the world. Do a bit of history reading, particularly in world geopolitical facets with a military view. There are a heckuva lot of reasons to be in Iraq, when viewed through that lens...

Ah that is so so important a point. So many surface thinkers would have had us preoccupied in a strategically inconsequential place like Afghanistan, chasing down a man of ultimately little strategic consequence. But our administration brought the play from the edge of the board to its center.

Now how many times have we gone over this ground too?

I think the main problem in these coffee rooms is the relatively large imbalance in a grasp of the main lessons of history. I'm not saying I'm an expert in that area but I know enough to resonate with the kinds of fundamental observations as in that post

It's also about the kind of methodology one uses in approaching problems of this sort, as Larry observed. Some people get mired in the day-to-day details. Others approach it as a systems problem, trying to identify the main drivers of the problem, conjecturing solutions/approaches those in charge might be considering, checking to see if their actions are consistent with any of these conjectured solutions/approaches and then revising one's conjectures accordingly.

In any case, if you don't step back and try to see the long-term big picture -- which is the vein in which our Executive branch necessarily thinks and plans -- how in the world can you begin to interpret developments and likely motivations triggering those developments? It's like watching a chess game without understanding what the opening series of moves implies about the players' ultimate strategy. It's like watching the play of a hand in Bridge without paying attention to the bidding that preceded that hand.

OK, the boss of the house is getting impatient. Have a good one everybody
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
FrankM
Jun 17 2006, 06:55 AM
Do I think this was the original plan when we first invaded Iraq? No. Why do I think it's our plan now? Because it so obviously plays to our strengths in a plan that would justify the sacrifices to date -- not just ours but that of innocent Iraqis. Does our administration care about the latter? At least to the extent that it shapes world opinion, it does. I don't know how much, say, Cheney and Rumsfeld care about world opinion but you better believe Bush does or you don't know Bush at all. And you especially better believe Rice does. Not from a conscience viewpoint necessarily but because she understands full well the strategic importance of favorable world opinion.

In any case, this plan successfully implemented would help ensure our economic interests are respected in the Iraq economic development. Hey Iraq, you screw us in the energy department, we'll screw you by pulling out our economic investments and help. That's admittedly a simplistic way of putting it, but I think it reflects the gist of it.

As obvious as this plan is to me, I'll hedge it by acknowledging that, not being privy to a likely immense amount of pertinent information, this plan might be a total misfit for the actual reality that neither you or I know. (I know I don't know and if you do know you've pulled off one of the most clever decoys I've ever seen.  :tongue:  :biggrin: )

OK, off to the beach!

Thanks for the honest response, Frank.

Obviously you are correct that such an outcome would be beneficial to all. And, I agree with you that Bush (now) cares about international opinion -- although I think it is more for legacy purposes -- and Rice understands its importance in terms of the long term interests of the US. It is interesting to me that so few here, in this forum, seem to understand the importance of internatinal opinion.

And before I continue with my comments, let me bring in my agreement with Jolly in his subsequent post about the strategic importance of this area. It is a vitally strategic area, and not just for the oil reserves.

The problem I have is that I do not believe our current course of action will 1) accomplish what you feel is the hoped-for outcome nor 2) will provide us with the strategic benefit that Jolly rightfully points out.

Let me explain why I feel this way.

1. While many in the west do not hear it no matter how many times the Muslim nations tell us, the Muslims continue to feel the yoke of Western domination and they view what we are doing through a much longer historical lens than we do. They are suspicious of any western move against them because they see it as a continuation of the historical desire of the West to control them. And they reject any movement which is backed up with strong military action by what they will readily admit is a more powerful if not overwhelming military capacity.

Because of this, they will fight anything which continues what they believe are imperiialistic designs of the West on Iraq and other parts of the Middle East. Our invasion and occupation plays right into these fears and this historical perspective and virtually assures us that they will continue to oppose us, rather than cooperate with us.

2. With the exception of Japan and Germany, which were unique situations, modern history clearly shows us that nation building from the outside simply does not work and is doomed to failure. A major power cannot successfully impose a societal or governmental structure on another society, especially one which is highly suspicious and one which has a proud heritage.

The government which is supposedly in place did not rise from the desires and aspirations of the Iraqi people nor does it reflect the realities of the structure of Iraqi society. It is a structure and a form the US believes is appropriate and necessary -- and to the US's benefit. But it is not one formed by the Iraqi people themselves.

Because of this, it will fall. The US may be able to prop it up while it has troops in the country, but it will fall once we have left -- and we will leave.

Call that defeatist talk if you will, but history, especially the modern history of the relinquishment of the colonies by the colonial powers after a government structure was supposedly in place as well as the inability of the US where it has tried it and the inability of the Soviet Union to cause any lasting changes in Eastern Europe, teaches us this lesson.

3. The presence of US troops in Iraq as the primary security forces are the flash point for the violence in Iraq. The insurgency opposes two thing. 1) the government we have and are imposing and 2) the occupation of the country by the US. The Iraqis must resolve their own conflicts -- or at least reach some sort of accommodation among themselves -- on their own in their own way. We cannot stop this, we can only delay it.

Yes, I expect that part of how the Iraqis will do this is through bloodshed. It was possible before we invaded to have had some sort of peaceful transition from dictatorship to an Iraqi created freer society. The ongoing tranformation in Russia, the government changes in Eastern Europe, the history of some of the parts of Yugoslavia, the success of many of the countries in Latin America all point to the fact this could have been done without significant violence, but had to come from the Iraqi people themselves.

We, unfortunately, with our invasion and occupation, have upset this applecart. We have forced the Iraqis into using violence to change the government and to settle their differences. That violence is now in full swing. Even if we are able to temper it (and I doubt we can), at whatever point we leave the country, the Iraqis will resolve their differences in their own way and violence will likely be the means because this is what we have intriduced as the means.

We can stay and delay it or we can leave now and let them get on with it, finish it, and develop their own country as they choose to do so.

4. As far as the importance of international opinion and support as you mention, our invasion and occupation -- and our continued military activities in Iraq -- have not improved nor strengthened our international position either within the region or throughout the world. Indeed, it has harmed it.

We are not being seen as a resource to countries to assist in their transition to governments which reflect the aspirations of their peoples but as a bully, forcing our own policies and desires. This is not a strategically good image to have nor does it strengthen us internationally.

Further, the longer we are in Iraq, the weaker we appear. No one doubts that the US military cannot be where it wants to be and protect its positions. But the extent to which the US military is seen as incapable of controlling the situation it wants to control, the weaker we look.

5. Given all of this, the sacrifice of American troops and American resources in the way they are now being sacrificed is counterproductive, indeed destructive, to the interests of the United States within the region and throughout the world. We are winning no friends with what we are doing and we are losing supporters. We have played into the hands of the international jihadists, who are our major threat and the major threat to the peace and security of the world. And even though this region is so strategically important, we are losing our strategic goals by increasing the hatred and anger of the peoples of the region against us, which is one of the primary results of our presence in Iraq.

6. We do have a war we should be fighting -- against the international network of jihadists. It is a war which is only part military, but much more economic, diplomatic and political. It requires great creativity, massive and on-going international cooperation and intense strategizing. And yet, our highest political leaders, our highest military leaders, our highest intelligence leaders, our highest diplomatic leaders, as well as our military and financial resources, are heavily focused, at to some extent almost exclusively focused, on Iraq.

No matter Bush's public protestations that Iraq is the central front in the war on the jihadists, this is simply not true. To the extent the jihadists are using Iraq, they are doing so to divert the US's attention and to focus US resources from what truly needs to be done throughout the world. The longer they can keep us bogged down there, the longer our attention and resources are diverted from them elsewhere in the world.

They are also using it internationally to besmirch our image and to make it that much more difficult, if not impossible, for the US to truly lead an international war against them.

The sooner we are out of Iraq, the sooner we can turn our attention and alter our strategy to go after those we should and must be going after.

7. The American people have lost faith in our efforts in Iraq. They have done so because all of the reasons given for going to war there have proven to have no foundation. They have done so because iof the gross mismanagement of the war. They have done so because they see the growing opposition of the Iraqis themselves to what we are doing and to our remaining there. They have done so because they do not agree that American troops should be used for nationbuilding, but want them used to defend the United States.

Those who support our effort in Iraq can bemoan this lack of support among Americans all they want, but it will not change the fact the people no longer support our efforts there and believe the primary efforts of the US government should be to find some way out.

Without the support of the American people, continued military action by the US in pursuit of your goal is simply not viable. Now that the goal is only to find a face-saving way out, we cannot look long range, even if it were possible for us to use military involvement to achieve the goal you want or the strategic goal Jolly calls for, which I believe was doomed the moment we chose a military strategy over a diplomatic and covert strategy anyway.

I do not disagree with your goal, Frank, nor do I disagree with Jolly's emphasis on ensuring our strategic advantage in the region.

However, I believe the Bush policies have not only failed to achieve either of them but they have made it virtually impossible for us to achieve them in the foreseeable future.

As much as people refuse to accept the parallels with Vietnam, the parallels are there. It took us 20 years after we left Vietnam to even begin to have direct influence in Southeast Asia again and even now, 30 years later, we are only beginning to rebuild what we could have had if we had not been involved in a fruitless war there.

The same will be true in Iraq and the Middle East. With the exception of flexing our military might, Bush's policies have tremendously undermined any significant influence we can play in this area. There is no longer even the illusion of the US working on behalf of the people of the region -- there is only a perceived reality that the US is an imperialistic power focused only on its own interests and one which is willing to use military force to impose those interests through sheer strength.

And in the meantime, we feed the true enemy -- the international jihadists.

It did not have to be this way. It should not have been this way. And the sooner we extricate ourselves from nation building in Iraq, forced on us by wrong and failed policies, the sooner we will be able to focus on what we should be doing and on building long term, cooperative relationships within the region, the broader Middle East and with Muslim nations throughout the world, being able to rely on them to fight and defeat the jihadists.

And until these relations are built upon mutual respect, not upon military force, the long term interests and security of the United States will be severely hindered and unobtainable.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Good grief.......
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply