• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bush Policy in a Nutshell?

Well, at least it appears clear to them NOW why we never should have gotten involved in Iraq to begin with:

"Whatever one's view about how we got to this point, there is widespread agreement that failure would be a calamity that would haunt our country," Gates said.

Bush, in his speech to the military personnel and families in Ft. Benning, echoed that theme, calling this a "different kind of war in which failure in one part of the world could lead to disaster here at home."

"It's important for our citizens to understand . . . the consequences of leaving before the job is done," Bush said. If the U.S. does not complete its mission, he said, "radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength."
 
Oops! Never mind.

Thought title was Bush - Policy from a nutcase.

My bad.

:boxedin:
 
Mephisto said:
"It's important for our citizens to understand . . . the consequences of leaving before the job is done," Bush said. If the U.S. does not complete its mission, he said, "radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength."
Click to expand...
Based on what's happened in Iraq in the last 3½ years, I would have thought that Bush's mission is to strengthen radical Islamic extremists. Jeez, if only he'd have asked someone how not to do that, he would have been told not to start this war.
 
Mephisto said:
Well, at least it appears clear to them NOW why we never should have gotten involved in Iraq to begin with:

"Whatever one's view about how we got to this point, there is widespread agreement that failure would be a calamity that would haunt the Bush legacy," Gates said.

Bush, in his speech to the military personnel and families in Ft. Benning, echoed that theme, calling this a "different kind of war in which failure in one part of the world could lead to disaster to my legacy."

"It's important for our citizens to understand . . . the consequences of leaving before the job is done," Bush said. If the U.S. does not complete its mission, he said, "would be cementing my legacy in history."
Click to expand...

I changed your post to place what, in my opinion, is the primary concern of the administration. What is a little more death and destruction when the actual consequences are so great?

Daredelvis
 
hgc said:
Based on what's happened in Iraq in the last 3½ years, I would have thought that Bush's mission is to strengthen radical Islamic extremists. Jeez, if only he'd have asked someone how not to do that, he would have been told not to start this war.
Click to expand...

:) It was the lure of all that WMD that we knew about that messed us up. But, there IS a bright side to the whole thing; we ousted Saddam, the Iraqis have voted, Saddam was brought to trial, the Iraqis voted, Iraq drafted their Constitution, . . .

Of course the downside is 3,000 + dead Americans and all the ink-stained fingers littering Iraqi streets.
 
daredelvis said:
I changed your post to place what, in my opinion, is the primary concern of the administration. What is a little more death and destruction when the actual consequences are so great?

Daredelvis
Click to expand...

:) And the way to fix that is, of course, provide insurgents with 20,000 NEW targets. ;)
 
Mephisto said:
:) And the way to fix that is, of course, provide insurgents with 20,000 NEW targets. ;)
Click to expand...

Hardly.

The fact of the matter is that if we have a problem with organized terrorists targeting innocent civilians (and we do) having said terrorists sharing real estate with the US Army, Marines, etc is precisely the best place for them to be.

Now, being as the "brass" wants no more hand-wringing over "body counts" like in Vietnam...we no longer "do" body counts. Right...all we end up doing is counting our own. So now we hear stories (heard one on the radio yesterday) about how Iraq is a "terrorist training ground"...as if we're graduating these guys out of a boot camp. The reality is that our military is not training terrorists...they're killing them in very large and gratifying numbers.

As far as Iraq being a disaster? A quagmire? Longer than our involvement in WWII...etc...etc...ad nauseum?? The only thing this proves is that Bush et al have allowed their detractors...the enemy included...to define success/failure. If one allows their enemy to define terms, one will never win no matter what the battlefield reality may be.

So, is Iraq a success or a failure?

As a purely military contest between coalition forces and Iraqi national forces it was an historic success. GWB declared an end to major conflict and did his silly carrier landing. Simply put he planted the goalposts and declared victory. From his perspective he was right. What he didn't get was that these enemy forces hadn't really given up...they'd only gone underground. When we finally do our cut and run they will come out of the woodwork declaring victory. There will be no voices of dissent.

Bush's declaration has a place in history; usually such declarations were met by parades, kissing in Times Square...etc..etc..., convoys full of Johnnys marching home.

But the true reality of war is that it's never really that clean. Pockets of resistance, infrastructure damage, shortages, disease, conflicts between erstwhile allies....all these things and more still exist after the parade is over. Had the media back then focused on these aspects they could have made a popular case that the war effort had been badly bungled. After WWII the cold war cranked up and in many places the world over it wasn't a cold war at all. People were dying.

Another possible perspective that is just as valid is that we have never really been at peace since just prior to WWII. All that really matters is where you plant your goalposts and how well and how hard you work to make your definition stick. Basically it makes no difference whether the insurgency is twice as bad, or twice as weak, even one IED attack can signal disaster, defeat, quagmire, etc if you have created the expectation that we would be greeted as liberators. OTOH even an insurgency twice as strong could be overcome if we defined our victory as containment of the majority of the jihadist enemy. The enemy has taught us that he never will lose. Similarly we have taught him that we never will win.

This is where GWB screwed himself. He didn't take the enemy seriously enough. He remembered Gulf War I when the iconic images were of the ruins on the "Highway of Death" and "elite" Iraqi troops waving white hankies. Dad had done a great job of limiting coalition involvement, setting clear goals, then bailing once the bare minimum goal was met. It was a grand success of imagery. In reality the problem (Saddam's regime) still existed and festered. Saddam held several "victory" parades! He promoted the legend of victory until it became fact...then he printed that "fact" in Iraqi history books. Had a more complete job been done back then...we simply wouldn't have to be doing it now. Similarly if we bail now on Iraq the consensus among military experts is that we will have a far larger problem later.

I applaud GWB's resolve, I cringe at his inept execution. Georgie has mis-defined his goals and justification at nearly every step, and fuzzy goals along with invalid justifications (WMDs) are awfully hard to defend. He has allowed a determined enemy (both foreign and domestic) to drive the debate. But IMHO (of course) a job badly done in this case is still far better than a job put off till a truly major world conflict becomes inevitable. Iraq is a "Hobson's choice" scenario...whatever ending to the current situation is written you can be sure there will be no kissing in Time's Square to greet it.

Truly our world has been putting off "armageddon" for the last 60 years by proactively using diplomacy, sanctions, rewards, and military action to keep our enemies (communist or Islamic) from becoming strong enough to force the next world war. Iraq is merely the latest price we continue to pay for a relative "peace" over here in the developed west. What our debate here really is about, at the core of it all is: Is our way of life worth it?

Do we dislike corporate culture, unbridled capitalism, globalism, (insert your favorite hated "ism" about America or "the west"), enough that we would risk losing the few freedoms we do usually take for granted? Do we hate the wastes and losses of limited wars so much that we would risk allowing our manifold enemies to gain power and capabilities as we attempt to withdraw from the fray?

Are we already so cynical, jaded, and disillusioned as a people that we will accept no definition of victory?

This is the real danger. We are fighting an enemy that has already shown its determination to accept no definition of defeat. If we similarly will accept (and show through our actions) that no victory over these dangerous enemies is possible then we are truly doomed. No amount of smart bombs, planes, or professional military can ever save us.

The political, social, and religious world is balkanized and choosing up sides. The dedication of human individuals to their respective causes is truly the most powerful and pervasive weapon available. If a people will not be defeated...ever...then that people will eventually prevail (or face extermination). But if a people will not accept that any definition of victory is valid, then they cannot fail to fail.

We JREFers/skeptics/rationalists want a rational and enlightened world...sadly though it appears that a irrational fanatical, tribal loyalty to mythological mumbo-jumbo may be the trait that survives our worldwide human experiment in societal evolution. We are in real danger of becoming extinct.

We must learn to defend our way of life...or change our way of life so that we can justify its defense....or surrender to the new dark ages. Therefore I find myself supporting the "surge" in Iraq and hoping in spite of all evidence that it will work. If you like your way of life; there really isn't much choice. Change is constant...if we're not out there driving that change it will eventually end up driving us somewhere we'd all rather not be.

Okay sermon over...rip away.

-z
 
hammegk said:
I await our re-deployment into Iran.
Click to expand...

Yes...we can barely muster 20,000 more for Iraq. Our action against Iran should be a hoot...another liberation cake-walk.

They are probably not a great army. Many will die (but fighting on their own turf...united behind a governmnet they increasinly dispise), but Iran's toops will "surge" and overpower our 130,000 stuck in Iraq. Leaving us only a Nuclear option...oh yes, the fall of Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and even Saudia Arabia.

Can't wait.
 
headscratcher4 said:
Yes...we can barely muster 20,000 more for Iraq. Our action against Iran should be a hoot...another liberation cake-walk.

They are probably not a great army. Many will die (but fighting on their own turf...united behind a governmnet they increasinly dispise), but Iran's toops will "surge" and overpower our 130,000 stuck in Iraq. Leaving us only a Nuclear option...oh yes, the fall of Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and even Saudia Arabia.

Can't wait.
Click to expand...
This is all leading up to ...

the liberation of France.
 
I won't be.

I am hoping for a draft that takes you. If they can catch you before you cross the border.
 
hammegk said:
I won't be.

I am hoping for a draft that takes you. If they can catch you before you cross the border.
Click to expand...
Ah Hah! Another Rangel supporter emerges from the woodwork!

We'll smoke all of you out, one way or another! :D

DR
 
hgc said:
You're the first person ever to get one of hammy's jokes. You need a bath right about now.
Click to expand...
Oh, come on, the sun does not shine on the same dog all the time. :cool: *sniffs pits* OK, maybe a quick shower. :p

DR
 
rikzilla said:
. . .
This is where GWB screwed himself. He didn't take the enemy seriously enough. He remembered Gulf War I when the iconic images were of the ruins on the "Highway of Death" and "elite" Iraqi troops waving white hankies. Dad had done a great job of limiting coalition involvement, setting clear goals, then bailing once the bare minimum goal was met. It was a grand success of imagery. In reality the problem (Saddam's regime) still existed and festered. Saddam held several "victory" parades! He promoted the legend of victory until it became fact...then he printed that "fact" in Iraqi history books. Had a more complete job been done back then...we simply wouldn't have to be doing it now. Similarly if we bail now on Iraq the consensus among military experts is that we will have a far larger problem later.

I applaud GWB's resolve, I cringe at his inept execution. Georgie has mis-defined his goals and justification at nearly every step, and fuzzy goals along with invalid justifications (WMDs) are awfully hard to defend. . . . .

-z
Click to expand...

You got that a little bit backwards.
GWB screwed up with the mis-defined goals and justification at nearly every step, fuzzy goals, and invalid justifications. Especially the invalid justifications. Not taking the enemy seriously is just a small piece of the general screwing up that he has done so far.

I heard a radio commentator this morning compare Bush with the boy who cried wolf - and it seemed to fit. No matter how resolved he is, he has no credibility. That is gone, and it is gone for good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom