Sunday, June 19, 2005


Thoughts on Bush's "Plan" for Iraq

Posted by Nostradamnthem

Paragraph 1, the intro. He promises to outline what he calls a strategy that will "change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror".

Yeah, right. I'm going to show you why I think this is a complete fantasy. A pipe dream - though it isn't tobacco you'd have to smoke to believe in this plan.

Paragraph 2 & 3 - He mentions Iraqi voting, and then identifies Al-Qaeda, Sunni Muslims, Radical Shia Muslims and Iran as the enemies opposing the US. So who is left in Iraq that isn't an enemy? And those "Radical Shia elements" he mentions, aren't they really just Iraqis who don't want their country occupied by a foreign army?

Paragraph 4 - The famous "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me."

Notice, no admission that he made any mistake at all, ever. And no admission that any specific decision or tactic was an error. Only "where mistakes have been made". He is not admitting ANY mistake here, but it will fool a lot of people.

Paragraph 5 - Contains "We benefitted from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States" .

He ignored nearly all of the Baker - Hamilton recommendations. He's also ignoring that HE (not WE) has already failed in Iraq, failed utterly and totally, and the situation is not redeeemable by the US. It's our disaster now - HE made it, WE own it and WE will pay for it for the next 20 years at least. And pay in terms of both money and danger.

Paragraph 6 - Bush plays the old fear card again and tells us that if we fail to achieve HIS objectives in Iraq, we'll get nuked by Islamic terrorists.

But notice, he's saying "failure" yet doesn't define that term.

Paragraph 7 - "Only Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. "

The first time I've heard him speak the truth. I wonder if he realized he was? But if that's true, what are we still doing there? Shouldn't we get out of the way and let them do what they need to do?

Paragraph 7 - Contains this statement - "Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work. "

Of course they report that. He neglects to remind us that just last week he removed two of the long-time, experienced generals in Iraq who kept telling him this 'surge' idea was doomed to fail, and replaced them with less experienced folks who will pay for their promotions by saluting any dirty shorts he runs up the flagpole.

Paragraph 8 - "Now let me explain the main elements of this effort: The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts."

What the hell have they done so far, nothing? What's new about this? And if this is new, why did we not demand this a long time ago?

"When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort, along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations -- conducting patrols and setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents."

Unless the news media are ALL constantly lying to us, the Iraqi Army and National Police are full of death squads on both sides. So how is this going to help? Does he expect that just because he or his puppet say so that they will all turn in their death squad membership cards?

Paragraph 9 - 20, 000 more troops. I want to point out that we have more troops than that who've been wounded (not counting killed) and are now missing arms, legs, portions of their brains.

AND, it's a small fraction of the numbers there now. So apparently we're going to try 'spot cleaning'. But we did that already. An example would be our attempts to go into Sadr City multiple times. How is this a new strategy?

Paragraph 10 - He says that this time will be different because now we'll have the numbers to hold the areas we cleared, unlike in the past.

Isn't that an admission that this is NOT a new strategy, but merely more of the same? And what about the fact that the police death squads moved into the cleared neighborhoods as soon as we gave them the turf to protect? How is he going to stop that?

But there is also this - "This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods -- and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated. "

Well, golly. Isn't Maliki allegedly holding power only thru the threat of Muqtad al-Sadr's militia? Notice, Bush is saying only that troops will have a 'green light' to go into neighborhoods. He is not saying Maliki or someone else in the government won't warn their supporter militias, and that we won't get either ambushed or find everyone gone until after we leave again.

Paragraph 11 - "I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people -- and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. "

This is a total fantasy on Bush's part. He has already said a hundred times we won't leave this war while he is president. And there is no historical reason whatsoever to think the Iraqi "government" will decide to do anything for the good of the country - they're too invested in fighting for power over religious and tribal lines. Solve the religion problem, they'll still fight for tribal power.

Paragraph 12 - Here's the 'cover my ass' part. (You knew it was in there somewhere, right?) "This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering."

Basically, this is predicting that there will be no discernable change in anything after this escalation of troops, but that we can't call it a failed attempt because he's already told us nothing would change and blamed it on the other guys. Sort of a "you'll know my strategy is working when YOUR husband or kid gets killed" cop-out. Face it, if you can't stop the other guys from doing what they're doing, you're failing. And Bush just admitted failure before we start.

Paragraph 13 - "America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced".

OK, what does Bush propose to do when they do fall down on the job? We already know he won't pull our troops out. Will he depose the officers of the government? HE CAN'T - they were elected by the Iraqi people. Remember the 'democracy on the march' crap, the 'purple fingers' stuff? He would have to be willing to be known as the Imperialist who knocked off two governments in a row in the same nation, both times in violation of international law. So, we won't pull out, and we can't replace the do-nothing puppets, so what leverage does the puppeteer have left? Is he going to stop shipments of video games, Rolexes, I-pods and scotch whisky to Maliki?

Paragraph 14 - A list of what the Iraqi government will do. I wonder, who proposed the list? It is after all meaningless for the puppets to agree to what the string puller makes them do.

Paragraph 15 - A list of what the Bush administration will do. In my opinion, we're giving a dead whore a make-over job and calling her a virgin here. I don't see where anything proposed is 'new' at all, only more of some of the things we've tried already.

Paragraph 16 - "As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters."

Wasn't this whole thing supposed to be about making the Iraqi's do this work?

Paragraph 17 - "Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders, and they are protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda."

The news media must be falling down on the job again. I don't recall reading or hearing about any Iraqi resistance to al Qaeda.

"And as a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to keep up the pressure on the terrorists. America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan -- and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq. "

I repeat, what is different about this? I suggest this is more of an escalation than a change.

"America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan"

Let us not forget too that Bush also publicly gave the Taliban 4 months warning of the attack, giving al Qaeda plenty of time to move over the border into Pakistan. So what is he bragging about?

Paragraph 18 - "Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria."

Does the term "Axis of Evil" sound familiar? He continues on to use a not-so-thinly veiled threat of military action against the two...

"We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq. "

Paragraph 19 - "We're also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence-sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region. "

Well, "recently ordered the deployment" involves troops and equipment that aren't part of the 20 thousand, so there is really more to this escalation than they are admitting. We're also deploying military systems, and moving into Turkey. And we will STILL attack Iran when Bush is ready - so look for the draft before 2009, because this war deserter thinks he can control a world full of terrorists with a marching military force, and it will have to grow every year to keep up with his ambitions.

Paragraph 20 - Contains "Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists and a strategic threat to their survival. These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors, and they must step up their support for Iraq's unity government."

Well, I think that if REAL democracy and human rights ever came to Iraq, that would threaten the governments of these countries even more than an American defeat. Face it, if we withdraw or lose, the Saudi royal house will still control that nation and all it's wealth. If we win, and Iraq becomes a truly democratic nation, those princes are in deep trouble and their lives as they know them are over. The other states are still known to kill and or torture political opponents - as comparatively good as Egypt is, it's one of our 'secret rendition' countries where they torture prisoners. How much pressure would democracy put on them? Lots, I think. No, I believe the other nations Bush mentions have more at stake from an American win in Iraq than they do from a defeat. If we're beaten, they'll just 'disappear' any suspected opponents until there aren't any terrorists left.

Paragraph 21 - Starts with "The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time".

Bush is blaming the entire thing on an ideological struggle, not on the fact that he invaded a country he had no need to invade, did it illegally, and totally ignored the need for any plan or intelligent approach to what he was planning to do. He's also ignoring the fact that it's more likely the case that these terrorists grow out of living in filthy rich countries where all the wealth goes to the royal families and the people themselves are living in near starvation with no future, no rights, no social benefits and no hope, than it is the fault of any ideology. But calling it an ideology does provide him another rationalization for never ending the war-mongering.

Paragraph 22 - Just fluff.

Paragraph 23 - More 'cover my ass' talk. "The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue -- and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will. "

So, we can't measure success by our kids not being killed, but he offers no other measure? So we have no way to know if this works or not? "Trust me!"

Paragraph 24 - "Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. "

So, again, there is no way to define an end to this war? It must be awfully profitable to the Bush family.

"But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world -- a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them -- and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and our grandchildren. "

Somebody please show me something in recent history to help me believe this will EVER happen. Please. But not the chillum-pipe. Real events only.

Paragraph 25 - Bush talks about his reasons for not wanting to leave Iraq. He describes the mess that will ensue. I suggest that the identical mess he describes is now inevitable because of his incompetence and malfeasance regarding the entire effort, and that all he is doing with this troop escalation is to try to buy enough staying power to get out of the White House and blame the debacle on the next president. If he leaves now he's not only the guy who started a war for personal reasons and then totally screwed the pooch on the deal, but the one who got millions killed in a civil war that didn't have to happen, and all in the same presidency. So THAT is the reason Bush will never get us out of Iraq, and everything else is lies to justify it.

Paragraph 26 - Some bullshit about working with Congress, but a statement that indicates he has no intention of doing anything Congress wants unless it's his way. "If members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. "

See that word "improvements"? You know damned well that the ideas will only be considered to be improvements to the degree that they support the Bush agenda. And what that means is that any criticism, any demands for accountablity or control on the part of Congress will be rejected out of hand. And suggestions that don't support escalation will not be acceptable.

Paragraph 27 - The devil will always tell you what he's going to do, only he'll tell you in terms you don't understand. That's why he's called the Deceiver. Lookie here:

"Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. This group will meet regularly with me and my administration..."

If the rest of them are war-mongering suck-ups like Joe, this means a rubber-stamp committee that Bush will claim represents Congress, even though we all know Joe was elected by Republicans because he betrayed his own party's agenda. You can expect the others to be suck-ups to the office as well. Maybe Hillary will be one of them. She seems to like the war - but then, I think the Clintons are now shareholders in the Carlyle Group too.

"We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the Armed Forces we need for the 21st century."

You're warned here - do you understand what he's saying? Here comes that draft that the No Child Left Behind database was built to support. No more registering for the draft (or not) when you turn 18. You're automatically registered by the school's testing program unless you were home-schooled, and that may have been covered too, I just don't know.

"We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas, where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny. "

The Deceiver continues. Do I really need to explain this? It's a draft of sorts too for folks too old or too educated to use up as IED targets. Doctors, nurses, engineers, people who build and support infrastructure like phone systems, highways, wastewater and purification plants, etc. You will be 'drafted' as well, and find yourself working in some dirty guerilla infested nation Bush wants to take over, for a fourth of what you made here, while your kid is chasing around some desert or jungle getting shot at or blown up by some booby-trap bomb.

Paragraph 28 - Starts with "In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary... "

But apparently we're not blessed with our president's children believing any of this. And my question here is this - If he can't convince his own children of the need to serve in this 'great ideological struggle', then why should we believe in it or send our own kids? Honestly, if Bush's girls were on the front lines in Iraq, I'd shut up and leave him alone. Hell, I'd even consider that I might be wrong and he might be right about the need for this war.

Paragraph 29 - He starts with "Fellow citizens". How dare he call himself one of us. Didn't he go AWOL during a war? Yes he did. Hasn't he done literally everything he could to destroy the futures of American families while he gets rich by being the corporate CEO's sugar plum fairy? Yes he has. No, this posturing corporate boy-toy and war profiteer is not MY fellow citizen.

Paragraph 30 - He wraps up by playing the God card ("the Author of Liberty"). Can't let the Evangelical base get away, can we?

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home