Going against virtually all advisors, pundits, and Congress, President Bush has made the unpopular decision to launch even more troops into Iraq. If he fails, he will go down in history as a madman or (even worse) a fool. If he succeeds, he will be lauded as a military strategist (or simply lucky).
The problem for Bush is that there will be even more lives lost, and (at least initially) it is agreed that there will be a much higher percentage of deaths than before, due to a change in strategy. Bush has decided that he will seed Iraq with pockets of U.S. soldiers, in the hopes that this will quell the violence and chaos that always follows a U.S. victory.
In the past, the military has gone through a town, quelled the unrest, and moved on. At that point, everything settles back into the same chaos as before. Now, Bush hopes that when U.S. troops are left behind, there will be less of a chance at a relapse.
Well and good, you might say, but even if this works, it will be a temporary bandaid. These are not peaceful people. If we stay behind, it will only delay the inevitable at the cost of even more American lives.
So, who are we truly trying to save? More Iraqis? Or President Bush?
Only time will tell us for sure, but I think we already have our answer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Yeah, what a concept. You can't police a city by swarming it one day and then leaving and--suddenly--crime goes up!
Wow. I think he fired Rumsfeld five years too late. And you know he really didn't want to.
I think the startegy is a sound one, but the issue is this... how long are you going to stay?
It is not that Iraqi's are inherently violent people. I am sure that they want to live in peace like everyone else but there are so many insurgents that get sent in from other countries to disrupt everything that it is impossible to quell the violence.
Such a sad situation that i fear is going to continue for a long long time.
How can you win a war when these people don’t even fight fair? They all kill themselves for the love for their God! Suicide bombings and strategic plans to blow up unexpected places. I mean, Bush in my opinion should seek to bring the troops back. I have a weird feeling that when more lives are lost, more innocent civilians killed- he’s going to anger the countries around the world. (Like he hasn’t done so already.) Then we’ll be looking at a World War III type of scenario. He’s done what he had to do- what more does he want? He got the leader of Iraq, he got his money, oil, and now he needs to get the hell out of there. I feel bad for the people who may be drafted into this mess in the future.
The man has lost it. Is it just me or does Bush remind you of a classic degenerate gambler, asking the house for another bankroll on credit because he knows he can "win it all back"?
This will not work for one reason. We never really got rid of all the militants before. We just pushed them somewhere else. Then they came back. In Baghdad, all they have to do is dig a hole in the backyard and stash their weapons. Wait for a little bit, then dig them back up again.
Someone should tell Bush that we can not even GET RID OF STREET GANGS in American cities! How the F are we supposed to get rid of militants in another country when the longer we stay there the more that are created?
Bush will be remembered in history for what he is. A rich frat boy who had no qualification to be President, "elected" into office by a population that was more concerned about stupidity than reality (who invented the internet VS who can speak proper english).
But really - just give me another $20,000! This slot machine HAS TO pay out sooner or later! I'll win it all back plus some! You'll see! If I leave now the next old lady to stick a buck in this machine will hit the mega jackpot!
Bush - before being the President a member of AA. After being President he needs to join GA.
What troubles me more are the soldiers left behind in these hot spots after they have been cleared for the umpteenth time. Will there be enough to protect themselves from organized insurgents? There has never been enough to do that which is why we vacated cities after clearing them so that we could move on to the next hot spot. I doubt 20,000 more troops spread across Iraq is enough. Maybe 200,000 more would be closer to what is needed.
What are we trying to save? The oil contracts.
the thing I keep thinking is aren't todays thoughts by some the same that Lincoln faced? What if we had bailed in WW2? Or WW1? Or maybe said fuck it in 1776? It's not always easy, but if you hold out and outlast the opponent its often worth it. Its hard for me to imagine that anyone think that Iraq is worse today than they were under Saddam, especially a female girl woman. The reason I don't dislike the pres is because he was voted in twice and really doesn't and never did give a shit what the crying crowd thought, be strong, thats what made America, strong people.
just my thoughts
js
I think it's a no-win situation bringing Western ideals and motives into the Eastern World. But this world has never seen complete peace, there always is a 'bigger dog'.
He sure does have some insane ideas. And you know what's weird, too ... our Prime Minister, John Howard, thinks the sun shines out of Bush's rear !!! He's become his clone !!! Scary !!
Have a great weekend.
Take care, Meow
JS - America did not want to fight WWI or WWII. Presidents during both wars had to pledge to keep the USA out of them. But we were sucked in anyway.
And in all the wars you mentioned, things were normal. In 1776 you shot at anyone wearing red and white stripes. In WWI you shot at anyone wearing a hat with a pointy thing on it. And so on. There were generals, soldiers, clearly defined territory, and clear objectives. One side would surrender and that was it.
The 1776 war is the closest analogy, except now WE are the Red Coats. During the war for American Independence the British had the superior forces. hey had the naval power. They had the professional disciplined troops. They had the career generals. On paper, THEY should have won. But they lost. No good trouble making nations like France (Iran) gave America support. And the population of America did not want the British there anymore. So to the British EVERYONE was a potential "enemy". They could be attacked from anywhere at any time. Americans used non standard war tactics such as the "lets hide behind this tree and ambush them". Standard military tactics at the time called for block formations advancing on one another while popping off musket volleys then charging with bayonets fixed. American forces did not do this often because...well because if we did we would have lost.
Now lets look at America in Iraq. Sure on paper there is no reason why we should not win. Except there is no way to tell who is an "insurgent". And the people do not seem to want us there. I do not think we want to shoot everyone not wearing an American uniform (including women and children - everyone means everyone down to the infants). The insurgents do not "fight fair". They use non standard tactics and methods. They set roadside bombs and hide in buildings and stuff. So.......
Also, under Saddam women were free to be in public without a man escorting them, they did not have to wear veils, they could drive cars, they could attend universities, they could hold professional jobs, and so on. One woman was even (supposedly) one of Saddam's lead bio weapons researchers, even if we could never find any evidence that there was a weapons program.
Under Shi'a law all this will change. Women are likely to have similar rights that they had under the Taliban in Afghanistan. Somehow I do not think that many of the women in Iraq are looking forward to this.
It was a mistake to go in. People tried to tell this to Bush and the American people, but we were shut out by accusations that we were stupid and should just move to France if we hate this nation so much. Bush got his invasion. And so now we have to carefully evaluate what is to be done. Send in another 20,000? What if that does not make things better? Send in another 50,000? How about we double the forces? And if that does not work? At what point do you get the hell out? Before or after there is another black wall in DC with 50,000 names on it?
The last war was fought because we had to stop the commies over there so we did not have to stop them here. And the commies won. But they did not come here. They did not take over the whole region like the experts said they would. Had the USA not sent a single person over there things would be exactly as they are today, with the USA making friends with another commie nation because they can offer us cheap goods.
I do think Iraq is not the same thing. The terrorists will not stay over there. But they were not in Iraq before the US moved in. Saddam did not want to share power with a bunch of people more loyal to some guy living in a cave than to him. But they seem to be there now. And we are training the next generation of fighters, just as the Soviets trained the last group in their war with Afghanistan. Thanks to Bush right now people are learning how to assemble bombs. People are learning urban warfare tactics. Terrorist groups have excellent recruitment propaganda.
None of this is good.
Everyone, excellent discussion. Thank you so very much for weighing in. I've read what you've had to say, but can't take the time to answer each statement right now. I really appreciate the weigh-in, though! ;o)
Saur! You have the title wrong! In Bush's world, its spelled "strategery"!
Miss C, ahhh, how true that is. :P
Post a Comment