Order from chaos? Or...what exactly?Follow

It all seems to be a bit of a turmoil in Washigton at the moment.

After the mid-terms, when the War Party was given a damn good "thumping" by an electorate who it would seem, is tiring of throwing yet more cash and youngsters into the hell-hole of Iraq for no discernable benefits to the US, it seemed for a moment that there would have to be some sort of re-thinking of the strategy for the 'war'.

Since then, there has been the Baker report wich seems to have led to an conclusion that the war, if not already lost, has deteriorated to a point where all out civil war is almost inevitable. Then[link=null][/link] theres Colin Powell saying that the US is 'losing in Iraq'. (Not that we should believe anything that he says.).

Theres H. Clinton on one hand saying she doesn't approve of sending in more troops, (unless theres a good plan for them to do something usefull when they get there), and then you got McCain and Liebermans' plan to send in 20 -40k more troops for a while, until the insurgency is quelled(!). (Ever the optimists!)

Then you got the 'Decider in Chief', who until a few weeks ago reckoned that the US is winning in Iraq. Rumsfeld is gone, Cheney is feeling sad at the departure of the 'best defense sec. in history'. Condi has as much international clout as a damp sponge. Tony Bliar is flailing about trying to rescue his ego in the ME. And failing dismally. Even Bush has finally stopped pretending to listen to him.

So, what I'm wondering is this.


Where do we think 'America' is heading with the Iraq occupation now? What exactly are 140k troops (soon to be 190k?) doing in Iraq. What exactly is their objective? What is the plan?

Where is the administration going with this? After all, as voters, whose votes delivered that 'damn good thumping', what do you believe is happening? Did that little cross you marked next to the (D) candidate, mean that what you really wanted for xmas was for the decider to decide to send 40,000 MORE troops to Iraq. And what were they supposed to actually do when they got there?

Here's the problem.

Iraq has elected themselves that they want something that is not unlike our united "states". So forth they would have state police and so on that go on policing from their own provinces in a seclular way.

The Americans however are doing everything in their power to prevent this from happening. The Americans are continuously pushing the idea of a national police force... which basically means everybody getting together to slaughter everybody.... where abouts if you were to split it between provinces.. it would provide less oppurtunity for this.

Sending in more troops won't achieve a thing except for waht it always achieves. More troops getting killed.

But. The drift of opinion amonst the 'deciders' seems to be to send a shed-load more troops to "quell the insurgency". While quelling the insurgency would be a nice goal, esp. for the Iraqis, I honestly cant see how 40k more people with weapons is going to bring peace. Insurgencies don't get quelled. they might be pushed back into their hidey holes for a while, but they always come back. As long as there is an occupation force to attack.

If and when those soldiers get there, its just going to present more targets for the militias to shoot at, and blow up. I realise that the extra troops are being advertised as trainers, but the record so far of 'training Iraqis to stand up for themselves has been a bit crap to say the least. Most if not all the Iraqi units are split along sectarian lines, with more loyalty to their respective communities ie. shiite or sunni. than they are to the central Govt.

Those stories of 'gunmen in police uniforms' are a bit dishonest. those gunmen are police. heavily armed, trained and equipped by the US. that they are mostly shiites with more interest in the Iranian model than any grand and noble ideas of a stable democracy.

When you take into account the money being spent on constructing the GIANT US embassy in Baghdad, as well as the various other huge fortified bases around the country. And the stated position on Irans alleged offensive Nuclear program, as well as US animosity towards Syria, sending more troops to the area doesn't seem to be a plan for withdrawel. from where I'm sitting it looks to be quite the opposite.

The plan seems to be for escalation, not disengagement.

What i'm wondering tho is, how come that tho the war party was given a good swift kick in the knackers by the voting public in the US, with the majority wanting some fairly sharpish withdrawel of US troops( and as has been pointed out, the vast majority of Iraqis want the Americans to go home as well) how does it sit with people in america that the war effort, the stop loss program, the money being put aside for more occupation, and Robert Gates recent statement that "losing in Iraq would be calamitous for the US" (hardly a statement that makes me think that he's going to do anything other than support a surge in the commitment) all seem to point towards a greater commitment, wich will involve more dead and wounded on both sides, more destruction, and will ultimately lead to the regional conflict, wich even now is in its early stages.

Is this what the American voter was asking for when he/she voted? And if it wasn't, why is it that escalation seems to be whats on the mind of the administration.

Against all the evidence, and public opinion, at home and abroad, Iraq is about to become even more of a bloodbath than it already is in an area that is teetering on the edge of all out war.

In the midst of this Bush wants to send more troops?

What is the American army/airforce/navy doing in Iraq??

heres the skinny.

bush doesnt want to be labeled as the president who lost a war that should have never been fought to begine with. republicans dont want that tag hannging around their neck either for the forseeable future.

so the repubs are gona cry "we didnt suceed because the dems wouldnt let us." so ofcoarse they are going to cry more troops now, when before the midterm they said "we have enough". they know we dont have more to send for any real length of time, and when they dont get it, they can point the figer at the dems and say "they made us fail"

the dems, scared of throwing away the 2008 election, dont want to lesson their chance fo alienating the pro war crowed or being seen as "weak" when it comes to defense. sooo, no way are they gona say, "no more troops, we gotta get out". they also dont want to give the repubs any chance of wiggeling out of the blame for this failure. and the best way to do that is to give them what they ask for, and in the case of more troops which they know they cant deliver, just remain quiet and not protest to much and try to find a way to force therepubs "decide" we cant afford to do it.

meanwhile, our boys are getting buthcered every day while we do the political dance blame game.

the repubs know more troops wont do sheit unless they are talking a few hundred thousand more. they know it. they are just trying to bait the dems into taking a stand against them so they can say "it wasnt our fault, they wouldnt let us suceed" so this stink doesnt stain them for the next 20 years or more. the dems are being mum, or non committal, or tying a qualifier on it like, "not unless you show us how that will make it better" tag, something they know the repubs cant do. not saying no, not saying yes, just buying time till the 2008 elections.

the outcome of this war was written before we went in. the crusades defined it, britians attempt at coloinazation defined it, the russians in afganistan defined it. history wrote the outcome before we started the war. to bad our fearless leader didnt bother paying attention, or mabe he did and didnt care.

here is how it will end. we wil leave. everything we built will be torn down adn destroyed. an islamic government will emerge.

i said this very thing in the castersrelm site 3 years ago. ill say it again.

the fighting will continue untill we leave. we will leave. everything we touched will be torn down. iraq WILL become an islamic ruled country. israel WILL be less safe, as will anyone who supports her (us).

all that is left is when it will happen, not if it will happen. the only real decision we have to make is how many more americans need to die before we go, adn how many iraqis will they kill before it happens. these are the only decisions left to us. the only real decisions we ever had according to history.

stupid is as stupid does.

we would be better off supporting Hussin with american military to put him back in power. that is how bad we screwed up.

Its beggining to sound like the 'decider' has just about decided.

Media reports of boosting the permanent active-duty military by up to 70,000, to sending an extra 30,000-40,000 to Baghdad to quell the insurgency (!), are popping up all over with very little contradiction or denial from the WH.

So, the plan that was outlined here, in this document, appears to be developing into the 'prefered' option of a president who has just about run out of options.

Excerpts for anyone not ar$ed to click....



S'funny tho. If it was all about stockpiles of cash, no wars fought by western countries should have been 'lost'. France v Algeria, USA v Vietnam should have been whitewashes if it was only about money.




That last bit sounds a good plan!

Time for all the 101st fighting keyboarders to put their computers into standby mode and get over there and do what they have been so enthusiastic about all this time.


After all your president needs you!

My take on the war in Iraq (as a non American) is that President Bush exercised a will to strike out at global terrorism (and the M.E dilemmas in a broader spectrum) but forgot outright, to his discredit, a few key elements.

1. North America for the most part hasn't the will for any sort of long and protracted war, no matter how "noble" the cause. Patriotism in the past fueled many campaigns, but it is now not enough in a global multimedia sound-bit filtered world.

2. He underestimated some of the key players within the EU who played a very integral role to exposing just how vulnerable a paper tiger can be, by manuvering the USA to go it alone. France and Germany had/have HUGE interests in Iraq, and, as Chirac made clear some years ago...he wants the EU to be the next global super-cop (read as billion of dollars defense contracts etc) which is where the real money is.

I admire the American President for actually taking a stand where others blind eye it. But the reality is, is that blind eyeing everything keeps for the most part a status-quo where nothing is ever really gained, but not lost either.

I agree with you in principle. Most of this has to do with the voters wanting/needing to feel that their government has a grip on the situation and knows what they're doing. The opposition in this case was very very suceessful at seeding doubt amoung the voters about this very issue. You're absolutely right that it's is not and never was a "mandate to leave Iraq". It was much more about believing that "stay the course" wasn't working.

Where I'm going to diverge is that I think that despite all the talk and statistics and whatnot, "stay the course" is pretty much what if anything is going to win this. The simple fact is that if we stay in Iraq long enough, the fighting will eventually die down, the nation will stabilize, and we can leave with a big "V". How long that takes and how many people will die in the process is unknown.

I think what we're seeing in Washington right now is a realization (by many Dems now that they're more involved in the process) of this simple fact. They'll dress it up with relatively minor changes. We'll increase troops for awhile. Then decrease them. Then shuffle them around the country. We'll try different specific varient strategies, and eventually things will die down. Of course, they'd have died down if we'd just sat there doing nothing and changing nothing, but we'll all think that it was the changes that made the difference.

We're in a situation in which the various power brokers in Iraq are going to determine how long this process goes on. They're going to keep fighting eachother for a bigger piece of the pie until they're convinced that they can't get any more from fighting. Then the fighting will stop. All we have to do is keep the country from falling appart entirely while this goes on. We have to keep the industry running and the goods and supplies flowing to the people.

If it takes a public believing that by voting Democrat they've changed things in Iraq to buy us the time for this to happen, then that's fine. We'll do a bit more razzle dazzle for a couple more years. Hopefully, that'll be enough time...


Another point:



No nation in the history of the world has "the will" for a long and protracted war. Never happened. The people never want to, it's only the degree to which the nation can continue fighting even if the people don't want to that allows wars to be sustainable for longer periods of time. In the US, what happened was that the War Powers Act changed the way we make war. While it closed up a loophole that was being used by Presidents to fight military actions without getting Congress to approve them, it also effectively removed the process of granting "war powers" to the president for larger and longer wars.

What this means is that all wars are fought by committee. In this case a committee that is beholden to voters in a relatively short period (the full house and 1/3rdish of the senate every 2 years). There's a reason the Founders separated the powers up and put the power to conduct war into the executive branch. It was specifically so that the day to day operation of that war would not be subject to the politics of the day. Once congress declared war, that was it. They had no more say in the matter. Now, the fact that congress can pull the plug on the war (or even specific aspects of it), means that political pressure from "the people" will have a direct impact on the way any war is carried out. Some may think that's a good thing. Representation of the people and all that. But I think the track records of wars in the last half century is a pretty good indicator that this pretty much always lead to disaster.

And that's for pretty much the reason you point out. Warfare is never popular. It's sometimes necessary, but it's never popular. The problem with the way we're set up right now (the US that is) is particularly screwy. The people will rile up and push for war if the reasons are felt strongly enough. But their desire to continue fighting will tend to wane after about a year or so. The problem is that we have invested both the power to start wars and the power to limit, modify, and end them all in Congress, which is the house most directly influenced by those people. The danger is that Congress will not treat the matter of starting a war with the thought that they would if they knew the were handing the keys of the castle to the president and would have no more say in the matter. Thus, we'll get into a war more easily then we should, and then lose interest as popularity wanes and leave a disaster behind us.

It's a pretty screwy way of handling things IMO. I have a particular dislike for members of Congress who voted for the war in 2002, and within a year or two were calling for withdrawal of some form. You don't declare war with the intention of only fighting it until your constituents back home aren't happy about it. That's insane. You should commit to the completion of the goals of the war *before* voting for it. Flip flop on anything else, but not a declaration of war. If you vote for it, you need to support it until it's done.


And this is the bit that really kills me. We haven't "lost" in Iraq. We're still fighting. Soldiers are still dying. But that's what war is. The only way we lose this thing is if we withdraw before Iraq is stabilized. Why then does that seem to be the one thing everyone wants to do? Isn't that nuts? I think so...