New Approach

[Downthestretch55]

I listened to the President's speech last night wherein he stated his "new approach". Surprisingly, I agree with some of his positions.
On moving forward with reconstruction, I agree. Let's start with New Orleans.
On "advancing liberty", I also agree. Let's start by repeal of the signing statements that allow his administration to monitor our phone calls and read our mail.
On Mr. Bush's definition of "victory" as " a functioning democracy that polices its territory, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people",
again I agree. Let's begin in the United States. This would be a "new approach".
I disagree with Mr. Bush's faith in Mr Maliki being able to bring resolution to the civil war that rages in his country. Mr Maliki has already demonstrated his competance in presiding over last week's lynching, oops, execution of Saddam Hussein.
I also will not bet on any horse that our President recommends. Though he has finally taken the reponsibility for mistakes that have happened in the past, I do not wish to exonnerate him for his continuing ones. He's good at picking losers.
DTS

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

I listened to the President's speech last night wherein he stated his "new approach". Surprisingly, I agree with some of his positions.
On moving forward with reconstruction, I agree. Let's start with New Orleans.
On "advancing liberty", I also agree. Let's start by repeal of the signing statements that allow his administration to monitor our phone calls and read our mail.
On Mr. Bush's definition of "victory" as " a functioning democracy that polices its territory, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people",
again I agree. Let's begin in the United States. This would be a "new approach".
I disagree with Mr. Bush's faith in Mr Maliki being able to bring resolution to the civil war that rages in his country. Mr Maliki has already demonstrated his competance in presiding over last weeks lynching, oops, execution of Saddam Hussein.
I alos will not bet on any horse that our President recommends. though he has finally taken the reponsibility for mistakes that have happened in the past, I do not wish to exonnerate him for his continuing ones. He's good at picking losers.
DTS

lol. I was disappointed he didn't say lowering taxes on the rich would win the war.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

lol. I was disappointed he didn't say lowering taxes on the rich would win the war.

I heard nothing that gave me the slightest bit of encouragement...I didn't really expect it but still...I stopped watching Buffy reruns to listen to him...waste of time!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I heard nothing that gave me the slightest bit of encouragement...I didn't really expect it but still...I stopped watching Buffy reruns to listen to him...waste of time!

slept right thru it myself.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

slept right thru it myself.

so many have been sleeping for the past four years...time to wake up, Danzig, and all the rest.
America!!!!!! Don't hit the snooze button!!

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

so many have been sleeping for the past four years...time to wake up, Danzig, and all the rest.
America!!!!!! Don't hit the snooze button!!

Hold it awile,huh? There's more football games....how 'bout they reconvene Congress 2 days after the Super Bowl so's everybodys' hangovers will be gone!! I mean, geessh, let's have some priorities here,huh?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

so many have been sleeping for the past four years...time to wake up, Danzig, and all the rest.
America!!!!!! Don't hit the snooze button!!

dts, i get up before 3 am. i wasn't sitting up to watch that bozo. i knew i could read all the talking points today.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

lol. I was disappointed he didn't say lowering taxes on the rich would win the war.

Taxes didn't come up.
Do any of you find it to be a little amazing that the US and Iran (Shia) are fighting a common enemy, the Sunnis (Sadr's), for which we are sending an additional 21,500 troops? That makes sense.
But then again, the second biggest backers of the huge national debt we are incurring is the Saudis (Sunni) the ones we are fighting this proxy war for, to prevent Iraqi oil from competing on the open market. hmmm....
Didn't Osama bin Laden come from Saudi Arabia? 16 of the 9-11 hijackers?
The clear thinking that went into this "new approach" astounds me!

[Downthestretch55]

Richard Durbin's response:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007..._official.html

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Taxes didn't come up.
Do any of you find it to be a little amazing that the US and Iran (Shia) are fighting a common enemy, the Sunnis (Sadr's), for which we are sending an additional 21,500 troops? That makes sense.
But then again, the second biggest backers of the huge national debt we are incurring is the Saudis (Sunni) the ones we are fighting this proxy war for, to prevent Iraqi oil from competing on the open market. hmmm....
Didn't Osama bin Laden come from Saudi Arabia? 16 of the 9-11 hijackers?
The clear thinking that went into this "new approach" astounds me!

Before Cowboy George got on the horse, our Middle East politics were a bit more subtle. We supported the Shah, then cut him off. We supported Saddam then had cut him off. It was all about money.

It would be naive to think Bush would do anything that could remotely be considered critical of the Saudis. Too many film clips of his father hanging out with les Sheikhs as well as far too many friendly fortunes made.

And maybe you and I are the only two people in the world that don't know that the war is going so well we are now ready to take on the
Iranians and Syrians.

I am all for winning wars but this has gotten ridiculous.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Before Cowboy George got on the horse, our Middle East politics were a bit more subtle. We supported the Shah, then cut him off. We supported Saddam then had cut him off. It was all about money.

It would be naive to think Bush would do anything that could remotely be considered critical of the Saudis. Too many film clips of his father hanging out with les Sheikhs as well as far too many friendly fortunes made.

And maybe you and I are the only two people in the world that don't know that the war is going so well we are now ready to take on the
Iranians and Syrians.

I am all for winning wars but this has gotten ridiculous.

Ridiculous...agree.

We just need to bring the troops home. Enough is enough. There will never be peace in the mid-east.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Taxes didn't come up.
Do any of you find it to be a little amazing that the US and Iran (Shia) are fighting a common enemy, the Sunnis (Sadr's), for which we are sending an additional 21,500 troops? That makes sense.
But then again, the second biggest backers of the huge national debt we are incurring is the Saudis (Sunni) the ones we are fighting this proxy war for, to prevent Iraqi oil from competing on the open market. hmmm....
Didn't Osama bin Laden come from Saudi Arabia? 16 of the 9-11 hijackers?
The clear thinking that went into this "new approach" astounds me!

Sadr is a Shia, not a Sunni.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Sadr is a Shia, not a Sunni.

Correction noted. Thank you Rupert.

[Downthestretch55]

http://tomdegan.blogspot.com/2007/01...ard.html#links

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Taxes didn't come up.
Do any of you find it to be a little amazing that the US and Iran (Shia) are fighting a common enemy, the Sunnis (Sadr's), for which we are sending an additional 21,500 troops? That makes sense.

DTS this is flat out inaccurate. We are trying to stop the Sunnis and Shiites from killing each other. We have killed numerous Shiites while trying to protect ourselves. American troops are attacked by more Shiite militias than Sunnis. And the Shiites are fighting amongst themselves for power. It really is not fair to over simplify and then imply that it does not make sense.
BTW the man we would most like to kill is a Shiite... Sadr from that bopping of town of Sadr city.

oops did not read enough, Rupert caught it. And I also think we got more information out of the Bush adminstration as far as tactics than we have ever gotten before. At least we know how they are going to try to create safer areas and how this in turn might stabilize the country. Having said that I dont think its going to work. We have reached an extreme level of instability. Urban civil war.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by pgardn

DTS this is flat out inaccurate. We are trying to stop the Sunnis and Shiites from killing each other. We have killed numerous Shiites while trying to protect ourselves. American troops are attacked by more Shiite militias than Sunnis. And the Shiites are fighting amongst themselves for power. It really is not fair to over simplify and then imply that it does not make sense.
BTW the man we would most like to kill is a Shiite... Sadr from that bopping of town of Sadr city.

oops did not read enough, Rupert caught it. And I also think we got more information out of the Bush adminstration as far as tactics than we have ever gotten before. At least we know how they are going to try to create safer areas and how this in turn might stabilize the country. Having said that I dont think its going to work. We have reached an extreme level of instability. Urban civil war.

P,
I noted the correction, post #26. What I meant to say was that the Iranian backed Shia are also those that the US is allied with against the Sunni.

To me, it is easy to justify genocide, whether the words are "surge", "escalation" or "augmentation" (like they need bigger boobs).
It make about as much sense.
Believe whatever you think is justified.
I don't.
Insanity is obvious.

[Downthestretch55]

Pgardn,
Two more questions:
1) Have you noticed that since the speech on Wed. there is a lack of reporting by all major US media on the situation in Iraq?
2) What do you make of this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/wa...rtner=homepage

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

lol. I was disappointed he didn't say lowering taxes on the rich would win the war.

well, that just goes without saying...

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

While the war was never fought as I believed it should be from the start, let me play devil's advocate:

The positives seem that Iraq has been informed that the diaper has to come off soon and they will ultimately be responsible for their own fate. Transitioning the lead in certain operations to Iraqi forces with the US playing back-up seems like a step in this direction. Clear benchmarks that Iraq is to aim for is also another step in this direction, imho.

Also, stabilizing Baghdad and ensuring the stability lasts and not leaving areas after they are cleared from both Shia and Sunni militias also seems like a good idea.


Do I think it will work? No. I sure hope so, though. At minimum, it seems that less people will get killed, but I guess that depends whether or not this is just setting the stage for an attack on Syria or Iran or not.

Hey, B! Hooray for playing Devil's Advocate in discussions! Thanks for chiming in.

Here's some thoughts on those issues, from Tim F. on balloon-juice.com. I'm just lifting it because he puts it better than I could. What do you think?

<<Let’s take a quick recap through last night’s speech, and then wrap up with what struck me as his one big idea.

First, the things that don’t matter:

* More troops. 20,000 more troops is a drop in the bucket. Unless we also change how our army operates (more on that below) I doubt that insurgents will even notice. The people who will notice, however, are the military managers who are trying to a strained force from collapsing entirely. Plus the poor saps trying to win in Afghanistan.
* A larger military. Fine idea considering our current readiness levels, but it won’t mean much for Iraq. How long will it take to transform policy into boots on the ground? Years, at best. Our time in Iraq won’t last that long, now even less long thanks to added strain from the President’s “surge.”
* Mandates. What are the consequences for Maliki blowing off our demands? As far as I can tell, nothing. The extra troops will go in anyway.
* “Diplomacy.” The only two regional partners who matter are Syria and Iran. As always the President will only talk to them if they agree to give up everything in advance. The best explanation that I have heard for such obvious bad faith involves fears by the administration about having a weak bargaining position vis a vis Iran. We don’t have any leverage, of course, because we removed Iran’s regional competitor, installed an Iran-friendly regime in his place and ground our fighting forces to dust in the process.

That leaves one point which could have an impact. Like Noah Shachtman I think that moving troops out of the insular FOBs and changing the rules of engagement will change life both for us and for the insurgents. Without a doubt this move comes from the Petraeus playbook and in 2003, with sufficient number of men, I think that we would have a chance of a positive result.

Sadly this isn’t 2003. Too much poisoned Euphrates wter has passed under the bridge for embittered Iraqis to give Americans the benefit of the doubt again. The sectarian mobs have had years to equip, train and exchange bloody shirts. Insurgents have years of hard training at our hands and porous borders to endlessly replenish their numbers, which will swell each time our new engagement rules accidentally makes another taxi full of civilians into a statistic. That has nothing to do with malicious intent on the part of our soldiers, it is simply the inevitable result of loosening the rules in a maddeningly complex urban environment. Good people will do bad things by accident and for perfectly understandable reasons, but none of that is visible to the local public. Only the bad things. And then you have idiotic stories like this which have the same war-losing value as a division of insurgents.

Of course the move out of FOBs is only a half-assed implementation of the Petraeus Doctrine . Fred Kaplan recently observed that Petraeus would need about twice as many combat troops as we have in all of Iraq. Instead of that America can spare 20,000. There is good reason to think we can’t even spare that. So if America’s best informed counterinsurgency strategist thinks that we have nowhere near the number of men needed to win, what exactly is the point of putting more men in harm’s way? Unless Petraeus’s own manual is comically off-base the change won’t win the war. As near as I can tell it will just put more Americans in convenient AK-47 range.

It helps to recall why American commanders pulled troops into secure FOBs in the first place. Insurgents became very good at picking off unprotected troops, to the point that casualty levels became politically dangerous. Barring a compelling reason to go out (say, an overarching war strategy) it makes sense to keep troops inside and in armored convoys until we can get out of Dodge altogether. So what has changed? The President has moved past reelection and isn’t grooming anybody to replace him, which means that casualties aren’t politically dangerous anymore. Democrats won’t impeach him and it seems vanishingly unlikely that they will cut off the war funds, leaving the President free to do more or less whatever he wants.

Democrats of course have nothing to lose by protesting. The more the public sours on this GOP war the more they stand to win. Obviously the GOP, who did everything possible to own this war when ownership looked like a good thing, has more of a dilemma on its hands. You have to wonder what they plan to do about it.

***Update***

Some extra points:

* Other than moving troops out of the FOBs there really is no there there.
* Now that’s interesting. Instead of pulling the funds, attach so many strings to them that Bush vetoes the money himself. I hope the President likes that GOP-brand medicine.>>