Can his supporters explain why Iraq isn't just another GW Bush SNAFU?

[Brutus]

@Squink

What’s the “necessary conclusion”? Is it within the realm of the possible to achieve it?

A fairly stable Iraq that pumps out the oil. (Not for free, of course. Simply offers it for sale at going rates.)

At the very least, that is what I would expect. Of course, I hope that once Iraq is fairly stable, we use its wonderful central position to begin forcing some real change in the region, but I don’t know if that will happen or not. You possibly see GW as going too far. I see him as possibly not going far enough. Shrug

Achievable? Certainly. So long as the politicians in Washington do not hamstring the generals in Baghdad, it is achievable.

[Brutus]

Presumed, of course, is that said more-stable Iraq would be not opposed to American interests, if not actively pro-American.

[Brutus]

And while I am at it, what do you, <insert name of any board Lefty>, think that the end-game in Iraq would look like? What are your conditions for calling it a success? (Or as successfull as can be, assuming you are completely opposed to the war in the first place.)

[Sevastopol]

@Brutus

And while I am at it, what do you, <insert name of any board Lefty>, think that the end-game in Iraq would look like? What are your conditions for calling it a success? (Or as successfull as can be, assuming you are completely opposed to the war in the first place.)

Not <any board Lefty>, but : A neat accounting in B&W of how much it all costs would be a good start.

For icing on that particular cake, the costs in opportunity, reputation and lives would be just frosty.

It’s a small-government thing. Tight controls on our politicians. Party platform of the rummages, checks library Conservatives!

[Brutus]

@sevastopol

Not <any board Lefty>, but : A neat accounting in B&W of how much it all costs would be a good start.

For icing on that particular cake, the costs in opportunity, reputation and lives would be just frosty.

It’s a small-government thing. Tight controls on our politicians. Party platform of the rummages, checks library Conservatives!

When you feel like addressing the actual question, great! Until then, what the hell are you going on about?

[Sevastopol]

If the administration gives a plain accounting, in black and white of:

• what it cost
• what we gave up
• what we got

I’ll count that as the first indicator of success.

[David_Simmons]

@Brutus

…
Achievable? Certainly. So long as the politicians in Washington do not hamstring the generals in Baghdad, it is achievable.

If politicians would just let “the generals” design the political order everything will be hunky dory?

This is the most foolish worldview I’ve seen in quite a while.

[ElvisL1ves]

If only Truman had let MacArthur invade China, with nukes if necessary, we could have “won” the Korean War. If only Johnson and Nixon had let LeMay carpet-bomb all of North Vietnam, we could have “won” there, too. But no, they had to “hamstring the generals” with all that political meddling.

For damn good reasons, Brutus.

@Brutus

A fairly stable Iraq that pumps out the oil. (Not for free, of course. Simply offers it for sale at going rates.)

That’s essentially what was there before, ya know. So, to declare success, we should reverse everything Bush has done, is that what you mean?

[rjung]

Silly Elvis! Previously, the money from oil sales was going into Saddam’s pockets, not Halliburton’s! That’s the key difference right there!

[David_Simmons]

@rjung

Silly Elvis! Previously, the money from oil sales was going into Saddam’s pockets, not Halliburton’s! That’s the key difference right there!

And that’s a step forward?

GW Bushleague invaded Iraq because Saddam possessed and was willing to use weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence was absolutely certain on this point. Oops, no! After all, intelligence is only a best guess. Well, it was because he was involved with Al Qaeda and the WTC attacks. Oops, no! Well it was because he was an imminent threat to the US. Really?
The UN is a bunch of ineffective hacks and we don’t need help from such an organization. Oops, well maybe the UN could help up straighten out Iraq after all. However, we will manage the whole operation because we have done such a super job so far and who could as for anything more?

Iraq’s oil would pay for the rebuilding of the country. Oops, come to think of it we need 187 billion as a down payment.

We’ve got plenty of armed force in Iraq. Oops, after “replacements” arrive for the forces there it turns out we need to keep the originals there for another 90 days. So far.

And based on the number of hits on another thread John Kerry’s action with medals that are his to do with as he pleases are the vital topic of the day. Go figure. And, of course, Kerry changes his mind on exceedingly difficult matters and this isn’t allowed.

You’ve got to “stay the course.” And do that even if you are lost.

Don’t get me wrong. If GW changes his mind and asks for UN help. If he tries to mend realations with other countries great. I just wish he didn’t have to get the rest of us in deep shit before he does it.

I’m flabbergasted that any sane person could think that injecting ourselves by armed force into the Middle East is good foreign policy.

[PatriotX]

Take a look at this piece from the newly liberal, turncoat tool of the Democratic party National Review. Might as well’ve been written by Richard Clarke. :rolleyes:
[/sarcasm]

**“Since the conclusion of the war, the Bush administration has shown a dismaying capacity to believe its own public relations. The post-war looting was explained away as the natural and understandable exuberance of a newly-liberated people.
Secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld denied the obvious reality of a guerrilla resistance and compared it to urban street crime in the United States. Every piece of good news has been hailed as turning the corner, even as the insurgency has remained stubbornly strong.
The administration clearly wasn’t ready for the magnitude of the task that rebuilding and occupying Iraq would present.”
**
Compare to the OP’s

"It looks like GW, Rummy, Wolfie, et al fell for their own propaganda that we would be welcomed as “liberators,” that Iraq oil would finance the war, and that bringing a “democratic nation into the region” would be a piece of cake."
Between this and the The Weekly Standard Editor, William Kristol, finally admitting that “it has as much or more in common with the liberal hawks than with traditional conservatives.” I don’t know what to think.
Maybe it means the beginning of the end to TWS’s type of oxymoronic editorials about the virtues of GWB’s “big-government conservatism.”

[David_Simmons]

Whatever the generals ask for in the way of support for the Iraq troops they will get - says Rummy.

And this story in the Los Angles Times proves it.

The Army leased surplus howitzers to ski resorts to use for initiating small avalanches so as to forestall big ones. Now the Army wants them back to send to Iraq. Oh yes, we could fight two simultaneous wars blindfolded - which seems to be the way Rummy is operating now.

From the story: “California ski operators said Tuesday that the U.S. military was reclaiming five howitzers it leased to ski resorts last year to fight avalanches so the weapons could be used by troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

At the same time in the same paper an editorial column by Mathew Miller tells of Jay Johnson, profiled this week by the New York Times, who is a National Guard from Tennesee. He owned and operated a 3-truck mobile catering business. He was called up and sent to Iraq where he has served for 18 months. His business is now down to 1 truck and his wife says that if Jay doesn’t return soon the business will be gone. But, as I wrote in another post, the House of Representatives will allow him to draw out of his retirement account without penalty, thus spending his retirement to live now while his business goes belly up. I’m sure, though, that when he gets to retirement age the “stand-on-your-own-two-feet,” “free enterprize,” “entrepreneurs are the backbone of America” crowd will be glad to tell him he should have planned better.

[Evil_Captor]

@David Simmons

I’m sure, though, that when he gets to retirement age the “stand-on-your-own-two-feet,” “free enterprize,” “entrepreneurs are the backbone of America” crowd will be glad to tell him he should have planned better.

God, yes, I can hear those conservative and libertarian asshats now braying that stuff.

[Evil_Captor]

And for the record, in my previous post, I’m only calling those conservatives and libertarians who WOULD say such things to a person who spent their retirement pay while in military service “asshats” – which is not all conservatives and libertarians. Just … a lot of them.

[Cervaise]

@Brutus

George W. Bush is a better choice than John Kerry when it comes to dealing with X.

Wait a minute: George Bush sells illegal happymaking drugs at rave-ins?

[Apos]

You’re missing the real story here, which is that the President is refusing to grant additional funds that are needed to ensure the safety of our troops because he doesn’t want to up the pricetag of the war before the election.

And while I am at it, what do you, <insert name of any board Lefty>, think that the end-game in Iraq would look like? What are your conditions for calling it a success? (Or as successfull as can be, assuming you are completely opposed to the war in the first place.)

I don’t know: but it might be helpful, in planning such an outcome, if our President would stop concealing the actual cost of various options from the public and from Congress, merely for the purposes of his own re-election.

Just to nitpick – Bush may claim he pays no attention to the polls or what the public wants, but the reality is that the Administration is very sensitive to fine-tuning its message to make it easier to sell their policies to the American public. Whether it’s a phrase like “Axis of Evil” or the cover-up of “Made in China” boxes at a Presidential appearance, this Administration uses polls, test audiences, and other advertising/propaganda techniques for the maximum sell-through of its message.

Heck, see my current sig.

[Apos]

Whatever the generals ask for in the way of support for the Iraq troops they will get - says Rummy.

The boldest of boldfaced lies. Generals have been asking for all sorts of stuff they never got for months. They were asking before the war, and were scoffed at, in some cases pushed out of their positions in planning the war. Their plans for readying troops for the occupation was thrown out the window. Pleas to postpone the war just two weeks so that they could get new equipment and support set up were ignored. And the requests for more troops and equipment have been ongoing… and largely ignored. Even the current request for more personel was disingenously “fulfilled” not by sending more manpower, but just prolonging the stays of people who are already there.

[David_Simmons]

@Brutus

And while I am at it, what do you, <insert name of any board Lefty>, think that the end-game in Iraq would look like? What are your conditions for calling it a success? (Or as successfull as can be, assuming you are completely opposed to the war in the first place.)

Your solution, I suspect, is to hope for a happy, free and democratic Iraq where we all can live happily ever after in the big house up on the hill.

We have a representative government system and supposedly install expert politicians to figure out and accomplish such things. Each person isn’t expected to have all the answers. Just because some SOB has pushed you over a cliff and you are hanging by a tree root it doesn’t mean you know how to get out of the situation.

My solution is to temporarily bear what we have because we can’t do anything about it, and then in Novermber elect someone who knows some words other than, “Stay the course.”

Won’t any GW supporters tell us, with reasons, why that is a bad idea?

[Master_Wang-Ka]

rjung, you make an excellent point; I suppose GWB has to care about the American people’s opinions, if for no other reason than to get elected.

Then again, it’s hard to admit that when Americans are getting killed every day in situations that may have been avoided by listening to military men’s advice… advice he solicited, presumably because these soldiers were competent tacticians and strategists… and then ignored, because it didn’t fit with what The Administration wanted to do.

As to wars being fought in absentia: True, our soldiers take their orders, ultimately, from their Commander In Chief, the President. Unfortunately, the President, far as I can tell, is in no way competent to run a war, and seems to be doing it in such a fashion as to least endanger his reelection campaign. We need to, uh, subdue Fallujah, and, uh, Najaf, and, uh, Djelibeybi, and, um, all those other bad places. Just, um, surround 'em with Marines, and, um, well, uh, wait for them to see reason…

Meanwhile, Americans get killed. And Iraqis get killed by other Iraqis, which is immediately blamed on Americans. And the mighty crapfest goes on. And by the time anyone totals up the butcher’s bill and is able to get a clear view of the entire situation, Bush will be out of office, safely in retirement, clipping his coupons and counting his money and perhaps buying thousands of coloring books for his Presidential Library.

It makes me sick.

[RTFirefly]

Will, today:

Violent Sunnis must be crushed. Shiites need an incentive – protecting their capacity to rule after elections – to crush them and to discipline their own ranks. Iraq’s third component, the Kurds, have representative institutions up and running, and an army to strengthen their hand in negotiating favorable parameters of federalism. They also seem amenable to a U.S. military presence in their midst.

The results of elections, including theocratic elements, may be markedly unlovely. That may break the big hearts of those in the U.S. government who hope for a luminously liberal democracy to shame the entire Middle East into emulation, thereby justifying the war originally justified primarily by the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. But pursuit of that ideal can impede achievement of something tolerable: a stable, perhaps illiberal, even authoritarian Iraq which cooperates in the war against terrorism. Call this an exit strategy.

Krauthammer, 2 weeks ago:

This is no time for despair. We must put down the two rebellions – Fallujah’s and Sadr’s – to demonstrate our seriousness, and then transfer power as quickly as we can to those who will inherit it anyway, the Shiite majority, with its long history of religious quietism and wariness of Iran. And antagonism toward its former Sunni oppressors. If the Sunnis continue to resist and carry on a civil war, it will then be up to the Shiites to fight it, not for Americans to do it on their behalf.

Hardly the best of all possible worlds. But it is a world we could live with.

I don’t think a great deal of either Will or Krauthammer. But they are a couple of the heaviest hitters on the conservative side of the op-ed pages. And they’re both saying: put the Shi’ites in charge, and leave; if the result isn’t democracy, well, that’s life.

It makes me wonder if that sentiment isn’t growing among American conservatives at this point. And if one is a proponent of such a course, it’s tantamount to believing that the war was pointless: no WMDs, no Saddam-terrorism nexus, and finally, hundreds of Americans dead and thousands maimed in order to take Iraq from secular dictatorship to Islamic theocracy. Not to mention earning a big pile of ill will in the region that can’t exactly help us in the War on Terror.

That’s quite a scorecard.