I see the appointment of the “War Czar” as a good sign-it means that Bush is setting this guy up as a “fall guy”. The war Czar will take the action to withdraw, and take the heat from the Congress and the press. Bush will write his memoirs, and the US can leave with a face-saving handover. Remember the “hand over” ceremony in Vietnam? it was so embarrassing that NO US generals showed up-insted, a disembodied recorde voice issued from an unmanned podium. made no difference-within hours S. vietnamese soldiers were stripping off their uniforms and becoming civilians.
:dubious:
You are dreaming if you think Bush is going to cut and run in that way. He’s not trying to set things up so that he can get out…he fully intends to stay as long as he’s in office. As he’s repeatedly said, its going to be up to the NEXT president to…do whatever.
Why some folks just don’t get this I have a hard time understanding. The man is stuborn…and he STILL thinks he’s right. He’s not trying to figure out some slimy way to do a bait and switch…he really intends to ‘stay the course’. Gods help us all…
-XT
Indeed. The Iraq Study Group that James Baker headed up gave him cover to start backing out if he’d wanted it. Instead, he escalated. How much clearer can he make his intentions??
That too.
What? Are you referring to this September ‘deadline’ that’s floating around? I’ll have to echo the others and say if you think we’re going to start withdrawing then, well…I hope you’re right, let’s just put it that way.
Why do you think they’ll say this September?
Don’t you understand, good ol’e Sal, the surge is just starting to work! We’re turning a corner! The political process is just starting to bear fruit after they’ve returned from their two month vacation. Insert something about al Qaida and 9/11 here. So, we need to stay. Of course, we can’t just stay forever. We need to have some benchmarks to hold the Iraqi government accountable. So we’ll know for sure if things are really going to work…let’s say…March of 2008. Yep. Trust us this time.
Yeah, yeah, I know. It’s just that when I try to imagine how I’d react to something similar I think I’d rather kill as many of the occupiers as possible, plus I’d like to stay and observe my handiwork. Plus, I’m pretty sure they think they go to heaven if they die in any fight against the infidel, not necessarily having to go the suicide route (although I suppose that’s the easiest).
Then again, really, all those suicide bombers are a drop in the bucket compared to the totality of the insurgency. Say, one thousand suicide bombers out of 25 million people. The vast majority are following standard insurgency tactics and melting into the local population. Sometimes it’s hard to remind yourself that a whole lot of bad shit is going on each and every day beside the headline grabbing bombings, like drive-by shootings, roving night-time death squads, snipers, kidnappings, IEDs that don’t go off as planned, and constant mortar/RPG attacks on bases/between neighborhoods.
Like I said, granted for some situations, but it seems most of the time it’s wasted on something like a market or something where, really, there are other options. Now a suicide bomber in a checkpoint or in a heavily guarded military area is definitely the way to go. Then again, let’s take the example of the guy who blew himself up attacking the Iraqi parliament – he didn’t really have to do that, did he? I mean, he passed through some ridiculous amount of check points and made it to the heart of the building. At that point he could’ve just planted it and left. I’m guessing he probably didn’t care much for that, he probably just wanted to send one last FU to the world.
Dropping and running he won’t be able to time the detonation for maximum impact. Hitting the button while he’s sitting next to it, he can.
-Joe
In principle ,I do not favor congressional involvement in the execution of U.S. foreign and military policy. I have seen its perverse effects in many cases. The conflict in Iraq is different. Over the last few years ,the president has let it proceed on automatic pilot ,making no corrections in the face of accumulating evidence that his strategy is failing and can not be rescued. Thus he lets the U.S. fly further and further into trouble ,squandering its influence ,it’s money and blood ,facilitating the cause of our enemies. The congress is the only mechanism that we have left to fill this vacuum in command;
Lt. Gen. William Odom US army (ret)
I wish these guys had the guts before they retired.
So do I. However, maybe we’re asking too much. All of their adult lives these guys have lived by the principle that it’s the civilian leadership that determines what we do militaritly and it’s their job to figure out the “how.”
By the time the military job was over and it became apparent that there was no presidential plan beyond “destroy Saddam’s army and government” it was too late for them to do much.
There is definitely some drawbacks to that tradition, but, in balance, I favor it. All governments are, to one degree or another, vulnerable to their own military institutions. Time and again, this has proven very destructive. Perhaps the tradition of military persons silent on political matters exaggerates that principle, but it is a very important factor in American democracy.
There is also some compensatory impact: if a highly placed general resigns specifically to speak his mind, he garners more attention to that view and emphasizes in no uncertain terms that the issue is of the very highest priority. Giving up your life’s work is pretty close to giving up your life, in terms of sacrifice.
OK, what can we, here at SDMB, do to stop the fire?
GW doesn’t seem at all interested in “stopping the fire.”
Congress, now that we are where we are, doesn’t have the will to do it the only way it can, cutting off all money, and we wouldn’t want them to.
About the only recourse we have is to point out over and over the foolishness of having elected GW in the first place. He was a washout at everything he tried. He was, and is, a shallow, sophomoric ninny who speaks (badly by the way), and therefore must think, in cliches. We can only hope that message will result in the election of someone who actually wants to get out next time we have the opportunity .
I ruefully concur, except for a couple of dim glimmers of hope lite.
Impeachment. Impossible a year ago, unlikely now. But my “take” on The Leader is that he would cave, if he thought impeachment to be a real threat.
And there is “victory”. That would be an invitation from the Maliki gov’t (or its successor) to invite America Elsewhere. The Leader could declare victory and order the troops home in time for the election but before the actual results would be manifest. Of course, Iraq would be likely to go to Hell in a hurry, but they would still have the line “Well, we gave them a functioning democracy, they screwed it up, not our fault.”
I don’t see this as a glimmer of hope. Given the wildly improbable, that GW is impeached and convicted. Standing in the wings is, ta da, Richard Bruce Cheney. How does that generate hope?
Admittedly, trying to peer into his mind is like trying to read tea leaves in a toilet bowl, but…
My point is not that he might be impeached, but that he would cave before it got to that point, he may realize that his only hope of not being disgraced is to submit to adult supervision. Even though the bar for impeachment is very high indeed, it is no longer impossible, just very unlikely.
And just as clearly, Cheney has done…quite enough. He needs to spend more time with his family.
Could be, I guess. Of course he has Carl Rove telling him that there’s no way he will be impeached.
Realistically, I don’t see how he COULD be impeached…even if he’s done something impeachable. Which, afaik, he hasn’t…at least not anything thats even on the radar atm. Look how long the whole Watergate thing simmered before they even go to the point of talking about impeachment…IIRC, it was over a year after the story first broke before the heat even started to get turned up.
If you are holding your breath for impeachment, I think you are going to be pretty blue in the face before…nothing happens at all and Bush simply exits, stage left and someone else takes the helm.
JMHO of course.
-XT
Well, according to the testimony in the Gonzales mess, the Justice Department says that the warrentless wiretaps were illegal but my understanding is that he authorized them anyway. Then the procedure was changed to stay inside the law.
I does look, on the surface, as if there were illegal wiretaps being used for a while. But, you’re right. The investigation to determine whether or not such is the case would stretch on, and on, and on.
**
\
\
\
\
\
\
|
/
\/
And on.**
Well, we didn’t start it. It was always burning, since the world’s been turning. We didn’t light it, but we tried to fight it.
Is there enough time for impeachment.?
I’m beginning to think that Iraq (sans US troops) might actually quiet down rather quickly. think about it: the target (the the US forces present) is gone. The Iraqi people need money (oil exports). Th leaders of the militias (the religious imams) can halt the fighting overnight. I think a US withdrawl might result in peace pretty quickly-non of the factions are strong enough to destroy eachother-so reason will prevail.
And then the fairy pixies will come forth and spread magic happy dust on everyone.
Seriously, do you think there is any chance of this?
:dubious: Even if the leaders of the militias COULD stop the fighting overnight (which I doubt), why WOULD they? They all have different aims after all. Do you really believe that they are fighting each other…because we are there? And that if we go, magically they will be able to come to an agreement and stop the fighting??
This smacks of a fundamental lack of understanding of WHY the various factions are fighting in Iraq.
No…thats the point.