What, if anything, is Bush's plan for Iraq?

[BJMoose]

Thanks, minty, for making me focus on Bush’s announced plan, such as it is. Lame. Lame.

Saw a newpaper item a few days back that illustrates Point Three (reconstruction) all too well: someone, presumably Halliburton, finally scrounged up the obscure valves needed to put an oil pipeline back in service. Within a day the damn thing was blown up again. Welcome to Tom and Jerry: The Lost Episodes.

I suspect Bush’s only real plan for the next eight weeks is to somehow keep Iraq from jumping up and biting him in the scrotum.

And thanks to dropzone for bringing up that Knight Ridder story from this morning. You know a Republican president is in trouble when he loses the hearts and minds of senators from Nebraska. (I’m a Kansan, so I know whereof I speak).

[RTFirefly]

@RTFirefly

We’ve lost more troops in Iraq so far in 2004 than in all of 2003 - in a month’s less time. That’ll be true for the Coalition as a whole in just a few days, the way things are (pro?)gressing.

It’s already true.

[toadspittle]

@Sam Stone

One of the reasons I think it’s important for Bush to win is that I think it will hurt the morale of the insurgents who are hoping to change U.S. policy. A Kerry victory will embolden them and lead to even more violence.

Ah, yes. Just like Carter’s losing the election in 1980 emboldened the Iranians to execute those hostages they were holding and to take thousands more U.S. citizens captive in the following years. If only we had stayed the course and kept our sitting president, they would have thought we were stronger, and those hostages would be home with their families today.

What?

[RTFirefly]

It says we’re in deep shit:

A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq, government officials said Wednesday.

The estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through the end of 2005, with the worst case being developments that could lead to civil war, the officials said. The most favorable outcome described is an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic and security terms.

<snip>

The new estimate by the National Intelligence Council was approved at a meeting in July by Mr. McLaughlin and the heads of the other intelligence agencies, the officials said.

Its pessimistic conclusions were reached even before the recent worsening of the security situation in Iraq, which has included a sharp increase in attacks on American troops and in deaths of Iraqi civilians as well as resistance fighters.

[RTFirefly]

Meanwhile, even the Green Zone isn’t safe anymore:

US military officers in Baghdad have warned they cannot guarantee the security of the perimeter around the Green Zone, the headquarters of the Iraqi government and home to the US and British embassies, according to security company employees.

At a briefing earlier this month, a high-ranking US officer in charge of the zone’s perimeter said he had insufficient soldiers to prevent intruders penetrating the compound’s defences.

The US major said it was possible weapons or explosives had already been stashed in the zone, and warned people to move in pairs for their own safety. The Green Zone, in Baghdad’s centre, is one of the most fortified US installations in Iraq.

[Squink]

@RTFirefly

New National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq

The intelligence estimate, the first on Iraq since October 2002, was prepared by the National Intelligence Council and was approved by the National Foreign Intelligence Board under John E. McLaughlin, the acting director of central intelligence.

I wonder if Condi will bother to read this one? At 50 pages, it’s kind of long.

[Squink]

Today, 07:08 PM

WooHoo, Now we are posting in the FUTURE!
I wonder if I’ve returned to the present yet, or maybe even the past?

[RTFirefly]

Well, we know it’s far too long for Bush to read.

Collounsbury has a pretty good collection of links about the Iraq situation from the past day or so here. The Guardian story is particularly frightening.

[Squink]

There seems to be a warp here.
Time and posting order are moving backwards.

this is my third consecutive post. The first (with the quote from RT) was early this afternoon, despite its time stamp.

[Squink]

It looks like my posting dated 7:08, will remain the last post for a few more hours.

[Fear_Itself]

His plan is to be re-elected, then spend 300 billion more dollars and sacrifice 2000 more American lives. Then, in January 2009, it will no longer be his problem, and the Democrats can take the fall for having to pull out.

[elucidator]

First off, our pretense of “democracy” is a farce, and a moment’s reflection will prove it. Under any reasonably egalitarian representative governance, the Shia would have an unbreakable majority. If reasonable estimates were to show without doubt that an election would certainly install a theocratic government, as in Iran…a government almost certain to be hostile to American interests…does anyone really believe that we would permit such an election to go forward? I certainly don’t.

Best guess: Bush will cut a deal. Alawi (or his successor) will ruefully confess that the Iraqi people are not ready for democracy, it will take time to build a population ready to accept the responsibilities of real democracy. In the meantime, about the best that can be done is an autocratic government. Not a totalitarian government, mind you. Oh, no, nothing like that, just a transitional government. To prepare the way for real democracy, you understand. Might take a while, but rest assured, the very instant the Iraqi people are judged sufficiently prepared, elections will be held, elections we may be fairly assured will return a ringing endorsement for the incumbency.

How long, do you suppose, before large portraits of Allawi (or his successor) begin appearing in public places, smiling paternally down on the happy population?