Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Bush Rebrands Irak - Page 24







Post#576 at 10-20-2006 02:32 AM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
10-20-2006, 02:32 AM #576
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54 View Post
Sounds like a definite rebranding. For discussion purposes...

Major Change Expected In Strategy for Iraq War

It looks like all the deaths didn't move the White House, but the prospects of a big loss in the upcoming elections might. This would be the preliminary 'throw it out and see how it flies' notice.
I have a different take on this. The "prospects of a big loss" are actually motivating them to harden their position. The White House has absolutely nothing to gain by even appearing to allow "politics" to influence their thinking. On the other hand, they have everything to gain by "staying the course" despite the Dems possibly taking control of the Senate: with Levin in charge of the ASC and Biden heading the FRC, they can blame any eventual "cut and run" on the Dems, and Bush gets his very own Dolchstosslegende.

But for that to work, the big flip-flop has to come after the elections. Hence Mr. Snow-Job's offhand dismissal of the Iraq Study Group's core conclusions, even though we all know his protestations to be false.
Yes we did!







Post#577 at 10-20-2006 07:49 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
10-20-2006, 07:49 AM #577
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Finch View Post
I have a different take on this. The "prospects of a big loss" are actually motivating them to harden their position. The White House has absolutely nothing to gain by even appearing to allow "politics" to influence their thinking. On the other hand, they have everything to gain by "staying the course" despite the Dems possibly taking control of the Senate: with Levin in charge of the ASC and Biden heading the FRC, they can blame any eventual "cut and run" on the Dems, and Bush gets his very own Dolchstosslegende.

But for that to work, the big flip-flop has to come after the elections. Hence Mr. Snow-Job's offhand dismissal of the Iraq Study Group's core conclusions, even though we all know his protestations to be false.
You hit the nail on the head IMO. This is one of the reasons I believe that the Democratic leasdership has not been pushing the get out of Iraq meme very hard. Why, for example, Rahm Emmanuel recruited pro-war candidates to run for contested seats. His candidates are having trouble gaining traction on the war issue versus the Republicans since nobody represents the majority opinion that the US should withdraw from Iraq. But the GOP brand has been so tarnished this year that many of them will likely win, which provides the interesting situation of a Democratic majority whose new members are (relatively) prowar.

I suspect the new Democratic House will not try to end the war. I do think they will pass some sort of resolution that will force the GOP to reassert their support for this unpopular war. It is not the job of Congress to direct war policy. Bush is Commander in Chief, let him order the withdrawal of the troops. Meanwhile it will be subpoena time.

I suspect that Republican Congressmen, fearing another disaster in 2008 on the war issue will force the President to withdraw, if only to remove the unpopular war as an issue. A year ago when Murtha came out with his plan, I figured the jig is up. The military believes we cannot win and wants to get out. The general rule is what is privately acknowledged now becomes publically acknowledged in about a year. So I figured we would see a GOP withdrawal plan shortly after the election. And if the GOP stays in Iraq, then Iraq will continue to define what the GOP is all about.

One focus for the Dems over the next two years should be to develop the meme that Bush is the face of the Republican party and that the Iraq war was/is the centerpiece of the Republican programme for the USA. If you like Iraq, and want more things like Iraq, then the Party of Bush is the party for you. Dems should insist on pay-as-you go. The Party Of Bush is also the Party of Deficits.

The other focus should be to differentiate the Democratic Party from the Party of Bush (POB). Dems should make one attempt each year to pass a new minimum wage law ito force the POB to slap it down. Dems should propose universal government-provided health insurance for children under age 18, coupled with new, much higher co-pays for Medicaid recipients who go to hospital emergency rooms (as opposed to clinics) for non-emergency care. Furthermore, in the same bill they will propose increased taxes on higher income households to pay for the program. The POB will have to slap this one down too.

These will establish the domestic differences between the Democratic party and the POB.

As for national security, Dems should pass a proposal for searching 100% of shipping containers at ports, with a fee assessed on importers to pay for the cost (pay as you go) The POB will have to slap this down. Dems should pass a simlar law providing for facilities along the US border to prevent the movement of illegal personnel and material into the country. The law will call for a searching all trucks coming into the country, with a fee assessed on importers to pay for it (pay as you go). The law will also call for a fence and added security to prevent terrorists from sneaking a bomb into the country off-road. The POB will have to slap this law down and the Dems can then claim that the POB is not serious about securing the borders.
Last edited by Mikebert; 10-20-2006 at 07:59 AM.







Post#578 at 10-20-2006 09:38 AM by Pink Splice [at St. Louis MO (They Built An Entire Country Around Us) joined Apr 2005 #posts 5,439]
---
10-20-2006, 09:38 AM #578
Join Date
Apr 2005
Location
St. Louis MO (They Built An Entire Country Around Us)
Posts
5,439

To use a poker anology, the Dems are just calling before the flop, not raising (also known as limping in). The Administration is hoping for a miracle flop, and cannot afford to raise with the stack of political chips it has left. The Administration cannot hope to bluff the Dems out of folding before the midterms.







Post#579 at 10-20-2006 02:17 PM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
10-20-2006, 02:17 PM #579
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Quote Originally Posted by Pink Splice View Post
To use a poker analogy, the Dems are just calling before the flop, not raising (also known as limping in). The Administration is hoping for a miracle flop, and cannot afford to raise with the stack of political chips it has left. The Administration cannot hope to bluff the Dems out of folding before the midterms.
Uhm, OK. I don't really follow Hold 'Em poker, but I think you meant "bluff the Dems into folding".

That you reached for the poker metaphor is interesting, because that implies that in addition to the unknown unknowns that will determine the election (the flop), there is also something else that the Administration knows (their hand) that they are not sharing with the American people. In other words, the much-discussed October Surprise. Now, that may be great for electoral strategy, but it's horrible for actual governance. Has the GOP given up entirely on actually running the country?
Yes we did!







Post#580 at 10-20-2006 10:35 PM by Pink Splice [at St. Louis MO (They Built An Entire Country Around Us) joined Apr 2005 #posts 5,439]
---
10-20-2006, 10:35 PM #580
Join Date
Apr 2005
Location
St. Louis MO (They Built An Entire Country Around Us)
Posts
5,439

Quote Originally Posted by Finch View Post
Uhm, OK. I don't really follow Hold 'Em poker, but I think you meant "bluff the Dems into folding".

That you reached for the poker metaphor is interesting, because that implies that in addition to the unknown unknowns that will determine the election (the flop), there is also something else that the Administration knows (their hand) that they are not sharing with the American people. In other words, the much-discussed October Surprise. Now, that may be great for electoral strategy, but it's horrible for actual governance. Has the GOP given up entirely on actually running the country?

Ooops. You are correct. They can't hope to bluff the Dems out of this hand is a better way of phrasing it. Lack of sleep here...

The Administration's hand sucks, and everyone at the table knows it. While possible, the much feared, sinister October Suprise is unlikely.

You just noticed that the party in power just wants to stay in power, and the hell with the consequences?







Post#581 at 10-21-2006 12:02 AM by herbal tee [at joined Dec 2005 #posts 7,116]
---
10-21-2006, 12:02 AM #581
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
7,116

Welcome back to Ypres

It's really quite simple. If the Democrats advocate a specific policy now it will only lose them votes. That's a crass way to put it, but they can't control congress until they can outvote them. And, the only way to do that is to win more seats on Nov. 7th. Even so, Bush will still be president.

And as for Bush, anyone who thinks that he will change his policy regardless of the losses incurred hasn't been paying attention for the last six years.
To put it bluntly, we're in Iraq until 2009 even it that means turning Baghdad into a garrison fortress reminencent of WWI trench warfare.







Post#582 at 10-21-2006 12:33 AM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
10-21-2006, 12:33 AM #582
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Quote Originally Posted by Pink Splice View Post
The Administration's hand sucks, and everyone at the table knows it. While possible, the much feared, sinister October Suprise is unlikely.

You just noticed that the party in power just wants to stay in power, and the hell with the consequences?
Heh, I noticed it a long time ago. But for a while there, they could sway voters with Bush's "Decider" schtick, so at least they pretended to govern. Now all the swagger is gone, and they're left with huddling over the tea leaves of each new poll. Sad, really; couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of folks.
Yes we did!







Post#583 at 10-21-2006 12:35 AM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
10-21-2006, 12:35 AM #583
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Quote Originally Posted by herbal tee View Post
And as for Bush, anyone who thinks that he will change his policy regardless of the losses incurred hasn't been paying attention for the last six years.

To put it bluntly, we're in Iraq until 2009 even it that means turning Baghdad into a garrison fortress reminencent of WWI trench warfare.
We'll see, but as I said above, I expect that Bush will high-tail it out of Iraq as soon as he has somebody else to pin the blame on, e.g. a Democratic Congress that does not bow to his every Imperial decision.

BTW, interesting Stirling Newberry quote. I like to read him even though his prose is incredibly dense and littered with phrases like "post-structuralist." His article The Revolution Eats Its Own is an absolute tour de force.
Last edited by Finch; 10-21-2006 at 12:39 AM.
Yes we did!







Post#584 at 10-22-2006 10:00 AM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
10-22-2006, 10:00 AM #584
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

Uh-uh

I doubt Bush will ever get out of Iraq, but further deterioration and/or a call from the Iraqi government to do so (and the Shi'ite militias might force this on the government) could force his hand. That's the only way I see it happening, and we might well stage a coup with a military strongman to stop it.

See historyunfolding.blogspot.com today--I commented on contradictory stories in today's papers on our plans. Rumsfeld would like to get out and would have for years--he knows this is hurting the military very badly. But the White House won't hear of it.

David K '47







Post#585 at 10-22-2006 06:14 PM by Cynic Hero '86 [at Upstate New York joined Jul 2006 #posts 1,285]
---
10-22-2006, 06:14 PM #585
Join Date
Jul 2006
Location
Upstate New York
Posts
1,285

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2 View Post
I doubt Bush will ever get out of Iraq, but further deterioration and/or a call from the Iraqi government to do so (and the Shi'ite militias might force this on the government) could force his hand. That's the only way I see it happening, and we might well stage a coup with a military strongman to stop it.

See historyunfolding.blogspot.com today--I commented on contradictory stories in today's papers on our plans. Rumsfeld would like to get out and would have for years--he knows this is hurting the military very badly. But the White House won't hear of it.

David K '47
But bush would never allow the US to leave iraq, no matter how bad the situation on the ground becomes.







Post#586 at 10-23-2006 02:47 AM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
10-23-2006, 02:47 AM #586
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2 View Post
I doubt Bush will ever get out of Iraq, but further deterioration and/or a call from the Iraqi government to do so (and the Shi'ite militias might force this on the government) could force his hand. That's the only way I see it happening, and we might well stage a coup with a military strongman to stop it.

See historyunfolding.blogspot.com today--I commented on contradictory stories in today's papers on our plans. Rumsfeld would like to get out and would have for years--he knows this is hurting the military very badly. But the White House won't hear of it.
Fascinating article, and very sobering. I had always treated the Administration's "stay the course" rhetoric as pure political posturing, theatre for the rubes. (Thus, since the politically savvy thing to do is to withdraw and blame the Dems, that's the course they would opt for.)

Your article does not necessarily deny that, but instead points out how desire for prestige can lock them into a course. In other words, I've been watching the theatre as a farce, but you're saying it's really a tragedy.

I'd never really thought of Rummy as a realist ("five weeks, I doubt five months"), although as he is a Silent and a Nixonian, I should have expected that from him. Of course, that realization only makes me despise him all the more.
Yes we did!







Post#587 at 10-23-2006 02:49 AM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
10-23-2006, 02:49 AM #587
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Quote Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86 View Post
But bush would never allow the US to leave iraq, no matter how bad the situation on the ground becomes.
Bush "allow"? Come January, he'll be even more of a lame duck than today. By mid-2007, he'll have to ask permission to go the bathroom. Not that it will make any difference on the ground in Iraq...
Yes we did!







Post#588 at 10-23-2006 08:49 AM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
10-23-2006, 08:49 AM #588
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Interesting Article from Government Executive

This is posted for educational use only.

U.S. options to control violence in Iraq narrowing

By James Kitfield, National Journal


Civil wars come on slowly at first, and then in a rush. They follow the track of contagion and the law of the tipping point.

A recent war game organized by two former CIA analysts, Ken Pollack of the Brookings Institution and Daniel Byman of Georgetown University, posed this question: What actions could the United States plausibly take to control the unfolding civil and sectarian strife in Iraq? Scenarios ranged from a redeployment of U.S. forces to complete withdrawal, and even included voluntary ethnic and sectarian relocations to separate Sunni from Shiite and thus keep a step ahead of the ethnic-cleansing mobs.

Participants in the game included former senior military, intelligence, and policy-making officials. One insight gleaned from the exercise was that the United States faces a dwindling and increasingly unsavory set of options in Iraq.

That and other hard truths have already dawned on the Iraqis. Shiites have discovered that majority rule is not the same thing as keeping that majority cohesive or using it to run an effective government. It also means living with a minority that is willing to bomb your holiest places of worship into dust.

Sunnis, on the other hand, have grasped that the new Iraq is marginalizing them on a barren slice of the land they once ruled. These changes have left them afraid of the knock on the door by the Shiite death squad and the shadow of a threatening Iran.

The Kurds see their paradise of autonomy in Iraq's north surrounded by ravenous neighbors who smell the blood of a civil war they can scarcely resist. All Iraqis observe Americans nervously eyeing the exit door.

"Everyone in Iraq has read about American public opinion polls and gotten the message loud and clear that the United States is losing patience and political will to stay in Iraq," said a knowledgeable diplomat stationed in Baghdad. "All sides are now keen to get a brokered deal before the Americans depart, so that the gains they've realized in the last few years aren't put in jeopardy. Iraq's neighbors are very worried that a U.S. withdrawal and implosion in Iraq could suck them into a chaotic civil war to defend their own perceived interests, possibly leading to conflict with each other."

The existential dangers for so many of those involved point to another sobering truth: Iraq may have started as a war of choice for the Bush administration, but it has become a war of great and unintended consequences. Immense risks lurk down every strategic road.

Given the fractured state of the American body politic, it is almost certainly too late to rally the country behind an all-out war effort -- think tax increases; a war Cabinet; a full mobilization of the National Guard and the Reserves; a civilian reconstruction corps; a larger Army and Marine Corps; longer combat tours for troops; mandatory combat-zone deployments for U.S. diplomats and aid officials; a return to national service; and possibly even a limited draft.

Yet absent a plan that puts the nation on either an all-out wartime footing or the firm path to retreat, the United States is largely condemned to some tweaked-around-the-edges variation of the administration's current approach on Iraq of "muddle through and hand over." And America, the experts agree, is already losing that war.

Downward Spiral

On Monday, September 18, former Secretary of State and longtime Bush family confidant James Baker sat in a room full of recognized national security analysts gathered at the U.S. Institute for Peace in downtown Washington. Each expert expressed his or her views on the situation in Iraq.

Baker was there as co-chairman -- along with former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind. -- of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan assemblage of foreign-policy luminaries tasked with charting a new course in Iraq that might win the support of the White House and Congress, Democrats as well as Republicans. The study group is expected to release its recommendations shortly after the November elections, to avoid sullying them with the muck of Washington's bitter partisan politics.

For Baker, the former chief political adviser to President George H.W. Bush and the man who coordinated the Florida recount effort for George W. Bush in 2000, the institute meeting must have seemed an inauspicious welcome back to the inner circles of Washington policy-making. According to several attendees, the experts' presentations to the dean of the Republican foreign-policy establishment were unremittingly negative on the outlook for the Bush administration's effort to plant the flag of democracy in Iraq.

"There must have been 25 experts in that room from every part of the political spectrum, and I was absolutely struck by how the overwhelming consensus was that things are very bad and getting worse in Iraq," said one participant, a description that was confirmed by others. "The only real debate centered on the need to lower our expectations, and to try to extract some stability out of a failed democracy-building experiment."

The gloom in the room reflected the unmistakable downward trajectory of a failing state beset by insurgency, a sustained assault by foreign terrorists, and a civil war of sectarian slaughter.

This summer about 3,500 Iraqis died violently in a single month, the highest monthly total since the United States invaded in March 2003. The number of sectarian killings in Baghdad each month has more than tripled since February. In September, for instance, an estimated 1,450 Iraqis were killed in the capital; many of the victims were rounded up en masse from their workplaces and tortured by death squads before being dispatched with a bullet to the head. Sectarian violence, according to press reports, has already "ethnically cleansed" or displaced from their homes more than 300,000 Iraqis, and an estimated 1 million more have left the country to escape the unrelenting bloodshed.

"The situation in Iraq is obviously very serious, and the next few months will be critical," said a senior U.S. government official.

"While the Baathist insurgency and Al Qaeda terrorists remain lethal and deadly, they are not a strategic threat to Iraq's future like the sectarian violence," the official said. "Iraq is a country where sectarian differences are the tectonic plates of the entire society, and if this sectarian violence loosens or cuts the bonds that hold Iraq together and those plates start to separate, it's difficult to see how this or any other Iraqi government can succeed. So we're in intense discussions with the Iraqi government, and our message is that you must make the hard decisions to reach a reconciliation agreement and disarm militias in the weeks to come. Time is not working on Iraq's behalf."
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#589 at 10-23-2006 08:51 AM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
10-23-2006, 08:51 AM #589
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Iraq continued

More from the Government Executive article.

GIs Still Targeted

The violence aimed at U.S. and coalition forces has likewise risen sharply. Between January and July of this year, the number of improvised explosive devices that were either detonated or defused nearly doubled, marking a record high. Insurgent attacks against U.S. and coalition forces occur every 15 minutes on average, or more than 100 times each day, according to a new book by Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward.

At least 69 American troops have been killed in Iraq so far this month, making it one of the deadliest stretches for coalition forces since the 2003 invasion. U.S. intelligence analysts predict that next year will be worse.

In an effort to stanch the bloodshed, U.S. commanders are keeping about 147,000 troops in Iraq at least through next spring, 40,000 more than they anticipated needing earlier this year. The National Guard and the Reserves have been put on notice that they may have to throw more forces into the fight again earlier than expected, and the U.S. Central Command, which oversees operations in the Middle East, has extended the combat tours of units already in Iraq. Soldiers in those units and their families understand that for an unlucky few, the extension will amount to a death sentence.

On October 12, Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker said that the Army now plans to maintain its current level of 120,000 soldiers in Iraq through 2010. The Army's vice chief of staff, Gen. Richard Cody, said that the Army is coming dangerously close to the point where its units are home for only 12 months between combat deployments. That is barely time enough to rest, retrain, and re-equip.

Meanwhile, The New York Times reported recently that so many units and their equipment are committed to or exhausted by Iraq and Afghanistan that only two or three of the Army's 42 combat brigades are fully ready to respond to a sudden crisis -- say, a showdown with North Korea.

"Iraq has driven home the point that the U.S. Army is simply too small to maintain the current level of deployments, or to conduct similar kinds of major stability-and-security operations in the future," said Dan Goure, an Army expert with the Lexington Institute, a defense consulting group.
The strains evident in the force also reveal that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Schoomaker gambled and lost big, Goure said, when they decided not to permanently increase the size of the force a few years ago, when many former generals first sounded the alarm and when Congress seemed ready to act.

"The Army's own experts will tell you that these wars of counterinsurgency take 10 years or more, and the Army is already fraying at less than the halfway point," Goure said. "That has taken the option of significantly increasing troop levels off the table at a time when [Central Command leader John] Abizaid is clearly worried that Iraq is approaching a tipping point to civil war that could plunge the entire Middle East into chaos. That's pretty scary."

Tipping Point

According to a recently leaked military intelligence analysis later confirmed by the Pentagon, American commanders have essentially ceded the Sunni epicenter of Iraq's western Anbar province to insurgents and Qaeda terrorists in order to rush scarce troops to the "Battle of Baghdad." That campaign to secure the capital, the center of gravity in the entire Iraq enterprise, still hangs very much in the balance.

"You could argue that the February 2006 bombing of the Shiite Golden Mosque in Samarra was a devastating blow to the entire effort in Iraq, because what that did at the end of the day was take the gloves off of the militias, particularly the Shiite militias," said Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the Army's Combined Arms Center, speaking recently at the Brookings Institution.

Petraeus spent much of the past three years in Iraq as commander of the 101st Airborne Division and as the commander in charge of training Iraqi security forces. "Samarra started a downward spiral of tit-for-tat sectarian violence that has proven difficult to arrest, and which is at the center of the battle of Baghdad today. So Samarra was a big event that a lot of us knew was significant, and sadly, its aftershocks have played out each day with the discovery of more dead bodies."

This violence has largely paralyzed the Iraqi government. Despite vigorous arm-twisting by senior U.S. officials visiting Iraq, most recently Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has time and again shown that he is unwilling to confront or politically incapable of taking on militias that enjoy strong support inside his own coalition.

On October 2, Maliki announced yet another new security plan, the latest in a series of increasingly desperate attempts to stop the bloodshed, even as leading Sunni and Shiite politicians in his "unity" government accuse each other of sanctioned murder by militia.

On October 15, Iraq's government indefinitely postponed a critical national reconciliation conference as a result of the unremitting violence. Rampant corruption and the lack of security, meanwhile, continue to hamstring reconstruction efforts in a country still beset by spotty electricity, chronic gasoline shortages, and 30 to 60 percent unemployment.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#590 at 10-23-2006 08:53 AM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
10-23-2006, 08:53 AM #590
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Conclusion of Goverment Executive Article

Conclusion of the article

Vietnam Parallels

The grim drumbeat of negative news has forged a consensus among Americans and Iraqis: Both have had enough. Despite concerted efforts by the Bush administration to link Iraq to the greater war on terrorism, a clear majority of Americans now believe that the war, which has cost more than $320 billion in national treasure and the blood of more than 2,700 fallen warriors, was a blunder.

Even once-strong supporters of the war in the Republican Party have begun to openly voice their growing pessimism on Iraq. For their part, an overwhelming majority of Iraqis now blame the U.S. military presence in their country for provoking the violence, and seven in 10 want U.S. forces out of Iraq within a year, according to a September poll by the independent Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland.

"Perhaps the most striking trend to me is how much less optimistic the Iraqi people are about the future than just a few years ago," said Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign-policy expert at the Brookings Institution whose "Iraq Index" has tracked reconstruction and security operations in post-Saddam Iraq.

O'Hanlon considers the Iraq mission to be so close to outright failure and civil war that he recently proposed that the U.S. and Iraqi governments consider a "voluntary ethnic relocation plan" to get in front of a potential wave of ethnic and sectarian cleansing and genocide that could kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. The drawback to the plan, he concedes, "is that if you implement it prematurely or fail to time it just right, you could ignite exactly the kind of ethnic cleansing you're trying to avoid."

Anthony Cordesman, a former Pentagon intelligence analyst, is a longtime Middle East expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "The reality is that the United States went to war in Iraq without the fundamental tools to win, because we simply do not have the civil-military structures to do nation building on this scale," he said.

As a result, U.S. authorities have spent nearly $40 billion in U.S. aid and Iraqi funds in a reconstruction effort with very little to show for it, he noted, and rushed elections and a constitutional referendum that actually exacerbated sectarian divisions.

Most recently, on October 11, the Shiite-dominated Iraqi parliament passed a federalism bill that would allow the formation of autonomous regions in the country, including what many see as a Shiite mini-state in Iraq's south. The measure passed despite the strong objections of, and a boycott by, the Sunni coalition. The Sunnis fear a dismemberment of Iraq and a diminution of their power, although the law did include a concession to their concerns by putting off the formation of such regions for 18 months.

"We've now reached a point where no matter what military action or strategy the United States adopts, it won't matter unless the Iraqis can reach some form of political reconciliation," said Cordesman, who concedes that such an accommodation will be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve under current levels of violence. "So this remains a very high-risk operation, with some unfortunate parallels to Vietnam. In Vietnam, we also focused on pacifying major areas of the country but ignored the fact that there was no functioning central government to hold it all together."

Diplomatic Midget

How did it come to this? How did the world's only superpower, with the post-9/11 wind at its back, end up in just a few short years contemplating an ignoble and potentially generation-shaping defeat in Iraq? In its spirit of bipartisanship, the Iraq Study Group has pledged to look only forward and not to rehash the miscues of the Iraq enterprise in another exercise of finger-pointing.

While it is true that whole bookshelves are now groaning under the weight of tomes detailing the myriad mistakes made in post-Saddam Iraq, experts say that some inconvenient truths must be confronted to appreciate the limited options that the United States has left in Iraq.

It is increasingly clear, for instance, that although the United States may possess a superpower military, its forces are simply too small and ill-organized for long-term occupation and counterinsurgency warfare, and that any reconfiguration is likely to come too late for Iraq.

The Bush administration has also focused on elections as the centerpiece of its democratization agenda, yet recent experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown conclusively that institution building, a functioning government, and the rule of law are at least as important in turning around failed states. The United States lacks the essential and expensive tools for that kind of large-scale nation building, and neither the administration nor Congress has shown much inclination to sacrifice other priorities to acquire them.

"The big problem is that the United States today is a military colossus and a diplomatic midget, and that has made for a very unbalanced national security policy," said Joseph Collins, a professor at the National Defense University who was deputy assistant secretary of Defense for stability operations. "The State Department and U.S. AID are only shadows of what they need to be if we're going to conduct this kind of nation building, but Congress just refuses to fund those activities. That leaves a lot of overstressed soldiers in Iraq doing tasks they're not trained for."

No Way Back

Finally, while the largely unilateral approach that the Bush administration adopted in invading Iraq worked OK in the short-term phase of regime change, it has left the United States bearing the overwhelming burden of the nation-building effort and the counterinsurgency campaign.

History suggests that it requires at least a decade, and probably much longer, to end an insurgency. With the Atlas who has shouldered the Iraq campaign now beginning to shake before the halfway point, few nations are willing to step into the shadow of an imploding state.

"If you look at the relevant historical experiences with insurgencies, the United States might be in a better position in Iraq at the end of a decade or so," said Brian Jenkins, a senior counter- terrorism and counterinsurgency expert at the Rand think tank. "But not necessarily. Israel was in southern Lebanon for 18 years, and the situation just got worse until it became intolerable."

In the meantime, the U.S. presence in Iraq will continue to galvanize Islamic radicals worldwide and drain America of blood, treasure, and moral standing.

That has to be weighed, Jenkins said, against a precipitous withdrawal that could lead to all-out civil war, massive ethnic and sectarian cleansing, and a major psychological victory for Qaeda and Islamic extremists. "The basic problem with the equation is that the costs and downsides of Iraq are all front-loaded and being felt today, while the potential upsides are dependent on a reasonably successful and still murky outcome some years down the road."

Kenneth Pollack is the director of research at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy. Formerly a Middle East analyst at the CIA and the National Security Council, he was a leading proponent for toppling Saddam Hussein, authoring the book The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq. Today, Pollack confesses to having trouble sleeping at night because he's contemplating Iraq.

"The situation in Iraq weighs very heavily on me, because there is just no denying anymore that the country is flat out in a state of low-level civil war, and the trend lines are heading toward an all-out civil war, which I think will be absolutely catastrophic," Pollack told National Journal.

Even at this late date, he said, the Bush administration is repeating its original "fatal flaw" of not committing adequate troops, resources, and civilian personnel to the campaign, most recently by undercutting the commander's requests in staging the battle of Baghdad.

"One of the many tragedies of Iraq is that we now have experienced military commanders with sound strategies, and we are still failing to adequately support them with the necessary troops, civilian personnel, and funds," said Pollack, who briefed senior Bush administration officials in the White House last February on the need to secure the Iraqi capital and to win the support of its citizens with rapidly reconstituted government services.

"They insisted that I was exaggerating the problem of the militias and that the new Iraqi government would just make the insurgency go away. Frankly, I was stunned by their attitude," Pollack said. "So we have passed another seven months of missed opportunities, during which Iraq's problems have all gotten worse. My real fear is that we've already passed the make-or-break point and just don't realize it. Historians in five or 10 years may look back and say 2006 was the year we lost Iraq. That's my nightmare."
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#591 at 10-24-2006 10:09 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
10-24-2006, 10:09 AM #591
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Lightbulb New Slogans

As STAY THE COURSE is to be sent packing, as a true patriot and sometimes nationalist and infrequent globalist I offer up:

For domestic consumption only (with a nod to the struggles of the past);

C>A>R>R>H>A>E> CARRY IT ON!

For the Coalition:

CARRY ON C>A>R>R>H>A>E>!

For the UK:

No solutions please, we're British!

HTH







Post#592 at 10-24-2006 03:07 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
10-24-2006, 03:07 PM #592
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Quote Originally Posted by Government Executive
"One of the many tragedies of Iraq is that we now have experienced military commanders with sound strategies, and we are still failing to adequately support them with the necessary troops, civilian personnel, and funds," said Pollack, who briefed senior Bush administration officials in the White House last February on the need to secure the Iraqi capital and to win the support of its citizens with rapidly reconstituted government services.

"They insisted that I was exaggerating the problem of the militias and that the new Iraqi government would just make the insurgency go away. Frankly, I was stunned by their attitude," Pollack said. "So we have passed another seven months of missed opportunities, during which Iraq's problems have all gotten worse. My real fear is that we've already passed the make-or-break point and just don't realize it. Historians in five or 10 years may look back and say 2006 was the year we lost Iraq. That's my nightmare."
My current feeling is that Iraq was lost before the invasion started. The lack of planning before the invasion was fatal.

I'm also thinking, military planning aside, the meeting of two corrupt cultures would have resulted in a government failure regardless of the military situation. Saddam's dictatorship was a traditional 'ethnic dominant minority.' A small ethnic group with lots of guns and few morals seized firm control of a majority and governed for their own benefit and profit. Washington too seemed organized for war profiteering, the notion being that oil profits could pay for everything. No bid contracts to major campaign contributors were designed more to launder corporate money into political power than to create a functional Iraqi government. In T4T language, we had two unraveling cultures concerned with profits and individual power rather than a crisis mood of restructuring society focused on solving problems for a common good.

Then too, there was a fundamentalist faith in the American Way as such an obviously beneficial system that the Iraqi people would willingly abandon their own culture. No way. Perhaps if the Coalition could have delivered security, food and water a month or three in, perhaps if they focused on more incremental changes, perhaps if they had listened and respected the locals opinions...

The article suggests it can take 10 years to suppress an insurgency. By that time, the People and economy are so exhausted that they might put up with whatever group is stubborn enough to 'stay the course.' I'm a bit dubious about the 10 year number as a universal constant. Modern crisis wars can get intense enough that 5 years brings near total destruction and exhaustion. Still, Iraq isn't being fought as a crisis war yet.

I don't know. Wonkette's article is definitely worth reading, but unduly optimistic. I suspect the historians, given time for hindsight, will pronounce Iraq was lost in 2003.







Post#593 at 10-25-2006 01:14 PM by Croakmore [at The hazardous reefs of Silentium joined Nov 2001 #posts 2,426]
---
10-25-2006, 01:14 PM #593
Join Date
Nov 2001
Location
The hazardous reefs of Silentium
Posts
2,426

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54 View Post
My current feeling is that Iraq was lost before the invasion started. The lack of planning before the invasion was fatal.
... In T4T language, we had two unraveling cultures concerned with profits and individual power rather than a crisis mood of restructuring society focused on solving problems for a common good.
...
I take note here that the Iraq war is being prosecuted for the common good of capitalism, which is the business of America. This war certainly has NOT been bad for business, as the NYSE shows us in spades. Haliburton, Boeing, HumV, Exxon, et al. have not complained very much about the war. Nor has illegal immigration been bad for business. Macdonalds doesn't mind at all if gobs of illegal immigrants buy its burgers with illegally earns cash. Wal-Mart, too, is delighted to have 11 million illegal immigrants roaming through its isles with cash in hand. (Bring on Pink Floyd's "Money.")

I think Bush is assuming correctly that the business of America trumps all. Otherwise, we'd have free Hillary Healthcare for everyone.








Post#594 at 10-25-2006 06:36 PM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
10-25-2006, 06:36 PM #594
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Quote Originally Posted by Croakmore View Post
I take note here that the Iraq war is being prosecuted for the common good of capitalism, which is the business of America. This war certainly has NOT been bad for business, as the NYSE shows us in spades. Haliburton, Boeing, HumV, Exxon, et al. have not complained very much about the war. Nor has illegal immigration been bad for business. Macdonalds doesn't mind at all if gobs of illegal immigrants buy its burgers with illegally earns cash. Wal-Mart, too, is delighted to have 11 million illegal immigrants roaming through its isles with cash in hand. (Bring on Pink Floyd's "Money.")
Heh. I don't have a problem so much with capitalism, as long as I feel we (the people) have some influence. For example, Hummer (owned by GM) is rightly getting savaged in the marketplace. Exxon, I can shop elsewhere (or walk.) Ditto Mickey D.

But Halliburton -- when I did vote for them (with my dollars or my franchise)?

Quote Originally Posted by Croakmore View Post
I think Bush is assuming correctly that the business of America trumps all. Otherwise, we'd have free Hillary Healthcare for everyone.
Yeah, after Halliburton breaks into my house, puts a gun to my head, steals my tax dollars, and cuts off my pinky finger, the least they could do is pay for the ER visit afterward.
Yes we did!







Post#595 at 10-26-2006 06:05 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
10-26-2006, 06:05 AM #595
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Quote Originally Posted by Croakmore View Post
I take note here that the Iraq war is being prosecuted for the common good of capitalism, which is the business of America. This war certainly has NOT been bad for business, as the NYSE shows us in spades...
Yep. Class conflict. Government of, for, and by the Establishment rather than the People. Both the Labor movement and Marxist socialism are out of favor, but the problems said systems are focused on remain to be solved.







Post#596 at 10-29-2006 11:53 AM by herbal tee [at joined Dec 2005 #posts 7,116]
---
10-29-2006, 11:53 AM #596
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
7,116

So much for oil revenue sharing

Most Iraqi Shiites have given up on the idea of federalism. They fear Columbian style death squads.







Post#597 at 10-31-2006 08:25 PM by salsabob [at Washington DC joined Jan 2005 #posts 746]
---
10-31-2006, 08:25 PM #597
Join Date
Jan 2005
Location
Washington DC
Posts
746

“The Sword that Cuts the Arteries of the Infidels,”

“The Sword that Cuts the Arteries of the Infidels,” referring to supply lines and apostate forces which support American and Shi’ite forces, is the title given to a fifty-two minute video presentation recently issued by Ansar al-Sunnah, one of the primary insurgency groups in Iraq. The video bears a resemblance to another of the group’s past releases, “Path of Glory ,” in which two men identified as Husam al-Shamri and Mohammed Abu Hajer, a member of Ansar al-Sunnah’s military office, sit and discuss the attacks which unfold and provide clarification for the group’s purpose in these actions. Abu Hajer explains that the supply lines of the enemies are like the beating heart in the body, and the enemy cannot function without supplies. To cut off the supplies then, is like “stopping the heart beat of the enemy”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQBLsoOngA0&eurl=
"Che l'uomo il suo destin fugge di raro [For rarely man escapes his destiny]" - Ludovico Ariosto







Post#598 at 11-01-2006 08:11 PM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
11-01-2006, 08:11 PM #598
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Question Paris worth a Mass, what price Sadr City?

An American war-fighter has gone missing in his ilk of Our Friend & Ally, Mr. Sadr. The Coalition had been attempting a rescue until those in charge of Mr. Sadr and his minions declared a stop to such practice.

A small crumb for C>A>R>R>H>A>E> from the reality-manufacturing administration. What shade of magnetic riband would suit for this sort of abandonment? Have the Celestial manufactures been informed? Will it be available by 11 November?

Whilst we carry on about Kerry, a prayer for the missing might be in order.







Post#599 at 11-01-2006 10:51 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
11-01-2006, 10:51 PM #599
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Quote Originally Posted by herbal tee View Post
Most Iraqi Shiites have given up on the idea of federalism. They fear Columbian style death squads.
But there's also opposition among Hakim's party. Earlier this month, one of Hakim's fellow council members, who also leads a prominent Shiite mosque in Baghdad, said he opposed federalism.

"Why can't the solution be one Iraq with no terrorists and no terror?" Jalal al-Dean al-Saghir, head of the Baratha mosque, wrote in a blog dedicated to answering worshippers' questions. "Federalism is not the solution. The solution is a determination to defeat the enemy."
OK, at what point does one say 'here is another sign of an increasing spiral of violence' and at what point do you just use phrases like "civil war" or "4T"?

Just a rhetorical question...







Post#600 at 11-05-2006 08:41 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
11-05-2006, 08:41 AM #600
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Hang em High

Well, Saddam's verdict is in. I have trouble thinking it is just a coincidence that it was announced just before the US elections. Not much of an October Surprise if that was the intent.

I'm curious as to how much of a violent response will come from the Sunni and former Baath Party people. I don't know that anyone in Iraq cares for Bush right now. Any excuse to make it clear that Iraq is not going peacefully into submission before the US elections might be exploited.

We shall see...
-----------------------------------------