Lose, Lose, Lose
By Cicero | Related entries in The War On Terrorism, WarHere’s some snippets from President Bush’s speech on a new Iraq strategy this evening:
The consequence of failure:
The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people…
The cause of failure:
There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.
The new security arrangement:
The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad’s nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort – along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations – conducting patrols, setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.
…this will require increasing American force levels.
The intended result:
…over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad’s residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq’s Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace – and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.
- - -
The President’s Iraq plan assumes that there is a cogent, non-sectarian, uncorrupted Iraqi national government to partner with. I propose that this is an illusion, laid bare by Saddam’s mob-like execution at the hands of revenging Shi’a. There is no real national government in Iraq that represents all the factions. I don’t believe it is possible at this hour.
We’re pouring 20,000 more of our forces to go “door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents”. Translation: We’re going to unwittingly assist one side of this sectarian conflict suppress the other. We will be taking sides in a conflict that goes back more than a millennium.
It has become inordinately difficult to see how our token force of 20,000 additional troops embedded in Iraq’s sectarian war will turn the tide in the Global War on Terror.
I supported this war because I felt it was a gamble worth taking, given the data we had at the time regarding Saddam’s WMD programs. But through deception from many sides, error, misjudgment, incompetence, stupidity, naiveté, over-exuberance and bad luck, the gamble failed. 20,000 troops in 2007 is 20,000 troops too late.
Perhaps some will think this is an overarching strategy to beef-up forces in the region pending engaging the Iranians. If we need to do that, we need to consider how taking sides in a pointless sectarian war in Iraq now is going to strengthen our resolve in dealing with Iran later. Here’s a hint: It won’t. It will sap us. The pointlessness of the exercise will be self-fulfilling.
Hell, I’m no military strategist. I don’t have a specific strategy in mind to secure even a limited defeat, short of withdrawal. But I think the President’s calling for 20,000 troops at this stage of the conflict is not serious. You and I — private citizens not in uniform — are asked to do nothing but fret. The sacrifice expected of us is, once again, minimal.
Enjoy your iPhones.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 10th, 2007 and is filed under The War On Terrorism, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
I am glad I didn’t watch it. I knew it would just make me want to make me punch the TV.
I hope the Congress can put this moron in check!
Check-mate would be really nice. I hope they have the balls to do what is necessary to save this country, and bring our soldiers home.
January 11th, 2007 at 3:52 am
The 20,000 force increase will not do anything to quell the violence. It will bring us to around 153,000. In December 2005, there were 160,000.
What makes supporters of escalation think that this time it will be different? I do not see a reason to do so.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:49 am
If the iraqi army is loyal to their generals, and the generals aren’t fighting amongst eachother, then I think it could work. Our national government is not very cogent when it comes to iraq policy but our troops fight on with a singular mission, because they obey commands from their superior officers, not Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi.
January 11th, 2007 at 10:40 am
You supported a GAMBLE! You don’t gamble when starting a war, you start wars based on the FACTS! Dumbya manipulated the intel which was ambivalent about the WMD, we had inspectors on the ground in Iraq before bush invaded who could go anywhere and do anything and found NOTHING! Bush chased them out in order to be a war president and make his place in history so he could show his dad that junior really WAS an achiever. There was NEVER any meaningful connection between Iraq and Al Qaida, hussein had NOTHING to do with 9/11, it was all a LIE.
January 11th, 2007 at 11:05 am
“I supported this war because…”
I forgive you. At least you’re doing the right thing now.
I couldn’t believe the Orwellian double-talk last night. From Bush of course, but also from the right-wing pundits. It seems they have lost touch with reality, if they ever were in touch with it. Bush’s speach had the effect of confirming that he is a maniac. He will be the end of us all if we don’t stop him and his ilk. Be prepared to oppose a McCain/Lieberman ticket in ‘08. Possible slogans for their campaign: “War is peace. Escalation is stabilization. More troops is fewer troops.” Actually, that last one has some truth to it. Can’t wait for the draft so I have an excuse to visit Canada. I also simply adore the right-wing comparisons of this war to WWII. Laughable. And notice how they never EVER compare it to Vietnam. Which, as I recall, the US pulled out of unilaterally, and the ‘domino effect’ never did occur. I can’t help but wonder if things won’t turn out just fine when we finally, inevitably get our troops out of that Civil War. One more point. The consequence of failure, from the point of view of those in the Middle East opposed to Bush’s conquest:
“The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Christian extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the Arab people…”
January 11th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
First off I don’t this is going to work, but if your going to do it why not do it right?
Why send 20,000 why you need 100,000? Bush is already judged a failure, why not re-mobilize the guard and reserve and do a full push? It’s not like people will think any less of him than they do now.