View Full Version : Change unlikely regardless of Sept. Iraq report

8.25.07, 3:44 AM
"Tone shifting in Bush’s favor?
....conversations over the past several days, a number of senior White House officials and close allies outside the administration indicated their belief that the political debate in Washington has moved in the administration's favor this month, pointing in particular to a number of Democrats who have spoken positively of some security improvements in Iraq.

The one major exception was the statement this week from Warner, the respected GOP voice on national security issues, who surprised the White House on Thursday with a public call for troop withdrawals beginning in December. White House officials sought to play down Warner's comments yesterday, noting that the senator was not calling for a specific timetable for reductions, which the president has fiercely resisted.



There's only one brigade in this country to be called up if there's something else, other than Iraq & Afghanistan, and where military attention might need to be placed. The military is stretched very thin with mulitple back-to-back deployments in those two regions that..sadly!...we are seeing record numbers of at home military divorces, family problems with spouses being gone from home for 15 months at a time (this committment did not happen during Vietnam, Korea and WW2) and higher suicide levels than what has been seen in decades!

General Pace, who was NOT re-appointed (fired) by the Admin (who says the generals MUST be the ones listened to and NOT politicians..like the President is not a politician?) now has the opportunity to speak his mind since he's leaving (and no longer until the thumb of the WH) ...and who is speaking out more frankly now.

8.27.07, 7:45 PM
Yes, there is a campaign on to spin this "surge" (and let's call it what it is- an escalation!) as successful. Even though we were told that the whole purpose of it was to provide security for political action on Iraq's part. Which hasn't happened....and seems unlikely to anytime soon.
It's not hard to imagine that there would be a decrease in violence at the areas where we've beefed up our troop presence....but what happens when those troops are moved? Is the plan to keep a heavy troop deployment permanently in the area? How on earth is this even possible...let alone politically feasible? And the areas not under direct heavy troop presence are either under insurgent control...or moving that way. Meanwhile, there is still violent and never-ending clashes between sect and sect...and sub-sect and sub-sect.
It makes no sense to me that we can either conclude this is a success...or imagine keeping our troop levels up there for much longer. Our own military high-ups have said that April is about the limit- what then?
IMO this is more about salvaging Bush's pathetic legacy and face then it is about any realistic success in Iraq. Oh yes, we'll hear numerous references to how the surge is succeeding by all the characters who invested us in this fiasco...with not much thought for how we can ever, ever, ever maintain any kind of military presence there in the levels we have now.

8.28.07, 4:33 AM
Yeah, of course there's doing to be improvement in security when there are additional troops pored in to certain areas. It's been done time and time again...and once that area is secured, the insurgents/etc. go to ground and wait or move on to other areas.

Hate to say it this way, but a cat and mouse "game" is not a solution. The new Iragi govt. is the one who has failed in all of this for the last couple of years and with good reason. The Admin says Iraq is now a new sovereign state and touted the elections, but there's little sovereignty with it. The weak Iraqi govt. has little if no control over their own military and have complained about it. All combat missions/troops are under the control of the US military.

I can understand why that is given the widespread sectarian violence and religious issue, but at the same time it does come down to this. If after all this time, the Iraqi govt. cannot reconcile it's own internal issues there's not a great deal of hope that they will.

There's been some talk recently (even with different US political party members) and I tend to agree with it this that democracy might not be the best thing for Iraq given the fact that the religious and tribal differences in the region are too widespread. What ever happens must be a political solution, but may not be what was originally hoped for...by the US Admin.

8.28.07, 4:29 PM
Yeah, looks like they need a strongman to take charge.............you know, someone like Saddam Hussein? You read what Iraqi citizens are saying these days......and they want SECURITY. Of course, no one seriously wants Saddam back in power (or anyone as ruthless as he was), but what they do say is that, with Saddam, at least they knew what to expect, what they could do, etc. As opposed to now- where one can't even drive into a different neighborhood without "protection". And that's not even addressing the huge problem of reliable electricity, clean water and fuel!
Malaki seems to be toast....but there isn't any real strong candidate out there to take the reigns of power. Too many differing factions, sects, and subsects. It's all so disgustingly sad......and ALL our fault.

8.29.07, 5:10 AM
Saddam (fine with me, too... he's gone on to what he thought would be his glory), but most of the Middle Eastern states do have a strong-arm type of govt. For all the good, bad and ugly....this is just the way it is for many ME states. Even our good friend, Musarref (sp?), in Pakistan...his army staged a coup for power and was never elected as a leader.

In Iraq, the major cities struggle with infrastruture issues... those living in Baghdad with water, electricity, sewer problems are worse off than pre-invasion....like you mention.

Iraqi people are no differerent than anyone else in the world who want the best for their families...even before addressing political concerns...the issues of clean water, utilities, basic living conditions and security to be able to go to work, send children to school... are at the top of the heap.

8.29.07, 3:43 PM
Have you been reading about all the money for re-constructing that's making it's way into the hands of the insurgency? It's unbelievable- up to HALF of our taxdollars that are being sent over there are ending up in th control of those folks who are KILLING our troops! It's maddening! There is so much abuse, waste, corruption and lack of accountability here that we might as well be just sending it directly to them! It's absolutely insane. Along with the over 190,000 weapons that have mysteriously disappeared in Iraq.......add billions of American taxpayer dollars- gone down the chute of private contractor contacts through the black market to God knows who, but definitely Sunni insurgents. Apparently paying off the local insurgents is just an accepted part of business now- nice to know that it's OUR tax dollars going directly into terrorist's pockets to kill OUR military people!
THIS is the way George W. Bush wages war. It's so disgusting and appalling- just makes me so outraged.

8.30.07, 5:07 AM
Yes, and it's outrageous all that money spent outside the US for this adventure in Iraq, especially given the fact that it's been two years since Katrina and where the affected regions certainly where the taxpayers dollars could have been spent on our own people and property!!

Just goes to show that if another major natural calamity the United States, people should be skeptic that they will fare any better. Unless maybe, one lives in the Hampton's, for instance. The govt. would have been "Johnny on the Spot" for recovery measures if people were crying for help from the elite clubhouse's...but, the Superdome fiasco will not be forgotten soon.

8.30.07, 8:57 PM
Yes, sad to say.....Katrina was the moment when the rest of America finally realized how incompetent and immoral this administration really was! There was just no denying that Bush ignored the whole damn thing- remember him pretending to play guitar in California at a fundraiser while folks were dying in New Orleans?!? He had to be TOLD that he needed to pay attention.....just as he had to be TOLD what to do on 9/11. At two highly critical and traumatic times in our history under his watch- he failed abysmally to show any kind of leadership, maturity or humanity.
Because he's inherently unqualified to be president of the local little league, let alone the United States. Please, please, please, folks- let's hold our next president to a much higher standard and magnifying glass BEFORE we elect him or her!