The speech - "The New Way Forward "--by President Bush

[sgeeeee]

Insert "give up" in place of "fire shots" and we'll be in agreement. We're at setback number one in Iraq now. . .

Number 1? Some of us have counted well beyond that by now.

The main point is that the current approach has not worked and is not working. Iraq has not become more stable. Terrorists have moved into Iraq to fight US troops rather than disperse and disapear. Both Iraqi and US deaths continue unabated. Oil supplies from Iraq are not more reliable. We are losing allies rather than gaining them . . . Is there anything positive that our current approach is accomplishing?

The people who developed and directed this approach have been telling us for the past several years that no additional forces are needed. They have been telling us that their views about the Iraq invasion are not flawed, we simply need to continue to back them. Now we know that they were wrong about WMDs and about our reception in Iraq and about the cost of the effort. They were wrong about using Iraq oil to fund the effort. Now they tell us they were wrong about not needing more troops. They are saying that their view of the Iraq invasion is still correct and all we need to do is trust them and send more troops.

It occurs to me that maybe their views about Iraq that led to this approach are not an accurate view of the situation? Maybe we need to re-examine the assumptions that led to this costly and unsuccessful invasion.

 

[bosco]

Actually, things would be better if they had MORE nationalism. Right now, the problem is that many/most Iraqis think of themselves as members of their clans first; Sunnis, Shia, or Kurds second: and as citizens of Iraq somewhere way down the list.

they may hate each other's clans, but they hate invading Yanks more. It's probably about the only thing they agree on.

 

[JohnEyles]

they may hate each other's clans, but they hate invading Yanks more.

That's not my impression. Maybe a year ago, but right now I gather that the
miltants are far more interested in harming their Sunni or Shiite enemies than
in harming US troops. (Partially that may be because it's a lot more dangerous
to attack US troops). So we are essentially baby-sitting a religious civil war.
And, according to the argument that it'd be a huge mistake to leave, we are
keeping a lid on that civil war.

The other argument, espoused to me by a air-travel seat-mate, back from a tour
lcoating and defusing IEDs in Baghdad, is that the Iraqis simply aren't going to
get their sh*t together until we force them to by withdrawing. He suggests
an ultimatum that we're gonna be gone by Jan 2008. (He said that a sizable
fraction, but by no means a majority, of his fellows would agree with him, the
remainder being mostly "rah rah USA" types).

 

[Caroline]

As much as the libs all waved excitedly for 3 years that we only went to iraq for oil, I think that sentiment was and is true, but now isnt the time to put that argument down. We're there primarily for oil, we need it, we have no viable and implementable options, and leaving that region leaves our economy at risk.

Super -- we are a nation of thieves and murderers who will take anything we want any time we want it.

And we wonder why they're pissed...

 

[ERD50]

- Our economy flies straight into the ground at mach 2 without oil; most of the oil we need to operate our economy comes from rock throwing distance of iraqs borders,

Well, a *lot* of the oil we use comes from the mid-east, but not most of it:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/pgulf.html

Yes, 20% would be a big, big deal. But, with a little planning from both parties over the past 20 years, we certainly could have conserved that much, or found alternate sources.

EDIT: That is ~ 20% of the *imported oil*. Only about 12% of our total oil usage.

Overall, the Persian Gulf accounted for about 22% of U.S. net oil imports, and 12% of U.S. oil demand, in 2003.

-ERD50

 

[samclem]

Just a note: Because oil is an incredibly fungible asset, where we get ours from really doesn't matter a whole lot. Europe buys a lot of their oil from the ME. If that oil were unavailabe, they'd be buying up the stuff we normally get from Venezuela and Mexico. US domestically produced oil would go through the roof in price if ME oil becomes short in supply. That's why the talk of "reducing our dependence on Middle East oil" is more marketing than fact: Even if the US produced all the oil we need, as long as others need ME oil (and China is going to need a LOT) then the cost of US oil will jump whenever there's trouble in the ME. Our economy will be linked to the ME as long as we use a lot of petroleum and as long as they pump a lot of it out of the ground, even if we don't buy a drop from them.

 

[ERD50]

Just a note: Because oil is an incredibly fungible asset, where we get ours from really doesn't matter a whole lot.

Our economy will be linked to the ME as long as we use a lot of petroleum and as long as they pump a lot of it out of the ground, even if we don't buy a drop from them.

Very true, it cuts both ways. - ERD50

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Well, a *lot* of the oil we use comes from the mid-east, but not most of it:

Lets have a look at the top 15 places we get our oil... (thousand barrels per day)
CANADA 2,065
MEXICO 1,462
SAUDI ARABIA 1,444
VENEZUELA 1,069
NIGERIA 919
IRAQ 589
ANGOLA 505
ALGERIA 253
KUWAIT 253
ECUADOR 243
BRAZIL 156
UNITED KINGDOM 119
CHAD 118
NORWAY 81
AZERBAIJAN 77

Hmm...Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait and plausibly a few other regional exporters might be effected by a shift in the region. Venezuelas hating our guys right now.

I'm sort of doubting that we'll see a big step up from Norway and Azerbaijan.

Last year gas supplies tightened up and prices shot through the roof over some fairly minor supply and refining problems.

What do you think happens when 3-5 of the top 10 suppliers shut off the spigot?

Super -- we are a nation of thieves and murderers who will take anything we want any time we want it.

And we wonder why they're pissed...

Well hey, dont shoot the messenger. We saw an unstable situation and couldnt predict the results so decided to stick our nose in and hope to improve the predictability. In general, looks like a piss poor job of doing that in the short or long term.

But yeah, we killed and stole to suit our own needs. Shine that turd any way that helps ya sleep at night.

 

[brewer12345]

We saw an unstable situation and couldnt predict the results so decided to stick our nose in and hope to improve the predictability.

Umm, you know, it is really hard to actually back that up. Say what you like about Saddam's regime (dictatorial, brutal, oppressive, kleptocratic all come to mind), but unstable doesn't exactly leap to the top of the list.

 

[Nords]

Say what you like about Saddam's regime (dictatorial, brutal, oppressive, kleptocratic all come to mind), but unstable doesn't exactly leap to the top of the list.

Yeah, he was doing all right until he accidentally ended up in Kuwait...

 

[brewer12345]

Yeah, he was doing all right until he accidentally ended up in Kuwait...

Ancient history. I was talking about the decade or so of more-or-less successful containment, not unlike what was done with other roguee regimes (Cuba, N Korea, Iran, etc.) until dunce-boy Georgie decided it would be a jolly idea to throw rocks at the hornets' nests.

 

[FinanceDude]

Yeah, he was doing all right until he accidentally ended up in Kuwait...

He didn't have GPS.................

 

[lets-retire]

Ancient history. I was talking about the decade or so of more-or-less successful containment, not unlike what was done with other roguee regimes (Cuba, N Korea, Iran, etc.) until dunce-boy Georgie decided it would be a jolly idea to throw rocks at the hornets' nests.

I guess it was better to drop bombs on most days rather than deal with the situation and enforce sanctions he agreed to. The only reason it seem "more or less successful" was because the press didn't feel it was newsworthy to report that we were still dropping bombs almost daily.

 

[brewer12345]

I guess it was better to drop bombs on most days rather than deal with the situation and enforce sanctions he agreed to. The only reason it seem "more or less successful" was because the press didn't feel it was newsworthy to report that we were still dropping bombs almost daily.

Tell me, how many US soldiers were killed, per month, during the time of "dropping bombs almost daily?" How many civilians were killed per month? How many billion dollars per month did it cost?

Yeah, yeah, it was a terrible policy...

 

[lets-retire]

Debating military action with someone who feels nothing is worth fighting for, is like explaining the usefulness of a knife to a dog.

 

[JohnEyles]

Debating military action with someone who feels nothing is worth fighting for, is like explaining the usefulness of a knife to a dog.

Who exactly are you attacking here ? Are you familiar with the "quote" button
that can be used when replying to an email ?

 

[samclem]

Tell me, how many US soldiers were killed, per month, during the time of "dropping bombs almost daily?" How many civilians were killed per month? How many billion dollars per month did it cost?

Yeah, yeah, it was a terrible policy...

Okay, heres a factoid:

6000 to 7000 Iraqi children were dying each month before the war due to economic conditions under Saddam (Source: Dennis Halliday, former United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator, (New York Times 1/3/99). Iraq was permittted to sell more than enough oil to alleviate this suffering, but by now everyone should be very familiar with where that money went--and it wasn't for food. Now, add in the number of adults who were dying due to economic conditions. Then, add in the number executed by the Saddam's thugs. Then, add in the marsh Arabs killed by Saddam's deliberate water diversion projects. Its a big number. Bigger than today's Iraqi death rate from the bombings.

A freely elected parliament and prime minister--when was that going to happen under Saddam?

The present situation probably seems worse for Iraqis than the good old days you harken for because the press announces every carbombing. Unfortunately, CNN wasn't reporting hourly on the starving/tortured Iraqis. CNN had cut a deal with Saddam to censor their reports--remember?

 

[CCdaCE]

Do you really believe that the US will be able to destroy this enemy by increasing the number of troops in Iraq? Have you thought through that scenario and considered the fact that there are other Islamic states in the region? Or is it your plan for the US to bomb the entire mid-east back to the stone age?

Have you considered the consequencies of doing "nothing" ... imagine daily suicide bombings in the streets of US cities. Not pretty ... think Israel.

It's like an ant/bee infestation. We've been hunting individuals for decades (WTC first bombing, Cole bombing, countless embassy bombings). But the swarm will continue to grow until the nest is sprayed. You might fool yourself into thinking you've sovled it (Clinton) by catching a couple; but the problem festers. Deal with it now or it's a bigger problem later. We have not had a "problem" here in the US for 5+ years because the infestation is finally being dealt with.

I think the real brain burner is whether trying to do something over there is causing the problem. We shouldn't've gone/invaded Iraq in the first place. But, now that we're there, the people that aren't listening (terrorists/nationalists/etc.) have to be wiped off the face of the earth if we want to "win". There is no convincing them that we're going to "fix things" because they don't like our "fix".

So, if we want the clock to run our way, we have to put our gears in the sucker.

All in all, I'm pretty sure we don't have the answer or the correct "fix". Applying our solution to "their problem", the one that we created by invading/creating a power vacuum, is not going to work until we remove the corruption, anti-American sentiment, and the like. That means a lot of dead terrorists and a lot of dead others that just want the power. It's like getting rid of crooked Iraqi cops. It's pretty difficult to do (and maintain a functioning force) if 3/4 of the organization is crooked.

-CC

 

[ladelfina]

samclem, your arguments make some sense, but the situation you describe holds for a goodly number of other nasty regimes. The question remains: why did it HAVE to be Iraq, RIGHT THEN, at all costs, when Afghanistan and the question of bin Laden were, and remain, unresolved? Why did the 'evidence' have to be "sexed up"?

More to the point of the topic, why after 4 years does the "new way forward" look so similar to the 'old' way forward? Hubris, arrogance, and incompetency.

After 4 years, do we have more US folks who can speak and read the language? (No.) Can we now tell Sunni from Shiite? (No.) The Republicans are howling now about the Dem's threat to cut off funding, but the Republicans found it pretty easy to vote against funds for Clinton's military action in Somalia.

 

[brewer12345]

Meh, I don't buy your numbers, Sam, and we will probably never know, just like we won't ever know for sure what the total body count is in the current mess (sites like http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ are probably no more than a shot in the dark). But it seems safe to say that we have not made things better despits splilling much blood and treasure, and the possibility of things becoming more unglued is a lot higher now than it was in 2000.

 

[dumpster56]

Meh, I don't buy your numbers, Sam, and we will probably never know, just like we won't ever know for sure what the total body count is in the current mess (sites like http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ are probably no more than a shot in the dark). But it seems safe to say that we have not made things better despits splilling much blood and treasure, and the possibility of things becoming more unglued is a lot higher now than it was in 2000.

Body count??

Bin Laden and al Zwahiri are not in them!

Bottom line Bush attacked Iraq because HE COULD! Period.

Now the situation is a mess, I could have told you it would become one 5 years ago. I was telling everyone it was a mistake to go into Iraq but my Republican relatives would shout me down.

oh well the world is efed up and quite frankly having Ered makes all the BS much more manageable.

Hey that nuclear midnight clock was move 2 mins closer to midnight yesterday!

Cheers, its almost OVER!!!

 

[Nords]

Ancient history. I was talking about the decade or so of more-or-less successful containment, not unlike what was done with other roguee regimes (Cuba, N Korea, Iran, etc.) until dunce-boy Georgie decided it would be a jolly idea to throw rocks at the hornets' nests.

I guess that's a compliment to the guys maintaining the no-fly zones, but it sure cost a lot of personnel, machinery, & fuel.

I don't think the oil-for-food agreement was working any better in Iraq than any other programs were working in North Korea or Cuba, either. North Korea got their butts kicked out of the South, Cuba got kicked out of Grenada, and the tradition continues...