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

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Then they will have death, destruction and chaos. . . Oh . . . wait a minute. That's what they have now. The difference is that now the death, destruction and chaos involves US troops. If we were not there, it would not.

Except for the long term view. What happens if the likely joint iraqi/iranian muslim extremist "axis" ends up leaning on saudi arabia a little bit to "unwesternize" their position and decides to start pushing israel into the ocean. Between the oil squeeze and our affiliations with the israeli's, we'll have a bit of a dilemma.

Think we wont be going back there to fight a larger mess?

Please note that I posted years ago that this was a mess we didn't want to be in the middle of, but we broke it and washing our hands of it wont end our long term participation. What I said would happen is exactly whats happened.

I *am* quite amused by the recent media play of "Hey, we gave these people democracy and look how they're repaying us!".

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Shoot...the perfect solution just occurred to me.

We need to install a local "strongman" who opposes the extremists, keeps the fringe nutjobs in line, and absolutely kicks the ass of anyone who tries to overthrow him or start any disruptive internal military action. Someone who the iranians and turks would be leery of attacking. That'd solve the problem.

Anyone come to mind?

 

[REWahoo]

Shoot...the perfect solution just occurred to me.

We need to install a local "strongman" who opposes the extremists, keeps the fringe nutjobs in line, and absolutely kicks the ass of anyone who tries to overthrow him or start any disruptive internal military action. Someone who the iranians and turks would be leery of attacking. That'd solve the problem.

Anyone come to mind?

Don't get hung up on another wild scheme...

 

[sgeeeee]

Except for the long term view. What happens if the likely joint iraqi/iranian muslim extremist "axis" ends up leaning on saudi arabia a little bit to "unwesternize" their position and decides to start pushing israel into the ocean.. .

Don't confuse this question with either an alternative answer or with an argument against the original statement.

I notice that you don't ask the question, "What happens if we continue our losing battle?" The answer to that question may be the very scenario you just spelled out.

Another important question might be, "What is the best course of action to avoid losing all influence in the politics of the middle east?" Anyone who thinks the answer is that we should keep fighting a war over there needs to study the mid-east a little more thoroughly.

It is going to take a long time to overcome the negative reputation we've gotten for ourselves over this fiasco, but we can't start to overcome it as long as we are fighting a war we started with an unjustified invasion and in a region where we are not wanted. When you find yourself in a hole, the first action you take should be to stop digging.

 

[Patrick]

Shoot...the perfect solution just occurred to me.

We need to install a local "strongman" who opposes the extremists, keeps the fringe nutjobs in line, and absolutely kicks the ass of anyone who tries to overthrow him or start any disruptive internal military action. Someone who the iranians and turks would be leery of attacking. That'd solve the problem.

Anyone come to mind?

Manuel Noriega, Idi Amin Dada (if he's still alive), Mohamar (sp?) Khadaffi.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I notice that you don't ask the question, "What happens if we continue our losing battle?" The answer to that question may be the very scenario you just spelled out.

Agreed. But I think we should have what we didnt have going in: a reasoned plan, options, a backup plan, and assets in place that will assure we arent setting the stage for unavoidable re-entry. It doesnt have to be an open ended thing, but bailing out seems to leave a lot of open holes for something bad to happen.

I think the chief problem is that we sit here as reasonable men and women with a lot to lose, considering the actions of unreasonable men with a lot to gain and little to lose.

It sure would be nice to get our kids home, have all the nutjobs we've drawn into iraq go back to wherever they came from, have a nice chat with the turks and iranians about making nice about the whole thing, and going back to worrying about something else.

Is that a reasonable outcome?

And yeah, we have a lot of healing to do...not just at home but around the world. How we managed to go from worldwide sympathy to worldwide despise was a neat trick. We've absolutely become what we hated most about the soviets 30 years ago.

 

[Nords]

Shoot...the perfect solution just occurred to me.
We need to install a local "strongman" who opposes the extremists, keeps the fringe nutjobs in line, and absolutely kicks the ass of anyone who tries to overthrow him or start any disruptive internal military action. Someone who the iranians and turks would be leery of attacking. That'd solve the problem.
Anyone come to mind?

Manuel Noriega, Idi Amin Dada (if he's still alive), Mohamar (sp?) Khadaffi.

Hey, TH, I hear that at least two of the Bush brothers will be available in the next few years...

BTW, who's that in your avatar and what's he putting his foot into? Is this another Bush metaphor?

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Thats gabe and his new potty chair. Which apparently he believes to be a shoe of some type.

No metaphor implied, but if the shoe fits...

 

[Craig]

It sure would be nice to get our kids home, have all the nutjobs we've drawn into iraq go back to wherever they came from, have a nice chat with the turks and iranians about making nice about the whole thing, and going back to worrying about something else.

I really wish you were right about that, but it won't work out that way. A lot of people want to believe this, and I don't blame them.

A large gulf between some of us is whether we believe radical Islamists will pursue and accept peace with the U.S. and the rest of the world. I don't believe they will. And, the result of backing off from these nutjobs will give them time to regroup and come into the U.S. (for example), and we will see suicide bombings here, and worse. I believe this would have happened regardless of our policy in Iraq, because these people hate our culture and our economy. [Spend a little time reading about the reality of radical Islam ... they are effectively murderous fascists (is there any other kind) ... with a perspective akin to the middle ages. And some of my opinion is influenced by Islamic professional friends who see the radicals in this way. This is some enemy we're dealing with here.]

I suppose we'll see exactly what happens along the lines of just withdrawing, because the lefties are as foolish as the righties ... the lefties are gaining power, and the lefties always like to believe you need to make nice, small is beautiful, and we can all live in peace. Great thoughts ... but when dealing with murderous thugs it always means deferring and then worsening the eventual, big war.

[edited ... I see now where brewer did offer some construction thoughts for solutions.]

 

[Jarhead*]

No doubt young Mr. Brewers finest hour doesn't come when he gets
involved in military discussions.

But on balance he is very knowledgable in the financial area, and freely
spends a lot of time giving pretty darn good advice in that area.

Anyway, for me personally, I prefer to stay away from "Arm-Chair Quarterbacking" discussions.

If I decide that I need that for some kind of therapy, there's always
the VFW, where you can do that up close and personal to your hearts content. 8)

 

[audreyh1]

I know this is getting real old by now, but I'd like the Bush enablers to think about and respond to these points:
1. Iraq had nothing to do with the events of 9-11-01.

2. Bush and Rumsfeld lied repeatedly to get the invasion going.

3. Once started, they had NO plan for the ensuing occupation.

4. Our troops were sent there inadequately protected and in inadequate strength.

5. The extremist groups you neocons are so fixated on were not a factor in Iraq before the invasion. They are now.

6. The politicians, from Johnson to Junior Bush, have continually lied to get our troops sent into harm's way. And then abandoned them as useless cannon fodder when they get home.

7. And you righties fall for it every time.

Great post Alphabet Soup!

Audrey

 

[Craig]

Will be helpful if alphabet soup can also suggest some solutions.

 

[sgeeeee]

Many Americans now believe that 1) we never should have gone into Iraq and 2) that we should get out as soon as possible. Based on what's happened over there and in terms of the US reputation around the world, there seems to be significant reasons to favor the two beliefs listed above.

Another group of people refuse to believe the points listed above and warn that things may get worse if we abandon Iraq now. Apparently, they find the current level of death, injury and destruction of US forces acceptable as long as . . . well . . . that's what's not clear to me. What long term strategic advantages do those people think we are accomplishing under the current plan? How is getting American soldiers killed and injured in an Iraqi civil war helping us? How is providing a lightning rod for Islamic extremests helping us? What do these people see as an end game? Do they really believe that if we fight long enough and lose enough troops that the Islamic fundamentalists will embrace US ideas and live in peace with us? Or do they believe that we will somehow be able to kill so many Islamic fundamentalists that they will become insignificant threats?

 

[tryan]

I know this is getting real old by now, but I'd like the Bush enablers to think about and respond to these points:
1. Iraq had nothing to do with the events of 9-11-01.

2. Bush and Rumsfeld lied repeatedly to get the invasion going.

3. Once started, they had NO plan for the ensuing occupation.

4. Our troops were sent there inadequately protected and in inadequate strength.

5. The extremist groups you neocons are so fixated on were not a factor in Iraq before the invasion. They are now.

6. The politicians, from Johnson to Junior Bush, have continually lied to get our troops sent into harm's way. And then abandoned them as useless cannon fodder when they get home.

7. And you righties fall for it every time.

I believe the "party line" would be as follows:

1. We're heading off the NEXT 9-11.
2. Bush and Rumsfeld saw the same data congress saw when they authorized the war.
3. Any "plan" was deemed obsolete when the world's islamic extremist flooded the Iraq borders. Nice having them in one place .... 5+ years without an attack in this country proves the "plan" is working.
4. Yup ... 8 years of Clinton's defense cuts took a toll. And if Kerry were elected they'd be even less supported ... look at his senate voting history.
5. They were always out there ... lurking. As stated in #3: Nice having them all in one place!
6. See #2. Any "abandonment" in this conflict as come from the relentless message from the "Cut n'Run" media and Dems.
7. Yes, we support any president and the troops in war time. Because war is a time to unify. Nothing lifts an enemy like unrest in the US.

 

[sgeeeee]

I believe the "party line" would be as follows:

1. We're heading off the NEXT 9-11.

And no matter what happens here, they can claim success. If it doesn't happen, their actions clearly helped. If it does happen, then their actions helped to minimize the damage. No one can provide data to the contrary. On the other hand, the same argument can clearly be made with just as much justification by the other side. If we get out now and no more attacks occur, it was clearly the right thing to do. If we get out now and an attack does occur, then it is proof that we should have gotten out earlier. The attack is the result of the hatred we built up during our unjustified invasion.

If you want to believe, this argument allows you to believe whatever you want.

2. Bush and Rumsfeld saw the same data congress saw when they authorized the war.

Well . . . they saw it because they put it together. If you lie and fool someone, you really don't have a right to blame them for following where your lie led them.

3. Any "plan" was deemed obsolete when the world's islamic extremist flooded the Iraq borders. Nice having them in one place .... 5+ years without an attack in this country proves the "plan" is working.

This is another one that either side can claim whatever they want. The invasion of Iraq may result in more lives lost and bodies injured than any attack we might have experienced over the past 5+ years. Or maybe the invasion has kept our enemies busy elsewhere and saved us from unbelievable terror.

This is another argument that allows you to rationalize any belief you want.

4. Yup ... 8 years of Clinton's defense cuts took a toll. And if Kerry were elected they'd be even less supported ... look at his senate voting history.
5. They were always out there ... lurking. As stated in #3: Nice having them all in one place!

This is an interesting point. Of course we all know that everything is Clinton's fault. But if we carry this reasoning back a little in time, we have to conclude that Clinton's policies kept us from being attacked and we were only attacked after the Bush administration took over. So the whole thing must be Bush's fault.

6. See #2. Any "abandonment" in this conflict as come from the relentless message from the "Cut n'Run" media and Dems.

The reactionary right seems to love stubborness. They often mistakenly refer to it as "leadership". When Bush or Reagan say "stay the course" they seem comforted by that even if the course seems to be head-on to an iceberg. They seem to say, "I don't care how many people die or how far from my intended outcome this war seems to take us. I refuse to admit something might be wrong with my original plan by changing courses even a little bit." I've never understood how that is interpreted as leadership. It just seems bullheaded and stupid to me. If "Cut n'Run" is the wrong approach to this slow motion train wreck, can any of these people explain how more death and fighting is going to bring us out the other side? I'm hearing the complaints that they don't want to abandon their strategy, but I'm not hearing how doing the same thing is going to get a different result.

7. Yes, we support any president and the troops in war time. Because war is a time to unify. Nothing lifts an enemy like unrest in the US.

In a democracy, support of a president does not mean blind obediance. Support of the troops is not equivalent to sending them on a fool's mission then putting a yellow ribbon magnet on your car. Some of us love the American presidency and American youth in the military enough to want to protect both from folly.

 

[Buckeye]

I can support "the surge" if the two Bush daughters are part of the additional 20,000 deployed. It's time for him to get a little skin in the game.

 

[modlair]

I'll offer the thought that there is a fundamental philosophical difference in the debate -- those that think attitude matters more than capability and those that think capability matters more than attitude.

It is far easier, and quicker, to change an attitude than it is to build a weapons program. Throughout all modern conflict -- since the beginning of the Atomic Age -- it has always been wiser to assess threat level as a function of capability, when one is doing so for a populace that does not have a history of decades of proven support.

The existence of hatred of the US by a population that has been stripped, and kept stripped, of a program / ability to manufacture weaponry that can kill millions of Americans -- well, it means nothing, doesn't it? Their hatred is unimportant. Why would you care if millions of people hate you if they are powerless to do anything about it?

If they are not powerless, or are striving to be powerful, why would you trust any claims about some recent attitude change that they might make? Isn't that needlessly dangerous? Clearly it is wiser to take steps to keep them powerless.

Is this not easier, and safer, than allowing them to build such a capability and trust to your impression of whatever love they profess that they will not use it?

Debate on this stuff always turns into question and counter question, so I'll suspend all questions above and simply assert that it is safer to destroy an enemy than it is to persuade him to love you, and trust that he isn't lying about that love.

 

[Dog]

Interesting thread....although folks are using the same talking points you will hear on national TV or talk show radio (listen to both). I am more disheartened by our leadership pointing fingers and playing the blame, all the while trying to position themselves for political power rather than trying to work together for a solution.

As far as second guessing the war effort, I doubt we have the same intelligence and facts that those in top military positions rely on when making decisions (otherwise I doubt we could sleep at night). Yet, we want to second guess and assume that we know better. Of course we get our facts from what the media tells us - interesting what the media will pick up and run with and what THEY decide is not worth reporting - so, we analyze, digest and argue points based on half truths.

Americans by nature are impatient and don't like to hear bad news. We want immediate solutions today....we will worry about tomorrow, tomorrow. So, history will be the judge of the right or wrong of the IRAQ war.

 

[alphabet soup]

Will be helpful if alphabet soup can also suggest some solutions.

The only viable solution I can see is to return Iraq to its pre-1918 partitions; i.e. where the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds each had their own territory.

You can criticize my opinion, but I didn't break it, your guy did.

And he can't fix it!

 

[Cut-Throat]

Yup! - Bush Jr. owns this one!

He should have left the mess to Saddam!

Spent $300 Billion Plus - you right wingers bitch about social programs. - Now this is a waste!

Time to turn the country over to the Democrats and clean up the mess you've made!

 

[tryan]

sg ... I am dizzy from reading your post .... you're running in circles. We can agree to disagree. Democrats will continue to push Iraq as a quagmire ... Republicains will push Iraq as an incubator for terrorism.

A friend and I had this very discussion and he said something interesting .... he said: Because of 9-11, America has finally been forced to face the same problems the rest of the world has been dealing with for decades: the islamic extremist.

I for one am proud to have a president who is willing to take the fight to the enemy. And not sit home, wringing thier hands (or running in circles ) ala Jimmy Carter.

it is safer to destroy an enemy than it is to persuade him to love you,

rodmail ... we agree.

 

[sgeeeee]

sg ... I am dizzy from reading your post .... you're running in circles. We can agree to disagree. Democrats will continue to push Iraq as a quagmire ... Republicains will push Iraq as an incubator for terrorism.

A friend and I had this very discussion and he said something interesting .... he said: Because of 9-11, America has finally been forced to face the same problems the rest of the world has been dealing with for decades: the islamic extremist.

I for one am proud to have a president who is willing to take the fight to the enemy. And not sit home, wringing thier hands (or running in circles ) ala Jimmy Carter.

rodmail ... we agree.

I can understand why you are dizzy. My previous post pointed out the circles the current administration is running in and illustrated how many of their arguments could be used by either side since they depended entirely on perception rather than fact. Iraq is both a quagmire and an incubator for terrorism. Of course it wasn't an incubator for terrorism until Bush and company decided to invade it based on lies. And it probably will cease to be an incubator for terrorism as soon as the US leaves and is no longer an easy target for terrorists. I'm afraid the quagmire portion will take longer to go away, but I don't see how losing more American lives is fixing that.

By the way, I've posed a question to the supporters of more troops on two different occasions in this thread and no one has chosen to answer it. I'll ask again: For those of you who feel we should just keep sending more Americans over there, what do you see as the end game? How do you think doing more of the same is going to lead to an acceptable end? I guess a hint to the answer to that question may be in the statement rodmail makes that you agree with: "it is safer to destroy an enemy than it is to persuade him to love you." 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?

 

[tryan]

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.

A democratic Iraq is exactly the answer to NOT bombing the entire mid-east to the stone age. Hopefully democracy will tumble the islamic extremism the same way capitolism tumbled socialism. I believe that's the bet GWB has made. Right or wrong? We won't know for years.

Admitedly the one thing missing from Bush's speech was "we will exit Iraq in the year XXXX". No matter how far out, an exit date would have helped. American's can't stomach opened ended conflicts.

 

[modlair]

Best not to participate in questions exchanged and replied to with questions and then we all celebrate that no one answered a question.

The optimal end game scenario for Iraq is permanent US troop presence on what is the 2nd or 3rd largest oil reserves in the world -- in a century where continued US dominance of the planet depends on either physically or economically denying oil to competitors as the inevitable shortages arrive.

It does not matter what stated goals might be to create a more palatable perspective from the public. As long as what is achieved is control of that oil and denial of that territory to weapons development programs then that is victory. So far, victory has been achieved. The price in blood and dollars is quite small, too. It would be nice if it were smaller, but as a price to purchase planetary dominance for perhaps an entire century, it seems inexpensive.

 

[tryan]

... yeah, one thing we can ALL agree on: As long as we're in Iraq, let's have 10 cent/gallon gas!