In light of the recent debate in the Congress here is what I would like to see happen. Some enterprising White House reporter to do needs to ask Mr. Bush what defines victory in our current situation in Iraq.
Until we know what defines victory, it is wrong for Mr. Bush to keep saying �Stay the Course� because there is no course to stay.
Simply put, the current situation in Iraq is untenable. We can stay there and bleed from a thousand paper cuts because we haven�t enough troops on the ground to do anything other than that. We haven�t enough troops to secure the country, some might say that in light of the recent kidnaping and killing of soldiers at a checkpoint, that we haven�t enough troops to secure much more of Iraq other than the Green Zone. We certainly haven�t enough troops on the ground to protect Iraqi civilians from car bombs and kidnapings.
Which leaves the question what to do?
With no definition of what victory is, as the current situation stands we�re spinning our wheels in the sand while soldiers die for some undefined cause.
The only other approach I can see is admitting, at least to ourselves, that the Rumsfeld approach to a minimal ground force to secure the peace was a failure. Secondly, we have to admit, at least to ourselves, that the flower-strewn welcome that Vice- President Chenney predicted not only did not materialize to the degree expected but was thwarted but mistakes like not stopping the post-shooting-phase looting.
After finally seeing the facts as they are, we�re left with only two viable conclusions. Declare victory and turn things over to the Iraqis and leave or send hundred of thousands of additional troops to provide security for the country and root out the insurgents.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
No "enterprising reporter" will ask those questions because he/she will have their press pass revoked if they do.
Bet on it.
Even if we pull out of Iraq, we'll still have to go back into Afghanistan in force and re-take that country (as it's getting to be just as out of control as Iraq- just not reported on).
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: No "enterprising reporter" will ask those questions because he/she will have their press pass revoked if they do.
Bet on it.
Might be worth the sacrifice to see what he'll say. I'm waiting for the day when he crumbles under the pressure and cries. I don't mean the fake act he pulls sometimes, I want real tears. Muhahahahahahahaha
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It's more likely he'll snap and start speaking in tounges and quoting all sorts of bible verse nonsense...stuff aout the Endtimes and repent ye sinners...
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., said he believes the American people are frustrated by the Bush administration's failure to articulate a clear strategy for winning in Iraq. Benchmarks and timetables for a withdrawal are needed to gauge progress and limit U.S. casualties, he said.
"If I had known the president was going to be this incompetent in his administration, I would not have given him the authority" to go to war, said Biden, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
*Emphasis added.
And then I thought that this quote from Apocalypse Now (1979) encapsulated the Bush Administration's strategy in Iraq:
quote:Willard: They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound. Kurtz: Are my methods unsound? Willard: I don't see any method at all, sir.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
"Iraq is our generations Vietnam."
I don't remember who said it, but it certainly fits.
History repeats itself...Why doesn't anyone say that when something GOOD happens.
Even under Saddam things weren't this bad over there. At least there was order... That's about the only good thing I have to say about him.
I have only one question: How much longer until Bush gets forced out?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Even under Saddam things weren't this bad over there.
Bull Shit. Things were not so randomly violent and the adverage Iraqi had his power on more often, but dont think that means things are worse off now. Worse off for the minority that once hogged all the political power- oh yeah. Worse for the Kurds? For women? For anyone wanting to speak their mind or hope for the future?
No way.
That's not to say it's not a clusterfuck that could completely implode, I'm just pointing out that even insurgents and roadside bombs beat orderly deathsquads, mass graves and prisons full of the kids of "enemies of the state".
In time, I think Iraq will be a lot better, able to stand all on it's own and will be the most moderate muslim country since Afghanistan (stupidly1) elected the Taliban into power. But they'll still hate us Americans- no avoiding that one.
Yah- I'm still optimistic about Iraq's prospects- it's not trendy, but what the hey. Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote:I'm just pointing out that even insurgents and roadside bombs beat deathsquads, mass graves ((Maybe it doesn't count if no one bothers to bury them?)) and prisons full of the kids of "enemies of the state".
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: [QUOTE] That's not to say it's not a clusterfuck that could completely implode, I'm just pointing out that even insurgents and roadside bombs beat orderly deathsquads, mass graves and prisons full of the kids of "enemies of the state".
You forgot to add WMD's to that list... Oh! Wait, there were none...
I wonder how much of what you said is true and how much is villification propagated by the media?
And really how are the US troops any different? Invading a sovereign nation with an unprovoked attack? Dropping bombs on non-combatants, and rounding up people believed to be terrorists and torturing them in the same prisons as Saddam's political enemies?
I'm sorry if this offends anyone, or if you strongly disagree. But you had no right to invade Iraq. The excuse that there were terrorists just doesn't stand with me. The WMD excuse would have worked for me if there actually were any.
But as long as you're there, at least you caught him.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I never said anything about being "right", only refuting that Iraq is now somehow worse off than under Saddam's regime.
As to being "propagated by the media", that's nonsense- all that has been reported by Amnesty International long before Bush decided it was politically expedient to invade Iraq. You know, back when the US told it's citizens that the silly "no fly zone" was keeping order in Iraq- back when the US would loudly speak of winning the Gulf War while doing nothing to help Iraq get from under Saddam's control. Back when we told the Kurds we'd back them against Saddam and then left them to die at his hands. A lot of the mass graves "found" in Iraq were first seen back when Saddam's forces first dug them- during the cease fire, when UN sanctions were doing such a great job of pressuring him out of office.
All of which was reported to the United Nations and the U.S. (by many human rights organizations in the mid-90's) and firmly ignored by both the politicians (many of whom still serve in congress) and the media. So much for "villification".
No one (not me anyway) is saying any of Bush's justifications for war were true, but face facts- we're there and need to finish what we started (in Afghanistan as well, obviously)- seperate from any "war on terror".
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Mistake ONE was not castrating Saddam in GW1. Stopping short and HOPING that a battered people would rise up and finish him off was absurd. It was like taking one fang from a rattlesnake and then hoping that the mongoose tied up in the corner could take him out.
If generals actually ran the wars, there wouldn't be all this crap that goes on to assuage the politicians. They'd simply go in, kick ass, and get out with the minimum of casualties.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote: All of which was reported to the United Nations and the U.S. (by many human rights organizations in the mid-90's) and firmly ignored by both the politicians (many of whom still serve in congress) and the media. So much for "villification".
Do you hjave copies of those reports, because I have not been able to find anything like that. Reports of mass graves only seem to be coming from US propagandists. I am seeing things like this, showing that mass graves was also part of a show to support a war.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Didn't Time or some such magazine run an article or two about Saddam back in the mid to late 80's?
If I remember correctly they may have compared him to Hitler.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
That linked article "has only found about 5000 graves" circa 2004. Hundreds more were unearthed just months later (pulled from the same Google search your linked artilce is on no less).
I've seen a lot of coverage on them since then. Frontline's excelent documentaries on Iraq, and everything from the first Gulf War through today (six documentaries fo far?) had also reported on the mass graves (of Kurdish rebels we asked to "rise up" 'cause the US would have their backs). Saddam would wipe out whole Kurdish villages. ...as reported by The Washington Post.
Unfortuantely, the air of deception about all the reasons going into Iraq will make many people say "it was all made up to support the war", but it was not.
I dont think we'll have a definitive answer as to the number of graves/victims untill long after the war is over and the UN (or the Iraqi people themselves) can add it all up- news sources like Fox News place the number at 300,000 and the U.S. State Department backs that figure up.
Human Rights Watch does not think the U.S. has done nearly enough to protect these sites -you know, sites that so many now (in their hatred for Blair/Bushco) dispute even exist.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
A lot of people are saying we should have finished the job in GW1. And I'm pretty sure I disagree. I think the US had cobbled together an international consensus and enjoyed some support from countries in the region to liberate Kuwait. Even had it been logistically possible to continue on to Baghdad, I think the president was cognizant of the fact that such a move would evaporate any consensus.
And so more recently even if Sadaam murdered only tens of thousands of people rather than hundreds of thousands of people, does that in some way make it OK? Is there a magic number? I'm not saying that the US didn't fudge the facts for going into Iraq, or that we were ever on the level about our justifications, but even by conservative estimates, Sadaam Hussein was still a genocidal fucking bastard.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
What do Saddam Hussein & Little Miss Muffet have in common?
They both had Kurds in their way.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
And yet one MORE level of Hell has been established.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hmmm...the real place where we blew it in GW1 was in letting/forcing Shwartzkopf(sp?) to negotiate terms of cease fire with a whole team or Iraqi negotiators... They asked for (and recieved!) permission to keep their helicopter gunships (bought from the Russians in their "going out of world domination" sale) to "defend themselves against their neighbors" (who quite rightly hated saddam for their own reasons).
Thus the Kurds were wiped out by said helicopters- some US listening posts along the border and satelite photos caught the whole sorry affair play-by-play and (because we signed that cease fire in good faith and everyone here was happy the war was over and relativly bloodless) did nothing.
Blame Bush version 1.0 for that one- he was busy planning his triumphant re-election campaign by then.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
What do we do going forward?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Ride untill we find them: Kill them all. shiney penny for whoever gets that ,movie quote)
I think the option would be to do everythig possible to get Iraq's new government up and with something like a stable meeting schedule- passing their own laws, voted on by their own citizens without US interference or any US agenda for "country-building" being evident.
Then, set attainable goals to get the vast majority of US troops out of Iraq (there is going to be at least some US military presence there for a looong time). While it's a fantasy, it would be nice to have the Iraqi people vote to have the US forces leave, then have their elected officials make the call fot US military presence scaled back to a bare minimum. That would give the adverage Iraqi citizen a much needed say in his own future (along with some re-establishment of national pride at "kicking us out") and would both encourage Iraq to stand on it's own while letting the US out of any potential "they abandoned us" blame game of future generations if things go back to dictatorship and religous oppression.
But I dream: private intrests wanting the US to stay have far more say than the majority of people wanting us out.
Besides, how can we possibly tell Iraq how to govern when so many in our government are obviously retarded .
Elsewhere, Israel is tired of playing nice- and after I was certain that peace was just around the corner, too. Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Tombstone?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Pizza? Only if we make it kosher, so both sides can eat it...extra cheese is probably okay.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
No, the movie quote.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
There's no movie quote though...I've never seen "Tombstone" (the Kevin Coster or Kurt Russel movie?). What shouts quote-ish?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Ride untill we find them: Kill them all. shiney penny for whoever gets that ,movie quote)
What do you mean there's no movie quote.
Anyway, there was something similar in Tombstone.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Oh, that! That's from The 13th Warrior Bandaras' character asks "Do we have anything resembling a plan?". It's one of my favorite movies.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
By Thomas E. Ricks Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, September 11, 2006; Page A01
The chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq recently filed an unusual secret report concluding that the prospects for securing that country's western Anbar province are dim and that there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there, said several military officers and intelligence officials familiar with its contents.
The officials described Col. Pete Devlin's classified assessment of the dire state of Anbar as the first time that a senior U.S. military officer has filed so negative a report from Iraq.
One Army officer summarized it as arguing that in Anbar province, "We haven't been defeated militarily but we have been defeated politically -- and that's where wars are won and lost."
The "very pessimistic" statement, as one Marine officer called it, was dated Aug. 16 and sent to Washington shortly after that, and has been discussed across the Pentagon and elsewhere in national security circles. "I don't know if it is a shock wave, but it's made people uncomfortable," said a Defense Department official who has read the report. Like others interviewed about the report, he spoke on the condition that he not be identified by name because of the document's sensitivity.
Devlin reports that there are no functioning Iraqi government institutions in Anbar, leaving a vacuum that has been filled by the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, which has become the province's most significant political force, said the Army officer, who has read the report. Another person familiar with the report said it describes Anbar as beyond repair; a third said it concludes that the United States has lost in Anbar.
Devlin offers a series of reasons for the situation, including a lack of U.S. and Iraqi troops, a problem that has dogged commanders since the fall of Baghdad more than three years ago, said people who have read it. These people said he reported that not only are military operations facing a stalemate, unable to extend and sustain security beyond the perimeters of their bases, but also local governments in the province have collapsed and the weak central government has almost no presence.
Those conclusions are striking because, even after four years of fighting an unexpectedly difficult war in Iraq, the U.S. military has tended to maintain an optimistic view: that its mission is difficult, but that progress is being made. Although CIA station chiefs in Baghdad have filed negative classified reports over the past several years, military intelligence officials have consistently been more positive, both in public statements and in internal reports.
----
Just so you can see the size of Anbar Province, here is the graphic the Post included with the story.
You might be asking yourself how, the American military with all the might it possess is not doing so well in the post-initial conflict stage of the invasion of Iraq. We might find the answer in this story I found posted a Crooks and Liars:
Long before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld forbade military strategists to develop plans for securing a postwar Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said.
Brig. Gen. Mark E. Scheid told the Newport News Daily Press in an interview published yesterday that Rumsfeld had said "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a postwar plan.
Scheid was a colonel with the U.S. Central Command, the unit that oversees military operations in the Middle East, in late 2001 when Rumsfeld "told us to get ready for Iraq."
"The secretary of defense continued to push on us . . . that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay."
Planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4" -- plans that covered post-invasion operations such as security, stability and reconstruction, said Scheid, who is retiring in about three weeks, but "I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that."
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Recently, the United States reached another one of those milestones in the current military conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq that people seem to measure.
Now the death toll is 9/11 times two. U.S. military deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan now match those of the most devastating terrorist attack in America's history, the trigger for what came next. Add casualties from chasing terrorists elsewhere in the world, and the total has passed the Sept. 11 figure.
The latest milestone for a country at war comes without commemoration. It also may well come without the precision of knowing who is the 2,973rd man or woman of arms to die in conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, or just when it happens. The terrorist attacks killed 2,973 victims in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.
Not for the first time, war that was started to answer death has resulted in at least as much death for the country that was first attacked, quite apart from the higher numbers of enemy and civilians killed.
Historians note that this grim accounting is not how the success or failure of warfare is measured, and that the reasons for conflict are broader than what served as the spark.
The body count from World War II was far higher for Allied troops than for the crushed Axis. Americans lost more men in each of a succession of Pacific battles than the 2,390 people who died at Pearl Harbor in the attack that made the U.S. declare war on Japan. The U.S. lost 405,399 in the theaters of World War II.
Despite a death toll that pales next to that of the great wars, one casualty milestone after another has been observed and reflected upon this time, especially in Iraq.
There was the benchmark of seeing more U.S. troops die in the occupation than in the swift and successful invasion. And the benchmarks of 1,000 dead, 2,000, 2,500.
Now this.
----
As of Friday, the U.S. death toll stood at 2,693 in the Iraq war and 278 in and around Afghanistan, for a total of 2,971, two short of the Sept. 11 attacks.
The Pentagon reports 56 military deaths and one civilian Defense Department death in other parts of the world from Operation Enduring Freedom, the anti-terrorism war distinct from Iraq.
Altogether, 3,028 have died abroad since Sept. 11, 2001.
The civilian toll in Iraq hit record highs in the summer, with 6,599 violent deaths reported in July and August alone, the United Nations said this week.
*Emphasis added.
The violence might have had something the Washington Post reported:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S.-trained Iraqi soldiers do not want to leave other parts of their country to serve in Baghdad, leaving security efforts in the violent capital short by 3,000 Iraqi troops, a senior U.S. commander said on Friday.
"I would tell you I need more Iraqi security forces," U.S. Army Maj. Gen. James Thurman, the U.S. military commander for Baghdad, told reporters at the Pentagon from Camp Liberty in the Iraqi capital.
Thurman said that six Iraqi army battalions -- roughly 500 soldiers each -- that he has requested to reinforce Baghdad have not been provided by the Iraqi government. U.S. commanders have said sectarian violence in Baghdad between Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims could lead to civil war if left unchecked.
"Some of these battalions, when they were formed, were formed regionally. And some of the soldiers due to the distance did not want to travel into Baghdad," Thurman said. "And the minister of defense (Abdel Qader Jassim) is working with that."
U.S. commanders have stated that curbing sectarian violence in Baghdad has become the main effort of the 3-1/2-year-old war, more important than the long-running fight against Sunni Arab insurgents in vast Anbar province west of Baghdad.
But only a relatively small portion of the 145,000-strong U.S. force and the 302,000-strong Iraqi government security forces are being devoted to the effort. Thurman said 15,000 U.S. troops, 9,000 Iraqi army soldiers, 12,000 Iraqi national police and 22,000 local police are operating in Baghdad.
Thurman said he was not disappointed by the failure of the Iraqi government to get the requested soldiers to Baghdad, but added the U.S. military was working to make Iraq's army "more mobile."
----
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Much of this is Rumsfeld's Let them succeed with what they already have" attitude- only after the situation is untenable does he relent and bring in additional forces. This goes against everything his military commanders have advised and caused our forces to wage battles they are not equiped for in a foreign land with minimal intel/cooperation from the locals we put into positions of power.
Case in point- Iraq's President (our pal, right?) has publicly condemned US soldiers after they arrested several insurgent leaders loyal to Al Saudr- he's afraid of losing support from Iraq's true power and being shafted after the U.S. pulls out. After all, Al Sadur's forces are only running death squads...why shou;d we interfere with that.
There is talk of re-enforcing our Iraq forces by two additional battalions and swiftly crushing any resistance in Bagdhad with overwhelming numbers, but this would stretch US forces hair thin and leave things vulnerable to a coordinated attack elsewhere.
As to Al Sadur's power, Al Sadur's #2 man regularly dined and slept at Bagdahad's police headquarters while police forces kept US troops from "bothering" him. He was, after all, a guest of Bagdahad's Chief Of Police.
What we need is what we dont have- an international peacekeeping force in Bagdhad to train and police their police forces so the US troops can go on the offensive elsewhere. Of course, we dont have too many pals willing to help out just now...maybe we can ask Venezuella to assist us? We're their biggest oil customer, afer all.
I cant say this enough- we cant win anything in Iraq if Afghanistan is lost: and it's circling the bowl pretty badly just now. A unified, strong and peaceful afghanistan would serve as the staging area for winning Iraq. We had it and we lost it because we focused only on Iraq. Fuck, even the media says nothing about Afghanistan anymore. If we can secure a free and peaceful Afghanistan, people in Iraq will demand the same for themselves...then maybe the clerics will cooperate with the new government.
Or we can bug the fuck out, secure our own country and just drop the occasional MOAB on them (as we should have that Taliban funeral).
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
We train them and they don't go where they are ordered to go.
Is that standing up or standing down?
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
Well, Jay, didn't you hear? People who enter military service and then ignore their orders and shirk their duties are no longer considered cowards, but the utmost patriots and (I've heard) can even rise to substantial positions of power.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded.
A 30-page National Intelligence Estimate completed in April cites the "centrality" of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the insurgency that has followed, as the leading inspiration for new Islamic extremist networks and cells that are united by little more than an anti-Western agenda. It concludes that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position, according to officials familiar with the classified document.
----
So does the Administration come out and frankly discuss these finding with the American people. Let's see what Mr. Cheney, ever the stranger to reality, had to say:
MILWAUKEE - Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that Democratic leaders aren't doing enough to fight terrorism and said Americans must "reject any strategy of resignation and defeatism in the face of determined enemies."
Cheney, speaking at a party fundraiser, said Republicans must keep national security on the minds of voters heading into the November midterm election.
Cheney used his 20-minute address to defend the Bush administration's war on terrorism and point fingers at Democrats.
"We have to stay on the offensive until the danger to civilization is removed," Cheney told about 110 people at the Pfister Hotel in downtown Milwaukee.
----
The Democrats aren't doing enough to fight the terrorists that the Neocons are creating in Iraq.
Interesting.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I hear a report yesterday on the Today programme (yes, the BBC Radio 4 flagship news show, known to many atround the world for the story on the Dodgy Dossier, Dr. David Kelly and Gilligan vs. Campbell) that at the height of the initial invasion of Iraq, that the Iranian government - confronted with this massive multinational invasion of a neighbouring contry that wasn't actually sponsoring terrorism to anything like the degree that the Iranians themselves were - wrote a letter (via the Swiss) offering all sorts of concessions (full access to Iranian nuclear program etc.). This got as far as the State Department before Cheney took it upon himself to declare "We don't talk with Evil" and that was that. Now, three years later and Iraq's a shitmire which can, they tell us, only be solved by invading Iran who aren't feeling all that conciliatory anymore.
I haven't had time to research this, anyone else familiar with this story?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday gave final approval to a massive funding bill for the Pentagon that provides another $70 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Senate was expected to pass the final version of the $447.6 billion bill by this weekend, sending it to President George W. Bush for his signature.
The House passed it 394-22 with virtually no debate as lawmakers worked to complete business before breaking to campaign for November elections that will determine control of Congress.
In a slap at Bush, the bill would bar the administration from using money from it to construct permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq or to exercise any control over Iraq's oil sector.
Both the House and Senate have approved that language before, but until this bill Republicans had stripped it in House-Senate conferences.
Democrats and many Republicans say the Iraqi insurgency has been fueled by perceptions that the United States has ambitions for a permanent presence in the country. They have called on Bush to make a policy statement that the United States has no such plans.
With this bill, Congress will have approved more than $500 billion for the wars, with the bulk of that spent in Iraq. Lawmakers called the $70 billion a "bridge fund" to last about halfway through the next fiscal year, which starts on October 1.
About $23 billion of that is to replace and refurbish equipment worn out in the harsh environments of the two conflicts.
The bill provides $377.6 billion for the Pentagon's core programs, $4.1 billion less than Bush wanted but $19 billion above current levels.
It funds a 2.2 percent military pay raise, and provide $557 million more for the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard than Bush sought.
*Emphasis added.
So, $500 billion...was it supposed to cost the American people that much money? Let's look at what some of the key people had to say in the early stages of these conflicts.
Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) compiled some important statements:
quote:Past Comments About How Much Iraq Would Cost
Earlier this year, experts said the war and aftermath in Iraq would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, a fact the White House refused to acknowledge as valid, even going so far as to fire Lawrence Lindsey for his realistic projections. In September, 2003, Paul Wolfowitz even told the Senate "no one said we would know anything other than this would be very bloody, it could be very long and by implication, it could be very expensive." Here�s a record of what the administration, in fact, said:
Budget Director Mitch Daniels
- On September 15th 2002, White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay estimated the high limit on the cost to be 1-2% of GNP, or about $100-$200 billion. Mitch Daniels, Director of the Office of Management and Budget subsequently discounted this estimate as "very, very high" and stated that the costs would be between $50-$60 billion [Source: WSJ, "Bush Economic Aide Says Cost Of Iraq War May Top $100 Billion," Davis 09/16/02; NYT, �Estimated Cost of Iraq War Reduced, Bumiller, 12/31/02; Reuters News, �Daniels sees U.S. Iraq war cost below $200 billion,� 09/18/02]
- �When a reporter asked Daniels yesterday whether the administration was preparing to ask other countries to help defray possible Iraq war costs, as the United States did for the 1991 war, the budget director said he knew of no such plans. Other countries are having economic downturns of their own, he said.� [Source: Pittsburgh-Post Gazette, �Byrd attacks cost of possible Iraq War, McFeatters, 9/25/02]
- �There�s just no reason that this can�t be an affordable endeavor.� [Source: Reuters, �U.S. Officials Play Down Iraq Reconstruction Needs,� Entous, 4/11/03]
- �The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid.� [Source: Washington Post, 4/21/03]
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
- �Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question.� [Source: Media Stakeout, 1/19/03]
- �I don�t know that there is much reconstruction to do.� [Source: Reuters, �U.S. Officials Play Down Iraq Reconstruction Needs,� Entous, 4/11/03]
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz
- �I think it's necessary to preserve some ambiguity of exactly where the numbers are.� [Source: House Budget Committee, 2/27/03]
Top Economist Adviser Glen Hubbard
- �Costs of any such intervention would be very small.� [Source: CNBC, 10/4/02]
Budget Director Josh Bolten
- �We don't anticipate requesting anything additional for the balance of this year.� [Source: Congressional Testimony , 7/29/03]
*Emphasis added.
Additionally we have the following from a Senior Administration Official:
Presidential Hall Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building
6:10 P.M. EST
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We're still the on-time administration, but we were just at the congressional leadership of both parties, and they were unexpectedly inquisitive.
Q Unexpectedly?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I said unexpectedly inquisitive -- I just mean it was a really good exchange and they asked a lot of questions. And so somebody underestimated the time it would take to get here, and I apologize for that.
Let me -- obviously, we're here to discuss the supplemental request that the President will make tomorrow to fund the cost of the war in Iraq, along with relief and reconstruction, along with support for our diplomatic coalition partners, as appropriate, and protection of the other front of the war, which, regrettably, involves the protection of the American homeland.
For all those purposes, the President will be asking for $74.7 billion total. And this will, we believe to the best of our ability to estimate this, cover all costs from now to the end of the fiscal year, so six months or a little more. Actually, more in the sense that many of these costs have already been incurred and will be covered in this bill, or in the case of some of our coalition partners, reimbursed.
Six months, as I say, contemplates a conflict, a period of stabilization in Iraq, and the phased withdrawal of a large number of American forces within that six-month window.
*Emphasis added.
So, in the talk to Congress and the American people stages of "let's go invade Iraq for the WMD," the cost was $50 to $60 billion and we were supposed to be in and out in 6 months.
Things do not appear to gone quite so swimmingly in reality. It would seem that they might have been trying to paint us as pretty a picture as possible to bamboozle us into meekly going along.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by bX: Well, Jay, didn't you hear? People who enter military service and then ignore their orders and shirk their duties are no longer considered cowards, but the utmost patriots and (I've heard) can even rise to substantial positions of power.
Military advancement the Star Trek/ Stargate way.
Hmmm....today's paper had two intresting articles: Firstly, Bush's fassist plan to deal with prisoners by eliminating their Habius Corpus rights is )thankfully meeting resistance- the South Florida Sun Sentinel ran a front page photo showing a group of vetrans and elderly people (silently- their T-Shirts told the tale) protesting inside Congress. Second was a fotnote article saying yet another 4000 U.S. soldiers will have to stay in Iraq instead of returning home when their official hitch is up- duration of extention not stated.
Personally, I praying for the mid-term elections to make King George a lame duck and for the Democrats to be able to oust Rumsfeld. ...of course, two people at my work yesterday told me "I'm so sick of politics that I'm not voting!"....so we may yet see a continuation to this downward spiral. Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Last night I had the strangest dream I never dreamed befooore,
I dreamed the world had all agreed to put an end to waaar.
And people in the streets below were dancing 'round and 'rooound,
and guns and swords and unicorns were scattered on the grooound.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Crack- just say no. besides, perscription narcotics are more readily available
Besides, all the unicorns are pulling saucers at Area 51 these days.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
(wasn't it uniforms?)
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Saw this Boston Globe article on one of the blogs I read.
WASHINGTON -- A new congressional analysis shows the Iraq war is now costing taxpayers almost $2 billion a week -- nearly twice as much as in the first year of the conflict three years ago and 20 percent more than last year -- as the Pentagon spends more on establishing regional bases to support the extended deployment and scrambles to fix or replace equipment damaged in combat.
The upsurge occurs as the total cost of military operations at home and abroad since 2001, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will top half a trillion dollars, according to an internal assessment by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service completed last week.
The spike in operating costs -- including a 20 percent increase over last year in Afghanistan, where the mission now costs about $370 million a week -- comes even though troop levels in both countries have remained stable. The reports attribute the rising costs in part to a higher pace of fighting in both countries, where insurgents and terrorists have increased their attacks on US and coalition troops and civilians.
Another major factor, however, is ``the building of more extensive infrastructure to support troops and equipment in and around Iraq and Afghanistan," according to the report. Based on Defense Department data, the report suggests that the construction of so-called semi-permanent support bases has picked up in recent months, making it increasingly clear that the US military will have a presence in both countries for years to come.
The United States maintains it is not building permanent military bases in Iraq or Afghanistan, where the local population distrusts America's long-term intentions.
But for the first time, a major factor in the growth of war spending is the result of a dramatic rise in ``investment costs," or spending needed to sustain a long-term deployment of American troops in the two countries, the report said. These include the additional purchases of protective equipment for troops, such as armored Humvees, radios, and night-vision equipment; new tanks and other equipment to replace battered gear from Army and Marine Corps units that have been deployed numerous times in recent years; and growing repair bills for damaged equipment, what the military calls ``reset" costs.
----
[ September 30, 2006, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Via Dan Froomkin here is the fist sentence to the New York Timesreview of Bob Woodward's book State of Denial
quote:In Bob Woodward's highly anticipated new book, 'State of Denial,' President Bush emerges as a passive, impatient, sophomoric and intellectually incurious leader, presiding over a grossly dysfunctional war cabinet and given to an almost religious certainty that makes him disinclined to rethink or re-evaluate decisions he has made about the war.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Now, just replace "In Bob Woodward's highly anticipated new book, 'State of Denial'" with "To anyone who's been paying attention the past three years or so".
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Ah....but that's the trick: getting anyone to really pay attention when it's all so bleak. Easier by far to just watch Lost instead and go to sleep.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
This just in...the Air Force needs emergency funding just to haul all the dead and wounded out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force is asking the Pentagon's leadership for a staggering $50 billion in emergency funding for fiscal 2007 -- an amount equal to nearly half its annual budget, defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute said on Tuesday.
The request is expected to draw criticism on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers are increasingly worried about the huge sums being sought "off budget" to fund wars, escaping the more rigorous congressional oversight of regular budgets.
Another source familiar with the Air Force plans said the extra funds would help pay to transport growing numbers of U.S. soldiers being killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.
----
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Additionally, were going with the same team that got us to this point.
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday he wants Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney to remain with him until the end of his presidency, extending a job guarantee to two of the most-vilified members of his administration.
"Both those men are doing fantastic jobs and I strongly support them," Bush said in an interview with The Associated Press and others.
----
Democrats and Republicans alike have called for Rumsfeld's resignation, arguing he has mishandled the war in Iraq where more than 2,800 members of the U.S. military have died since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. Cheney has faced sharp criticism for his hardline views. In recent polling, less than 40 percent of respondents had a favorable view of Cheney and about a third had a favorable view of Rumsfeld.
Bush said he valued Cheney's advice and judgment.
"The good thing about Vice President Cheney's advice is, you don't read about it in the newspaper after he gives it," the president said. While Cheney was re-elected with Bush for four years, there has been recurring speculation that he might step down, perhaps for health reasons. As a practical matter, Bush could ask the vice president to leave if he wanted.
Bush credited Rumsfeld with overseeing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while overhauling the military. "I'm pleased with the progress we're making," the president said. He replied in the affirmative when asked if he wanted Rumsfeld and Cheney to stay with him until the end.
Responding to Bush, Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said, "With all due respect, the president just doesn't get it. We need a change in the Iraq strategy, but with Rumsfeld running the show we'll never get it."
----
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Let's continue to watch as the Bush team presides over the Iraqi slippidy-slide toward chaos.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 � A classified briefing prepared two weeks ago by the United States Central Command portrays Iraq as edging toward chaos, in a chart that the military is using as a barometer of civil conflict.
A one-page slide shown at the Oct. 18 briefing provides a rare glimpse into how the military command that oversees the war is trying to track its trajectory, particularly in terms of sectarian fighting.
The slide includes a color-coded bar chart that is used to illustrate an �Index of Civil Conflict.� It shows a sharp escalation in sectarian violence since the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra in February, and tracks a further worsening this month despite a concerted American push to tamp down the violence in Baghdad.
In fashioning the index, the military is weighing factors like the ineffectual Iraqi police and the dwindling influence of moderate religious and political figures, rather than more traditional military measures such as the enemy�s fighting strength and the control of territory.
The conclusions the Central Command has drawn from these trends are not encouraging, according to a copy of the slide that was obtained by The New York Times. The slide shows Iraq as moving sharply away from �peace,� an ideal on the far left side of the chart, to a point much closer to the right side of the spectrum, a red zone marked �chaos.� As depicted in the command�s chart, the needle has been moving steadily toward the far right of the chart.
An intelligence summary at the bottom of the slide reads �urban areas experiencing �ethnic cleansing� campaigns to consolidate control� and �violence at all-time high, spreading geographically.� According to a Central Command official, the index on civil strife has been a staple of internal command briefings for most of this year. The analysis was prepared by the command�s intelligence directorate, which is overseen by Brig. Gen. John M. Custer.
I still don't know if this helps or hurts Iraq, I have a hard time taking all things into account. I just hope it doesn't escalate the hostilities in Iraq, the civil war in all but name...
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Such is the stability we've achieved after 3 years.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Saddam Hussein found guilty, receives death sentence.
Gee, I didn't see that one coming!
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Wow, they're not even a fully sovereign state and they're already executing people with old-fastioned hangings. They're gonna have to change their name from Iraq to the Old West.
Yee-haw!
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I say they tie him to a lamp post in the middle of Baghdad (sp?) and see what's left of him after an hour. Or send him to Abu Ghraib (I can't spell these stupid names. Fucking Raqi's and thier retard names.)
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Fucking Raqi's and thier retard names."
You live in "Saskatchewan", dumbass.
And you can't even spell "their". I don't think the names are the problem.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
There is nothing more I can teach the boy. The Apprentice is now the Master. *sob* I'm so proud. . .
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
One could always look the names up on the Internets.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: There is nothing more I can teach the boy. The Apprentice is now the Master. *sob* I'm so proud. . .
Er...you know, this is where he kills you, right?
While I mostly think executing Saddam is a mistake at this juncture (without a unified government making the decision), I can also completely understand it: There's no real moving past his reign of terror as long as there's a chance he'd oneday regain power. You can stop laughing now- while it sounds farfetched to us the Baathists have used the possibility to keep much more influence than would have been thought possible two years ago. There's also the (slightly) revisionist history aspect of "things were so much better under Saddam" that makes leaving him alive a huge liability. Many Sunnis would not be opposed to having him back in power....a lot of people want a return to the old status quo.
For the record, I'm for execution of mass murderers- keep the ineffective "world court" out of it.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I hear Pinochet got his amnesty revoked just recently and is now slated for conviction again. I promise you he'll die before the gavel drops. Cyanide or something. Whatever it was Milosevic took.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"Fucking Raqi's and thier retard names."
You live in "Saskatchewan", dumbass.
And you can't even spell "their". I don't think the names are the problem.
Yes, Saskatchewan is a retarded name, and so are most of the cities and towns.
And omg! I spelled "their" wrong! *gasp!* Someone call the spelling police!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim: I hear Pinochet got his amnesty revoked just recently and is now slated for conviction again. I promise you he'll die before the gavel drops. Cyanide or something. Whatever it was Milosevic took.
I dont know about that: Pinochet's been playing the "I'm too senile to be convicted" gag for so long now (while doubtlessly laughing behind closed doors) that I could see him going from natural causes before any mandated sentence gets him.
Did they ever conclude the investigation on Milosevic's suicide? How he got the pill he took?
Today's paper had a nice story on two Iraqi men- living just one block apart- with wildly conflicting views on Saddam's sentence. One man was thrilled and shocked that this day had come to pass after years of hopelessness. The second man (a minor agriculture official under Saddam's rule and a Sunni) felt that there is no Iraq without Saddam and that his sentence was ordered by both America and Iran (as though the two countries are geo-political pals). It's also looked at very suspicously by the Arab world in general that this sentence is delivered just prior to U.S. elections...with, of course, the obligatory threats to the United States and so on.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Well, there's a lot of people who think the recent decline in gasoline prices was a plot to raise president Bush's approval rating or to get more votes for the republicans or something.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
The Army Times wrote this editorial on 4 November 2006:
�So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth.�
That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.
But until recently, the �hard bruising� truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington.
One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: �mission accomplished,� the insurgency is �in its last throes,� and �back off,� we know what we�re doing, are a few choice examples.
Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.
Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war�s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.
Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: �I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I�ve seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.�
Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on �critical� and has been sliding toward �chaos� for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.
But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.
For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don�t show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.
Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.
And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.
Now, the president says he�ll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.
This is a mistake. It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation�s current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.
These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.
And although that tradition, and the officers� deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.
Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.
This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:
Donald Rumsfeld must go.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Why does Bush look like a Gremlin? If you pour water on him will he grow more copies of himself?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...and that his sentence was ordered by both America and Iran (as though the two countries are geo-political pals)."
Well, since both countries are long-time enemies of Iraq, it's not too surprising that people would think of them together. After all, look at how many people here think the deposed Iraqi government was in cahoots with al-Qaida.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'm picturing Bush at the center seat of the old Legion of Doom meeting hall...
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I don't know why everyone thinks that clip is so awesome. It isn't clever at all, and it's a couple years too late.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I's only funny because The Simpsons is so well known for their right-wing support of the Bush administration and it's policies.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: I don't know why everyone thinks that clip is so awesome. It isn't clever at all, and it's a couple years too late.
I liked it so why don't you go shelve something.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
From time to time I hear people say...we didn't know what to expect in Iraq no one has fought a war like this.
Turns out, we had some idea what to expect. the military war-gamed an Iraq invasion in 1999. They called the project Desert Crossing.
The following story comes from The National Security Archive at The George Washington University.
"Desert Crossing" 1999 Assumed 400,000 Troops and Still a Mess
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 207
Introduced by Roger Strother
Posted - November 4, 2006
Washington D.C., November 4, 2006 - In late April 1999, the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), led by Marine General Anthony Zinni (ret.), conducted a series of war games known as Desert Crossing in order to assess potential outcomes of an invasion of Iraq aimed at unseating Saddam Hussein. The documents posted here today covered the initial pre-war game planning phase from April-May 1999 through the detailed after-action reporting of June and July 1999.
The Desert Crossing war games, which amounted to a feasibility study for part of the main war plan for Iraq -- OPLAN 1003-98 -- tested "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios of a post-war, post-Saddam, Iraq. The After Action Report presented its recommendations for further planning regarding regime change in Iraq and was an interagency production assisted by the departments of defense and state, as well as the National Security Council, and the Central Intelligence Agency, among others.
The results of Desert Crossing, however, drew pessimistic conclusions regarding the immediate possible outcomes of such action. Some of these conclusions are interestingly similar to the events which actually occurred after Saddam was overthrown. (Note 1) The report forewarned that regime change may cause regional instability by opening the doors to "rival forces bidding for power" which, in turn, could cause societal "fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines" and antagonize "aggressive neighbors." Further, the report illuminated worries that secure borders and a restoration of civil order may not be enough to stabilize Iraq if the replacement government were perceived as weak, subservient to outside powers, or out of touch with other regional governments. An exit strategy, the report said, would also be complicated by differing visions for a post-Saddam Iraq among those involved in the conflict.
The Desert Crossing report was similarly pessimistic when discussing the nature of a new Iraqi government. If the U.S. were to establish a transitional government, it would likely encounter difficulty, some groups discussed, from a "period of widespread bloodshed in which various factions seek to eliminate their enemies." The report stressed that the creation of a democratic government in Iraq was not feasible, but a new pluralistic Iraqi government which included nationalist leaders might be possible, suggesting that nationalist leaders were a stabilizing force. Moreover, the report suggested that the U.S. role be one in which it would assist Middle Eastern governments in creating the transitional government for Iraq.
----
The article quotes General Zini saying:
quote:"When it looked like we were going in, I called back down to CENTCOM and said, 'You need to dust off Desert Crossing.' They said, 'What's that? Never heard of it.'"
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A series of secret U.S. war games in 1999 showed that an invasion and post-war administration of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, nearly three times the number there now.
And even then, the games showed, the country still had a chance of dissolving into chaos.
In the simulation, called Desert Crossing, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence participants concluded the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs.
The documents came to light Saturday through a Freedom of Information Act request by George Washington University's National Security Archive, an independent research institute and library.
"The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops," said Thomas Blanton, the archive's director. "But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground."
There are about 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak in January of about 160,000.
A week after the invasion, in March 2003, the Pentagon said there were 250,000 U.S. ground force troops inside Iraq, along with 40,000 coalition force troops.
A spokeswoman for the U.S. Central Command, which sponsored the seminar and declassified the secret report in 2004, declined to comment Saturday because she was not familiar with the documents.
News of the war games results comes a day before judges are expected to deliver a verdict in Saddam Hussein war crimes trial. (Watch people prepare as curfew sets across Baghdad in anticipation of the verdicts -- 3:20 Video)
The war games looked at "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios after a war that removed then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power. Some of the conclusions are similar to what actually occurred after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003:
# "A change in regimes does not guarantee stability," the 1999 seminar briefings said. "A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability."
# "Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic -- especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments."
# "Iran's anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq," the briefings read. "The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad."
# "The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development."
# "Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government."
# "A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners."
It's interesting, I just read up on the story of Idi Amin ("The last king of Scotland" is playing on our film festival) and during his eight years of tyranny in Uganda, an estimated 300000 civilians were killed. So that's half of what the Iraq situation has generated in but three years.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:I came to believe that those in positions of highest responsibility for Iraq showed a carelessness about human life that amounted to criminal negligence. Swaddled in abstract ideas, convinced of there own righteousness, incapable of self-criticism, indifferent to accountability, they turned a difficult undertaking into a needlessly deadly one. When thing went wrong, they found other people to blame. The Iraq War was always winnable; it still is. For this very reason, the recklessness of its authors is all the harder to forgive.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
