Nothing's changed on Iraq policy except the language
Since receiving the official briefing of the ISG, Bush has made it clear that there will be no discussion with Iran, and, now, a reiterated stance that there will be no troop withdrawals.
The White House has already abandoned two of the three topline proposals out of hand.
(And he pretty much punted the third main proposal today, an Israel-Palestine solution, blaming "radicals" and the Palestinians' inability to form a government for the current situation.)
So, nothing's changing except we've added more trainers.
At current levels, another 1,000 US soldiers and 70,000 more Iraqis will die before the next US election.
Also: The word of the day is "prevail." Bush used it 12 times in the brief appearance with Blair.
Worst example: "I also believe we're going to succeed. I believe we'll prevail. Not only do I know how important it is to prevail, I believe we will prevail. I understand how hard it is to prevail. "
The other word was "succeed." (10 by Bush, 11 by Blair.)
(And, the very creepy joke. Bush: It's bad in Iraq. How's that? HaHaHaHaHaHa.)
The White House has already abandoned two of the three topline proposals out of hand.
(And he pretty much punted the third main proposal today, an Israel-Palestine solution, blaming "radicals" and the Palestinians' inability to form a government for the current situation.)
So, nothing's changing except we've added more trainers.
At current levels, another 1,000 US soldiers and 70,000 more Iraqis will die before the next US election.
Also: The word of the day is "prevail." Bush used it 12 times in the brief appearance with Blair.
Worst example: "I also believe we're going to succeed. I believe we'll prevail. Not only do I know how important it is to prevail, I believe we will prevail. I understand how hard it is to prevail. "
The other word was "succeed." (10 by Bush, 11 by Blair.)
(And, the very creepy joke. Bush: It's bad in Iraq. How's that? HaHaHaHaHaHa.)
posted by mikevotes at
1:19 PM
9 Comments:
"prevail" = "stay the course".
Bush has no intention of turning, reversing, or even shifting gears. I think this ISG report is just cover for doing more of the same nothing that he's been doing.
He clearly wants the bloodbath currently occurring in Iraq. I still can't figure out what possible benefit he imagines will flow from this untenable horror.
By
Anonymous, at 2:00 PM
He has no other plausible alternatives. He has so alienated Iran and Syria that they won't lifet a finger to help him - and then he owes it big time to the Sunni Arab states.
By
Anonymous, at 2:56 PM
...and THEY want an ongoing religious war on their doorstep? I don't see that.
I still don't understand what desirable outcome Bush/Cheney/Rove/Wolfowitz/et al. expect to happen. Is it that they simply want the chaos as cover for something else? Are they selling oil under that table, or something? What?
By
Anonymous, at 3:07 PM
A LONG time ago Bush said this would be left to a future President to complete.
It seems he will accept nothing short of democracy for all these countries.
This will not happen, not in his lifetime, not in my lifetime.
His idea of compromise has to become more realistic.
By
Unknown, at 3:42 PM
Local, I thought that, too, but if he's not going to change, it's really just a month of cover followed by even more pressure. And, I would guess that they're just buying time in case something might happen. I don't know what, but they just won't accepot the loss. It would mean too much to them and their foreign policy.
***
Anon, I think you hit on a key point that's not much discussed, that this administration is tilting the table hard towards the Saudis. The unstated pressures are that both Israel and Saudi don't give a damn what we do, so long as we dont' give an inch(or Iraq) to the Iranians.
***
Time, I know I'm a foolish optimist to keep thinking there might be a change. But at each new juncture point I keep thinking, "Surely, they can't let this horror show continue," but they do.
No matter how bad it gets.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 5:40 PM
All the variantions in phraseology used by the Bush administration, in an attempt to NOT appear as though they're whistling only one note, boil down to this: isolate Iraq's neighbors and beat Iraq into submission. This is how they define victory... not by peace and stability, but by forced capitulation to the Bush view of a "proper" government, crushing all discenters, and subordination to American dictates by all countries in the region.
If you achieve peace and stability in the region my any other means, it is called "failure" in the parlance of the neo-cons. Keep an eye and ear out of this in the media: reduction/redeployment of troops equals failure. Period. No matter if doing so results in less violence and more stability in the region. Failure is defined as Bush failing to get his way, not failing to secure Iraq and the region.
In the end, this is all about George W. Bush, his ego, his self image as the doer of God's will, and his lust for power (both domestic and foreign). It stopped being about an independent Iraq and a self governing region a long time ago. And don't even get me started with WMDs...
By
-epm, at 9:23 AM
I just finished reading "Flags of our Fathers." I wish I could take all these politicians who romanticise war and wrap themselves in the valor of our predecessors, though themselves unspoiled by the carnage of war, and transport them back to Iwo Jima in February/March of 1945...
After thirty day's I'd bring them back -- those who survived -- and allow them to resume their roles as leaders and legislators. I think things would be very different...
By
-epm, at 9:41 AM
EPM, you're describing Iraq as the "example" that was so talked about a few years ago. The idea was, if we could topple Saddam easily, then other countries would fear us. That was the unstated threat of the democracy push. Liberalize, or we'll doto you what we did to Saddam. Not really operative anymore.
And, I think if we could just get them to serve the Vietnam tours they dodged.....
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 10:55 AM
Not really operative anymore.
Was it ever? If Canada was invaded by, say, Iran, would that make Americans fall in line with the Iranian vision of government? Or would that simply spur Americans to dig in their heels and and inflame American passions regarding their own traditional identity?
All too often I see us taking foreign policy stances and expecting a particular result that, if applied in reverse (them to us), would have the opposite result. That is to say, why do we expect the people of foreign nations to react differently than we would under similar alien aggression?
By
-epm, at 11:48 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home