The President’s speech is over and the lines have been drawn….again. The American public, the Democrats, the generals, the Iraqis and increasingly more Republicans are all saying “NO" to a surge in American troops in Iraq. Nevertheless, President Bush has turned a deaf ear to the country and is planning to charge full speed ahead – with 21,000 more of someone else’s sons and daughters taking the lead. Is Bush sincerely following his own internal compass, or is he baiting the Democrats in Congress?
For three years, the Bush administration has played the blame game with unrivaled sophistication. At first it was the fault of the Arab insurgency. They were painted as mindless, freedom-hating killers bent on chaos. Never mind the fact that America’s uneven treatment of the Palestinian crisis has created a cultural and political bleeding wound in the Middle East for years. Never mind that Iraq didn’t have an insurgency problem until we invaded.
Next, it was the fault of the Iraqi forces who refused to stand up and take control of the country’s security. Remember the Iraqi Republican Guard and their regular troops? The same Iraqi forces that were annihilated on the “Road To Baghdad". The same Iraqi forces that surrendered to single American soldiers by the dozens with hands in the air, barefoot and tattered? The same ones we bragged about defeating in weeks, not months or years? If that was the state of long-standing, well trained Iraqi forces BEFORE Rumsfeld disbanded them, how competent could they be now that we are assembling them from the ranks of taxi drivers, shopkeepers and the unemployed? We recruited them off the streets of Iraqi cities, gave them a few months of training and then expected them to stand up to insurgents that cannot be controlled by 130,000 American troops?
The next group to take the blame for the Bush foreign policy failure was his close circle of advisors. Generals were “retired" for not towing the line, Colin Powell was isolated and forced out, Rumsfeld took the hit for the mid-term elections and now Generals Abizaid and Casey are out. With the administration quickly running out of groups to blame, who is next? How does he pull this one off in an effort to salvage his legacy?
With his poll numbers in shreds, Republican legislators breaking ranks and a Democratically-controlled Congress demanding accountability and a drawdown in troops, we have to ask ourselves the obvious question: Is Bush really deaf to the roar or is he thinking ahead? Is he using the “Insanity" mantra to his advantage? Does he really think more of the same will bring about different results or is there an underlying agenda?
George Bush’s “Hail Mary" pass (a.k.a. “surge") is not intended to succeed. Even he knows that is not possible. It is a mechanism for daring Congress to stop him. If a Democratically-controlled Congress votes to interrupt funding for the war, they will bear the blame for cutting the financial lifeline to troops in the field. If they somehow force him to start withdrawing troops before his administration ends, they run the risk of “taking the troops out of battle before the job is done." If Congress does its job by demanding accountability and forcing the hand of a stonewalling Commander-in-Chief, the Democrats will get the blame and George Bush will write his memoirs on the basis that he never had the chance to finish a war that he, in his own mind, knew how to win.
» left by Mike Richardson from Michigan (1 year 361 days ago.)
Let's see, it was ok for President Clinton to send troops into Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia, Mogadishu, and Somalia. It was ok for President Clinton to order Tomahawk Cruise Missles into Iraq and it was ok for President Clinton to sign the Iraqi Liberation act. It was ok for the Clinton Administration to have the seige on Waco. It was ok for President Clinton to treat the 1993 wtc attack and the USS Cole by doing nothing. So, during WWII it was ok to attack Italy. Get the drift. Hypocrite Respond to this comment
» left by Joseph Collins(402) Joseph Collins (1 year 361 days ago.)
Mike, thanks for commenting! When any policy goes awry & your own party says your direction is "dangerous", it's time to listen to wise counsel. There has been massive opposition to this preemptive war for 4 years. Bush's greatest mistake was not starting this war (although that was bad). It was continuing the same course and not having the humility to change. The fallout from this will be far greater than Vietnam or anything that Clinton dreamed of doing. Think its bad now? Just wait. Respond to this comment
» left by Mike Richardson from Michigan (1 year 361 days ago.)
Joseph,
I was born in 1972 but, I know history. I am aware that the Media went Liberal after the TET Offensive. That was when Walter Cronkite said that he just returned from Vietnam and the TET Offensive was in his view a draw. Yet, 45,000 N. Vietnamese were killed and 1,578 Americans lost their lives. So, when we kill more of the enemy by 28:1 Ratio. I would call that a huge victory.
» left by Joseph Collins(402) Joseph Collins (1 year 360 days ago.)
Mike, let me see if I can put this in terms you would understand. Prior to the 1st Gulf War, the number of Iraqi Christians was around 1 million. Now, the civil war is killing 3,000 civilian Iraqis a month. With the Shia on one side, Sunnis on the other and Christians in the middle - how many of them are losing their lives daily? More importantly, the God I serve cares about Muslims, Christians, Jews, Vietnamese. Too many PEOPLE are dying! Just a little conservative thought from a liberal... Respond to this comment
» left by Jeff Pitts from Omaha, Ne (1 year 354 days ago.)
Joe, I find this article disconcerting. The fact is that the UN stepped in to prevent genocide, against Jews from Muslims, and the US has supported that. So this gives moral allowance to terrorists in Iraq? And Iraq had a regional de-stabilizing dictator problem, not an insurgency problem-you kind of got that one right. But your time line is off. The Iraqi Security Forces did not reach operational strength until the insurgency was so desperate, that their next option was to kill Muslims! The insurgent leaders couldn't keep pace going toe to toe with us, so they switched strategy and began this sectarian violence. Thats how well we were doing! But because Pelosi, Reid, Emanuel, Kerry have an election to win they need to eviscerate this president even if they must pull a 180 on their own policy ideas. They are shameful and near treasonous to this country's war effort to endorse a policy-only to admonish it when the president decides it is the way to go. The above mentioned can't stand to let us win in Iraq because it will be a victory for Bush. They have played with the lives of our military personnel for political gain and it makes me sick. These are YOUR people Joe. They play games with peoples lives in a time of war. If they don't support the war, then say it and stick with it. But they couldn't do that because politics is more important to them. Instead of stating what they believe, they undermine the war. And this is a war that can be won. Only some refuse to let us win it. To be your own worst enemy in a fight is the most tragic of things-and sad considering those who paid the price to wage it. Respond to this comment
» left by Joseph Collins(402) Joseph Collins (1 year 351 days ago.)
Jeff, this conflict is very complicated. Let me say you are right about politicians changing positions for political gain (Ds & Rs). In all fairness, there was an atmosphere of intimidation in Wash DC for a long time, however they still should have voted their conscience. Another pt: People still disagree on every war the US has fought. This one will be debated for a long time. What is your opinion of the 1200 uniformed soldiers that signed the petition? Are they wrong too? Unpatriotic?
» left by Jeff Pitts from Omaha, NE (1 year 350 days ago.)
I support anyone's decision to be in favor or against this war. But certain Democrat lawmakers are guilty of subversion of this war effort. After their "yea" vote, they have undermined the war effort and commander in chief at every turn. THAT is my gripe. Elected leaders, "saying" they support the troops, and intently undermining their mission at the same time. I do not take issue with Cindy Sheehan, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean or Kucinich. But the terrorists in Iraq and the world hear from the flip-flopping congresspersons and know they need only hold out a little bit longer. They know this because Pelosi, Reid, and the like have shown them how long this country's resolve lasts in a time of war. And that amount of time is pitifully short. Respond to this comment
» left by Joseph Collins(402) Joseph Collins (1 year 350 days ago.)
Jeff, you are blaming the wrong people. Everyone in the world knows that we value life. Guerilla fighters overseas do not need the words of our politicians to know that we have a short tolerance for bloodshed. They read and they are intelligent. Did you forget that we educate a very high % of them here? The Vietnamese knew that then - insurgents in Iraq know it now. They learned it from US history, not from Congress. Bush cannot limit internal debate in the US - that unconstitutional. Respond to this comment
» left by Jean Horst(951) Jean Horst (1 year 345 days ago.)
Joseph,
Once again, a thoughtful, well-expressed opinion. Do you think it's possible for us to get politicians that care more about governing well than their own personal power base? Respond to this comment
» left by Joseph Collins(402) Joseph Collins (1 year 344 days ago.)
Jean, thanks for commenting! While I believe there are some really good candidates out there, we keep corrupting the process by making it more expensive to run. The greater point is that as a nation, we are all in shock at crisis of the Bush admin. What is worse: The fact that he has abused his authority or the fact that such a smart country elected him? If we don't know how we got to this place, what will keep us from doing this again? I have hope that '08 will be better - Dem or Rep! Respond to this comment
Was this article helpful to you? Leave a Public Comment or
Question:
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
