President Bush and Iraq

[michaeledward]

These two articles deeply sadden me.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6223923.stm

The BBC was told by a senior administration source that the speech setting out changes in Mr Bush's Iraq policy is likely to come in the middle of next week.
Its central theme will be sacrifice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/w...7287f579368&hp&ex=1167714000&partner=homepage

Over the past 12 months, as optimism collided with reality, Mr. Bush increasingly found himself uneasy with General Casey’s strategy. And now, as the image of Saddam Hussein at the gallows recedes, Mr. Bush seems all but certain not only to reverse the strategy that General Casey championed, but also to accelerate the general’s departure from Iraq, according to senior military officials.

A couple of thoughts ...

This president did not ask for any sacrifice from the American public in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In fact, he asked us to 'Go Shopping' and 'Go to Disneyworld'. That he might ask for 'sacrifice' now, that his personal war of choice is spiraling into rarely imagined chaos, seems, at best, late and self-serving; especially when all of the original reason for the invasion have been proved insubstantial.

And, in the New York Times article - from reporters who should know better - we get Administration spin. First, there are repeated references to 'Clear, Hold and Build'. This has never been the tactical objectives of the United States military. Former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld had this claim excised from Presidential Speeches over the past four years. Second, there are many references to 'General Casey's Strategy'. The commander-in-chief of the United States Military is, well, just that. The strategy in Iraq must be set by the President, as the method of achieving the goals in the conflict. The Generals may make recommendations on strategy, but the strategy is set at the top. Then the Generals execute the tactics to implement that strategy.

Lastly ....

This year, decisions on a new strategy were clearly slowed by political calculations. Many of Mr. Bush’s advisers say their timetable for completing an Iraq review had been based in part on a judgment that for Mr. Bush to have voiced doubts about his strategy before the midterm elections in November would have been politically catastrophic.

This suggest that American soldiers have died in Iraq for Mr. Bush's electioneering.

Mr. Bush has said his most important job is to keep American's safe. I don't believe that. In most situations, I can keep myself safe, thank you very much. Mr. Bush's most important job, in my opinion, and according to the Constitution of the United States, is to function as Commander In Chief of the United States Armed Services. In this role, he has failed. He has failed in a manner that is criminally incompetent; allowing soldiers to die on foreign soil because it would have been "politcally catastrophic" should be considered a 'HIGH CRIME'.

 

[Andrew Green]

When have war decissions NOT been based around the political manouvering of those in charge?

 

[michaeledward]

When have war decissions NOT been based around the political manouvering of those in charge?

I'm wondering if you have one of those little yellow 'Support Our Troops' magnets on your car?

 

[Andrew Green]

Nope, no magnets at all actually. I find them a wee bit tacky.

That said, supporting troops, which I would, is not the same as supporting the politicians. Politicians have always and will always use war for personal gain. Bush just happens to be doing a really crappy Job of it. Bush is particullarly sloppy and transparent about it though.

 

[michaeledward]

Nope, no magnets at all actually. I find them a wee bit tacky.

That said, supporting troops, which I would, is not the same as supporting the politicians. Politicians have always and will always use war for personal gain. Bush just happens to be doing a really crappy Job of it. Bush is particullarly sloppy and transparent about it though.

How then, does one 'support the troops'? If one does not act out, or speak out, or spend out against politicians that mis-use the military, can one claim to be supporting the troops?

Last time I checked, we lived in a Republic, where our leaders gather to represent us, the people. We do not live in a passive society, where our actions and words are duty free. We share responsibility for our government.

If we simply say that 'politicians always do that', we have abdicated our responsibility, and therefore, don't deserve the government we have; even if we did earn it.

 

[Andrew Green]

If we simply say that 'politicians always do that', we have abdicated our responsibility, and therefore, don't deserve the government we have; even if we did earn it.

Well for one, I'm not in your country.

And politicians HAVE been going to war for political and economic reasons for thousands of years.

It's a nice thought that they are there to represent the citizens best interests, but it's only partially the case. Politicians have to not only represent the citizens, but also the money, and the money doesn't always want what is best for the citizens.

Plus citizens are often very self-contradicory. We want cheap goods, but don't want our jobs outsourced to cheap overseas labour. We want the roads and schools in good shape, but want our taxes lowered.

Dubya is having a hard time of it, but if memory serves when he started his little adventure in the middle east, the US population was behind him. In fact wasn't it his hardline stance on foreign policy and defence that got him reelected?

The fact that his campaign was a big failure is irrelevant to the fact that as a politiciain, at the time, that was the right move for him. Not because it was moral or right, but because that was what got him elected.

I just pity the poor saps that replace him in 2 years and have to clean up this mess...

Supose they go in, pull troops back, raise taxes to pay off the bill Bush has racked up. How long do you think they will last when they raise taxes and cut spending to pay off the bills? What are the chances of someone getting elected who stepped up and said the plan was to raise taxes and cut spending?

How about the other guy that uses some funky accounting to claim he will cut taxes and increase spending?

I bet the 2nd guy gets elected, but it certainely won't be good for anyone in the long run.

 

[Cryozombie]

How then, does one 'support the troops'? If one does not act out, or speak out, or spend out against politicians that mis-use the military, can one claim to be supporting the troops?

Well, I sent them **** they needed. Instead of sitting around bitching, I went out, got a box, bought baby wipes and candy and other ****, packed it up and sent it to Iraq.

And Despite the fact that it is not speaking against politicians that mis-use the military, I absolutley CAN claim to be supporting the troops.

 

[michaeledward]

This is a bit of a cross-post, sorry for that. I found the opening of Keith Olbermann's Special Comment this evening directly related to the articles referenced at the beginning of this thread.

He begins his commentary with an interesting series of questions.

If in your presence an individual tried to sacrifice an American serviceman or woman, would you intervene?
Would you at least protest?
What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them?
What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them — and was then to announce his intention to sacrifice hundreds, maybe thousands, more?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16442767/

In this commentary, Mr. Olbermann has gathered a number of facts that argue against 'The Surge' by leaders, the public and even the military.

Please look.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Quote:

"The BBC was told by a senior administration source that the speech setting out changes in Mr Bush's Iraq policy is likely to come in the middle of next week.
Its central theme will be sacrifice."

... not the President's of course.