If you've been following the news, you know that despite Democrats' majority in the House and Senate, and their desire to begin troop reductions in Iraq, Bush is pressing on with a troop build-up to help enhance security in Baghdad. Military leaders think it has a chance, and the Iraqi government is all for it. The citizens of Baghdad are hopeful, and even the notorious Muktada Al Sadr says he and his militia will cooperate.
- http://www.iht.com/articles/ap...N-Iraq-Sadr-City.php

One wonders whether this sudden change of heart by Al Sadr is a consequence of Democrats' vision or Bush's troop build-up?

Re: Sudden change of heart by George Bush

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]One wonders whether this sudden change of heart by Al Sadr is a consequence of Democrats' vision or Bush's troop build-up? [/qb]

One wonders whether the sudden change of heart by George Bush (belatedly getting rid of a demonstrably incompetent Secretary of Defense, and stated willingness to try new measures in Iraq) is a consequence of the Democrats� vision and troop build-up in Congress?

Chenye, Bush & Co had plenty of time to try new measures and achieve their mission -- an ill-chosen mission on the wrong arena -- before the recent congressional elections.

They blew it in Iraq! While the invasion went fine, the occupation has been handled in a way that reveals a complete lack of strategic vision, insight and cultural sensitivity. The natural consequence, as in the corporate world, is to replace the Commander in Chief. Unfortunately, we have to wait for that.

Even a new Commander in Chief would have to deal with the situation that currently exists.

Hence, the battle for Baghdad . . .

Opportunities squandered by the Bush Administration

You�re right, Phil.
There is probably no simple solution to the current situation, which is the cumulation of a long series of unfortunate mistakes.

But it is very difficult for me to see how the introduction of 20,000+ more American soldiers can achieve anything beyond being a stronger magnet for those who oppose American presence in the Gulf. For this very reason, I do not believe they can make a positive contribution toward stability.

That analysis is not denigrating the soldiers. There has been a lack of vision for the Iraq mission, perhaps best exemplified by Donald Rumsfeld�s intransigence at ever turn -- and the President�s refusal to replace him with someone capable. Until too late.

A superpower won the war, easily; but that is hardly enough. For it requires another kind of strength to win the peace. The great tragedy is that that strength has been sadly lacking.

The Bush Administration has long since squandered the opportunities that were there.

The Bush Administration has long since squandered the opportunities that were there.

The U.S. military and the Iraqi government are hopeful that the buildup will help to enhance security in Baghdad. As noted above, some of the key trouble-makers seem to be coming around. It deserves a chance.

Most of the rest of Iraq is pretty much doing OK. Of course, if they don't get it right in Baghdad, they'll never be able to govern.

Possible ulterior motive for request to increase troops

I am suspicious that the Bush Administration has an ulterior motive for proposing to send more soldiers at this time.

The motive may be this: Let�s say Congress somehow prevents the sending of more soldiers, and Iraq falls further into chaos, leading eventuall to a not-too-honourable withdrawal. The Republicans can then blame it all on the Democrats!

No, I�m afraid that Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld had plenty of opportunity to send more soldiers to Iraq earlier, before the Congressional elections. So I find the timing of the current request most striking, indeed.

So it all boils down to you not liking or trusting Bush, which is where I thought it was going.

Bush is a lame duck President and won't be running for re-election. If things don't work out, the blame will be on him, Rumsfeld, Republicans, etc. moreso than Democrats, who don't really have much of a viable alternative plan.

I'm afraid your comment about "timing" shows more cynicism than is deserved.

The core issue is not whether Bush is untrustworthy

I think the Democrats are almost as culpable as the Republicans here. Few raised critical questions before the invasion -- so both parties are definitely to blame. Even the press has criticised its own lack of timely questions.

You�re right: I do not trust the Bush Administration in regards to its Iraq policy. It has been bungled for such a long time that little trust has been rightfully earned. But that is not the issue here!

Take heart, however, that Richard Pearls and many of his fellow Neo-Conservatives, who were key architects of this war, are even more scathing in their criticism. (There was recently a special issue on that topic; I believe it was Harper�s Magazine, but I can check.)

And you�re right again; at present the Democrats have not presented a viable alternative. In fact, I have yet to hear sensible proposals as to how to handle the Quagmire of Iraq. Earlier, yes, there were good options; but not at the present stage of deterioration.

As I emphasised above, additional soldiers should not be sent because it is highly improbable that they will make a positive contribution. It is, of course, possible that Congress may be persuaded to reach a different conclusion -- and if they do, I sincerely hope I am proved wrong.

Other than that, my critique stands.
If you wish to call it cynical, so be it.


PS. I am curious, how do things stand at present? Is Congressional approval actually necessary, or does the President have the leeway to order further troop build-up as Commander in Chief.

I�m a bit uncertain of the judicial rules here. Perhaps you can clarify.

The President is Commander-in-Chief and has jurisdiction in waging the war. He doesn't have to ask Congress to approve the troop build-up, but he does need them to fund it -- and they will.

- - -

Let's re-focus, here, and move away from reflection on past decisions, mistakes, etc. Regardless of how we got where we are, we're there, and no lamenting will change that. What is the responsibility of the U.S. to the Iraqis now? Do we not owe them a greater effort to help provide security so their fledgling government can find its feet? There are profound moral issues at stake, here -- hence my raising this issue in the Religion and Politics forum.

Personally, I don't see how a policy that advocates "bringing the troops home" helps the Iraqi people. This seems self-serving and inconsiderate, not to mention dangerous. As bad as things are, they could be much, much worse -- a failed government, chaos, and yet another venue through which Iran extends its influence in the region. Not liking Bush and disagreeing with his handling of the war is one thing, but neglecting the responsibilities we now have to Iraq is quite another.

Seen in this light, the Battle for Baghdad is the morally responsible thing for the U.S. to do. If it works out -- and we should all pray that it does! -- there will be little political hay for anyone to harvest at this point in time. Democrats and Republicans can point fingers at each other until the cows come home, but that won't help Iraq.

I totally agree that the issue you raise is the key one.

And I am sticking to that track: Can additional soldiers make a positive contribution? If they can, then I agree -- we owe it to the Iraqi people.

My conclusion is that it will not be positive.
As mentioned, I hope I am proved wrong.


Perhaps the following would be worth trying:

1.) Transfer as many as possible British and other soldiers into Baghdad.
2.) as many US soldiers as possible to other regions of Iraq.
3.)Place the entire Baghdad force under British or UN command.

How about a few Norwegian soldiers?

Seriously, I'm not following, here. The British are just as surely "occupiers" as the U.S., and they are no more competent than the U.S. military. Al Sadr knows darned well who trounced his militia in Najaf a couple years ago. His recent decision to be more cooperative wasn't because "the British are coming."

There's been nothing lacking in the performance of the U.S. military. They've done everything asked of them, but, as you and others have noted, Rumsfeld et al were sorely lacking in vision. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is not Rumsfeld; I think we'll see a much more intelligent strategic approach.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] How about a few Norwegian soldiers? [/qb]

The Norwegian government has elected to make a very significant military and non-military contribution in Afghanistan, from where there actually was a terrorist threat. (Some may recall that Norwegian special forces saved a very significant American force that had been surrounded a few years ago ).

Also, there is very strong opposition here to the American mismanagemt of the war, and to what is perceived as a less-than-truthful presentation of the reasons for invading in the first place. (Separate discussion)

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]Seriously, I'm not following, here. The British are just as surely "occupiers" as the U.S., and they are no more competent than the U.S. military.[/qb]

This is not about military competency; the decisive factor is perception! And as you well know, the primary "magnet" of aggresion is the American presence. This must be taken into account in order to win what you call "The Battle of Baghdad".

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]Al Sadr knows darned well who trounced his militia in Najaf a couple years ago. His recent decision to be more cooperative wasn't because "the British are coming."[/qb]

Al Sadr is one of many players, and according to the news reports I read, not nearly the most violent one. Many players, not least of all the increasingly skeptical Iraqi population, are likely to be perceived the British and other participators in the Alliance as the lesser evil.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]There's been nothing lacking in the performance of the U.S. military. They've done everything asked of them, but, as you and others have noted, Rumsfeld et al were sorely lacking in vision. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is not Rumsfeld; I think we'll see a much more intelligent strategic approach. [/qb]

As mentioned, it is not only about military "performance".

Robert Gates has made a far more solid impression than the intransigent Donald Rumsfeld. Unfortunately one man is not going to change Iraqi and Arab perception overnight; and for better or worse Mr Gates inherits the debacle from Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Pearls/Cheney/Bush.

However, he appears to be a man of far greater insight and integrity, and with a clearer understanding of his mission than his predecessors displayed. Which is why he just may have the vision to consider visionary alternatives -- for instance what I am suggesting -- without mistakenly letting "prestige" get in the way.

I am convinced that decreasing the American presence in Baghdad is the way to go to help defuse the situation. You may not like it, but that�s the way it is.

Furthermore, Defence Secretary Robert Gates is to be commended for his candor. Whereas Presiden Bush was still trying to give the impression that the Iraq War was being won, Gates answered loud and clear: "No, sir."

As I am sure you recall, the contradiction of their statements presented one of the toughest challenges yet to the White House spin doctors.

quote:

I am convinced that decreasing the American presence in Baghdad is the way to go to help defuse the situation. You may not like it, but that�s the way it is.

LOL! OK, Bwana! I didn't know there was such "absolute truth" concerning this matter.

What you assert so confidently is not what the Iraqi government is requesting, however, and they are actually the ones calling the shots, here. They are also providing several thousand of their own troops to help secure the city. A few months ago, Malaki ordered U.S. troops out of Sadr City, and so they left, with the violence quantumly escalating shortly thereafter. The "perception" needs to be that the Iraqi government is running the show.

When/if the Iraqi government tells the U.S. we are no longer needed, we will leave. And let me pre-emptively discount the notion that they are naught but a puppet of the Bush Admin. Far from it! These guys don't even like each other.

- - -

quote:

Also, there is very strong opposition here to the American mismanagemt of the war, and to what is perceived as a less-than-truthful presentation of the reasons for invading in the first place. (Separate discussion)

Oh please, let's not. We've done that so many times here. There are existing threads, if you're interested in reading them.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]How about a few Norwegian soldiers?

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]

quote:

[QUOTE]Also, there is very strong opposition here to the American mismanagemt of the war, and to what is perceived as a less-than-truthful presentation of the reasons for invading in the first place. (Separate discussion)

Oh please, let's not. We've done that so many times here. There are existing threads, if you're interested in reading them. [/qb]

With all due respect, Phil, this is highly uncalled for!

You posed a rhetorical question about Norway sending soldiers.

I gave you a polite and straightforward answer telling you what the perception here is that prevents that. You don�t have to agree with that Norwegian perception; you don�t have to like it -- but I was hoping you had the courtesy to respect my answer.

Of course there are separate discussions here, and I referred to them. It sounds like you would rather not have me answer your question!

Sorry, I�m done with this discussion.

My post above wasn't responding to anything about Norway's involvement, as your clipping quotes together seems to suggest. Your statement: I am convinced that decreasing the American presence in Baghdad is the way to go to help defuse the situation. You may not like it, but that�s the way it is, had nothing to do with Norway's involvement in the war, but seemed to be your own opinion, stated rather dogmatically, if I do say so. You have lots of strong opinions on these matters, and it's nice to be dialoguing with someone who can help us to understand what seems to be a common European position on these matters. But don't go away because of something you think I said to insult Norwegian soldiers. Good heavens, I did no such thing.

The mess in Iraq is primarily centered in Baghdad, and the U.S. and Iraqi governments are taking steps to increase security there. I think that's the wise and responsible thing to do; you think America should phase out and things would get better. You also seem to think that America's presence in Iraq is a big part of the problem; my response is that America's presence is essential to solving the problem. Without our presence there now, the bloodshed and chaos would surely be much worse.

Phil,

Senator Biden has said that only 20 Senators will approve an increase in troops. What do we do now?

Michael, the Senate has no jurisdiction, here, except for funding the increase.

They are a strange group, these Senators. They voted unanimously to approve the appointment of Gen. David Petraeus as new commander in Iraq and couldn't get enough of singing his praises in the process. Then they turn around and vote a non-binding (i.e., unfunded) resolution of no-confidence in his and Bush's plan to secure Baghdad by sending more U.S. and Iraqi troops to the city. So here again we have the irony of supposedly supporting the troops and their commanders, but denigrating the mission and cause for which they fight. As Petraeus noted, this doesn't play so well among the troops.

The buildup will happen and it will be funded, as no one wants to be on record as not giving the troops what they need (John Kerry learned this the hard way in 2004).

What does the Iraq Study Group, headed by former Secretary of State James E. Baker III, recommend on this topic?

I think that is a relevant question. They did after all spend a lot of time and effort studying this and related matters -- and the members can hardly be accused of having a leftist slant.

Baker�s team made 79 policy recommendations, also touching on military concerns.

For those who might be interested, The Iraq Study Group Report is available here (Free PDF).

Phil,

http://wap.usatoday.com/news.jsp?key=606256

Biden's remarks.

Pat Buchanan in October, 2002:

"If Providence does not intrude, we will soon launch an imperial war on Iraq with all the "On to Berlin"
bravado with which the French poilus and British Tommies marched on August 1914. But this invasion will not be the cakewalk neoconservatives predict...To destroy Saddam's weapons, to democratise, defend, and hold Iraq together, U.S. troops will be tied down for decades. Yet, terrorist attacks in liberated Iraq seem as certain as in liberated Afghanistan. For a militant Islam that holds in thrall scores of millions of true believers will never accept George Bush dictating the destiny of the Islamic world. With our MacAurthur Regency in Baghdad, Pax Americana will reach apogee. But then the tide recedes, for the one endeavor at which Islamic peoples excell is expelling imperial powers by terror and guerilla war. They drove the Brits out of Palestine and Aden, the French out of Algeria,
the Russians out of Afghanistan, the Americans out of Somalia and Beirut, the Israelis out of Lebanon...We have started up the road to Empire and over the next hill we will meet those who went before. The only lesson we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.

Buchanan was right.

quote:

Originally posted by mysticalmichael9:
[qb]Pat Buchanan in October, 2002:

"... this invasion will not be the cakewalk neoconservatives predict...To destroy Saddam's weapons, to democratise, defend, and hold Iraq together, U.S. troops will be tied down for decades.

...But then the tide recedes, for the one endeavor at which Islamic peoples excell is expelling imperial powers by terror and guerilla war...

...We have started up the road to Empire and over the next hill we will meet those who went before. The only lesson we learn from history is that we do not learn from history."

Buchanan was right. [/qb]

Michael, those are surely extremist viewpoints!
Are you sure we can�t make Mr Buchanan an honorary leftist?

Decades? Well, if that is what it takes to win the Battle of Baghdad and "get the job done", then so be it.

Buchanan is somewhat of an "isolationist," but his views are well-reasoned and, in light of what's happened since 2002, seem brilliant!

Re. Biden - - again, the Senate does not conduct a war; that's the President's job, and they willingly gave it to him in 2002.

The Iraqi Study Group was a bipartisan research and advisory committee. Their recommendations are to inform and advise the President, but he's not obligated to follow any of them. Not legally, at least.

Guys, think about it: you can't have committees and legislative bodies conducting the details of a war. At best, they can authorize funding on a time-limited basis, and request hearings on how things are going. NPR had a report on this topic today. Note, especially:

quote:

University of Virginia law professor Robert Turner said Congress does indeed have powers to raise and support armies, but with limits.

"Decisions involving the conduct of war, including where to move troops, whether to reinforce troops, whether to move troops from one hill to another, are vested exclusively in the president," Turner said, "and when Congress tries to control this power either directly by statute or by conditions to appropriations, it becomes a lawbreaker, it violates the Constitution."

When it comes to the conduct of war, Turner declared, President Bush is the decider.

Bush will continue to conduct the war as he sees fit, and the only way this could change is if he's impeached or if the funding to support his plans is cut off (and that won't happen anytime soon).

Heartprayer,

I try to avoid fights with people crazier than I am.
Ho Chi Minh had an idea, and it was not the greatest
idea, but it was believed in and carried out with fanatical zeal and devotion. We had the most sophisticated military machine imaginable, and the kill ratio was about 20:1, yet victory eluded us.

The God-jihad idea. How do you fight that? Netanyahu warned us that they will never stop. They are not likely to anytime soon. Lots of hornets, shaken and stirred.

What makes it worse is that we have treated them very shabbily. Our guys are the best, but I just finished 1100 stomach turning pages of Robert Fisk's The Great War for Civilization and it would seem that we are just about as bad in Iraq as we were
in Southeast Asia. Many conservative freinds of mine suggest that we are not brutal enough. I don't know, but I'll bet that they never read Fisk. Our news seems sanitized to me. War is hell.

I know an old veteran who says that if soldiers rather than politicians ran wars that they would be very brutal and very short. Hmmm...

-------------------------------------------------

I'm still angry about being misled re WMD's. I did not like what Sean Penn said at the Acadamy Awards
in 2003. Now I believe that he was right. See the bottom link of wikipedia; "Iran,Iraq and WMD's" I trust Ritter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter

Phil, Feingold is a bit of a loose cannon and a maverick. The democrats may have to throw a net over him sometime soon. U R right about the constitution. Submarine commanders can no longer launch on their own without the President. Does that make me feel safer? I don't know...

weapons_inspector@scott_ritter.net (shalom)

more soldiers to Baghdad, yes, but fewer Americans!

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]Bush will continue to conduct the war as he sees fit... [/qb]

Phil, I have absolute faith in President Bush -- that that is precisely what is going to happen! Bush/Cheney�s conduct of the War in Iraq has not exactly been characterised by "reality checks", nor an understanding of the culture(s) in which the war is taking place.

The United States of America & co is an occupying force. No amount of eye candy or "we�re-here-at-the-request-of-the-Iraqi-government" is going to change that perception in the Middle East. It remains a force of occupation!

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, a wise and tolerant man who probably has done far more than any other to try to contribute to peace in Iraq after the invasion, may have said it best. He encouraged Iraqis to say two things when they met Americans:

"Thank you for freeing us from Saddam!" and:
"When are you leaving?"

So far there seems to be little attempt to give the Iraqi People an honest answer to this question -- beyond a mumble and an open-ended timeframe.

For better or worse, Iraqis perceive America to have American interested at heart, far more than Iraqi ones. As do other Muslim countries. As do a significant majority of Europeans. (I am not saying good has not been done! It definitely has!!)

I do not think any Western country would look kindly on an extended occupation by a foreign army, however benevolent the intent of the foreign government that sent them.

In fact I think it would engender resistance, and not just from extremists. Phil, what do you think America�s many militias would do were the situation reversed? And that is why the American soldiers are part of the problem, and more soldiers cannot be the solution. They will become a magnet for stronger resistance!

Unfortunately, in the Quagmire that is Iraq, the Bush/Cheney Administration has bungled so much for so long that the time is long past when there was a tidy solution. Above, however, I have tried to argue for a course that is likely to instigate less aggression -- a redeployment that results in more soldiers in Baghdad, yes, but fewer Americans!

"Staying the course" or just sending more soldiers is likely to prove Pat Buchanan right on more counts than any of wish!

quote:

. . . but fewer Americans . . .

Fine, HP. Where are they?

Meanwhile, this is the way things will probably go from now on. Note that the U.S. were supporting the Iraqi military, and didn't enter the fray until called upon.

You, MM, w.c. and others keep pointing to past mistakes, and now you even suggest there was a "tidy solution." Do we really know that? I mean, aside from Al Qaeda in Iraq, the group making the most trouble has been Saddam's supporters, who were obviously planning to keep him under cover and bring him out at a later date to rub our noses in it. Maybe there was a better way to transition to peace; maybe the way things have happened will be for the best in the long run. Playing "shoulda, oughta, musta," doesn't make much sense to me, as none of us know diddly squat about conducting a war or nation-building.

But, sure, let's have soldiers from other countries coming in to help out. How about it Europeans? NATO? Canada? U.N.?

What's that? I can't hear you!

- - -

M.M., I once enjoyed reading Robert Fisk, but it seems he's become a tiresome anti-American axe-grinder. Sorry old chap; I'm not buying the "America-is-a-bully" in Iraq line. Fisk finds "incidents" and magnifies them to the level of normality. The general spirit of his writings turns me off to the extent that I can never get through two paragraphs of his columns.
- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fisk#Criticism and other critiques, which even includes a reference to how loosely Fisk plays with the facts (good heavens, he didn't even know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and not Jerusalem!).

Addenda: btw, guys, you keep bringing up the WMD issue as though that were the only reason for the invasion. That was the trigger, for sure, but there were many others, none the least of which was humanitarian. . . all discussed ad nauseum on other threads.

Everyone believed Saddam had WMD! EVERYONE! France, Germany, Russian, UK, Hans Blitz, etc. And everyone believed he had had plenty of time between 98 and 02 to hide and disperse them so the U.N. weapons inspectors wouldn't find them. That's why it's so wearisome to keep bringing up the "Bush-lied-people-died" argument. Bush's best intelligence (called "slam-dunk" by Clinton-appointed CIA director George Tenet) was that there were WMD, and U.N. inspector Blitz had acknowledged that there was much unaccounted for when the U.N. was booted by Saddam in 98.

So could we please -- pretty please with a cherry on top! -- drop the WMD/"dubious reasons for going to war" points? Consider, too,t he many other factors: 17 broken U.N. resolutions, humanitarian crisis caused by the U.N. sanctions and Saddam's/U.N. food-for-oil debacle, etc. etc. (someone, somewhere came up with 20 something reasons). We've gone over all that again and again, so every time it comes up, I wonder what's really going on.