You Can Fool Some Of The People All Of The Time...

When President Bush is trying to sell you those curtains tomorrow night, remember, "Read my lips, I never met Jack Abramoff!"

http://blog.citizensforethics.org/node/478

June,

I would like to respectfully disagree with you on your belief that there are but four options for the President to choose from.

1. Cut and leave, attempt to exit gracefully.

2. Stay the course.

3. Tinker with the current strategy and be patient.

4. Change the drapes - send more troops.

While these appear form your point of view the options on the table there is another; Full engagement.

In this war the u.S. has tried to minimize the impact on the populous as much as possible; granted not always with the success we had hoped.  Such is war when you are up against an enemy who will hide in school yards to protect their weapons. But to “Cry Havoc” and “let loose the dogs of war” might be appropriate in just this kind of situation.  One of the reasons the “insurgency” has continued to manifest itself is because there is little fear of the American soldier in Iraq. While most Iraqis want us gone, they also understand that it is not the American Soldiers who are the real problem; it is in fact locals who are causing the majority of the death and destruction in that country mostly because of this very tame engagements by our troops.

Yes, those are most likely the options he has considering today’s climate, however, there was a time just a little over 200 years ago when this country was at war while only three percent if her citizens were in favor of her actions. Thank God leadership does not always bend to the desires of the masses. The time has come to end this war one way or the other. More blood will be shed either way. But in the long run it is better for America to be seen as a victorious nation than one that did not finish the job she intended to do.

First off, AA is right about beginning a real counter insurgency. And yes, I'm as shocked as everyone else that my fingers keyed out those words.

The Iraqis Pain equation has been pretty unidirectional since Oct 2003 = all the pain is felt by the people and US troops FROM insurgents, either Shiite or Sunni, Al Queda in Iraq, Al Sadr's militia, other militia dead enders etc. That has been partly due to it is hard work to find Iraqis named Insurgent. It is also more costly to go into Sadr City, door to door, finding bad guys and killing them in their homes. It'll be Way City (spelling?) all over again. That was the largest ever urban battle, in Vietnam, immortalized in the film Full Metal Jacket. And the city had been about 600,000 people. Thats 1/10th Bagdad, and there are 10 Iraqi cities over 500,000. And we'll need a heck of alot more than 130k US troops, plus 20k more surged. Try 500,000 plus 500,000 Iraqis.

To change the Pain to going against the bad guys, we will need to hunt  them down like dogs, and kill them. Publicly, and very violently. And once the militia insurgent leaders see that happening, then they may decide to quit, or dig in and make it a desert, and call it peace.

Second, did anyone else catch Ollie North's comments ( the war criminal ) that after his last visit to Iraq, all the troops he spoke with were opposed to more troops! So now even Ollie is a commie pinko fag.

Last, yes June. it is hard work. They've been putting in Overtime. Ordering in Dominoe's, working Saturdays. The problem is, Bush can't admit failure. Its his only shot at a legacy, and he'll kill another 3000, or 30,000 American soldiers to get it. Now the question becomes, will the people elect another man with his head cemented in his anus (McCain) who is willing to send more live soldiers to validate the loss of 4000- 5000 dead ones? Or do we elect someone in 08 who will cut and run, as fast as possible?

If you are interested in how so many got fooled by so few . . . one good source is: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, by Frank Rich.  I am just about through it -- recommended.  There are perhaps other books that do a better job of explaining the "why" of Iraq, such as Armed Madhouse, by Greg Palast.

And if you want to say the past does not matter, think whether that applies to other wars . . . should one not learn from past experience (with, say, dictators like Hitler or Stalin, or Noriega (and his ties to CIA and BushI) or the Shah or Iran (our guy) or our early support of Saddam as well);  or misadventures and mistakes (like Vietnam), or widely supported invasions (like Afghanistan) that were bungled by incompetents (like Rumsfeld)? 

I also recommend Overthrow, by Stephen Kinzer.  It details our adventures in regime change all around the world for the last approximate 100 years.  One common thread is how often corporations wanted us to do it . . . and their heavy influence in controlling presidents, Congress, and public opinion to effect basically a profit driven war or foreign adventure.  Iraq is not the first of these . . .

Also recall that Gen. George Patton (likely our best general at least in Europe in WWII) was an avid student of history, and often related stories about previous battles and campaigns from the Romans on down, to his staff as they went from place to place.  He knew what problems Caesar, Napoleon and others had, and was determined not to repeat them.

So it matters how we got "here" . . . as well as how we leave "it" . . . and what we learn from it.  Write on.

--KZ

Faster than BAA Boy can scream “Chappaquiddick!”, it’s Tedward Kennedy, purse strings in hand, calling out the Chickenhawk Gang. Gotta love the Chickenhawk reaction, too - "If Kennedy leaves existing funding in tact but won't fund the surge, he must be for Stay The Course!" Yeah, whatever... 

Can't help but wonder what Tom Carter's take is on Teddy's challenge.  Not enough oomph?

Well, now I understand the reasoning behind your switch in avatars, Indie. One thing about those guys on the mountain - they understood the democratic framework established in the Constitution. Clearly, anyone who could state, "Thank God leadership does not always bend to the desires of the masses" doesn't. Can't tell if, in fact, BAA's education is deficient, whether he slept through American History and Government or if his total immersion in the politics of division has produced his vision of America as a Banana Republic.

I can only hope you're right about Ollie, Phaedrus. I can find but one reference (in the a blog) to his conversion. Hard to believe that the fellow who extended the Banana Republican maxim to include the elected representatives of the masses, has recanted, but one thing's for sure - Ollie understood the democratic framework and the illegality of his endruns. Perhaps the founder of the Classified Information as a Legal Defense experienced an epiphany in the process, recognizing there is a substantive difference in simply breaking the law and exploiting the chinks in our democratic armor.

Yeah - PAIN! Phaedrus, there's a world of difference in a soldier kicking in a Baghdad door then, in a split second, deciding which beard is the bad guy and which one is the good guy and those John Wayne movies that the Banana Republicans base their foreign policy on.   Wayne makes it look easy - except his bad guys wore either black hats or feathers or looked like Jack Palance. How do we get these armchair chickenhawks to realize that, in Baghdad, there are no retakes?

And, STUBBORN? Those four on the mountain couldn't have dreamt - even in their worst nightmare - that it'd be a stubborn, imperialistic, lame duck American who'd be trashing the form of government they'd wrought and fought to preserve.  Historical irony, Kevin?

BAA Boy, I'd suggest you reread Kevin's post - even add Porter's The Assassin's Gate (particularly the initial background chapters) to the recommended reading list. BAA, had ewe understood Kev's points about the Shah of Iran and the U.S. aid to Saddam, I think you'd have written a quite different article about that lynching.

And, yeah, BAA Boy, I left out the NUKE'EM option. It was a conscious choice. Intersting that you'd miss the whole point of my article and pick up on that. If you notice, neither Mickey nor Phaedrus step into that area, either. The surge is unrealistic enough. They do a great job of documenting that.

Your reaction does raise questions about BAA's Bible - that book you're writing. Lot'sa color pictures and onomatopoeia? Zing! Wham! Zowie! Whap! Click-Click-KA-BOOM? Think SpongeBob's endorsement will put it over the top?

Me, I'll stick with Teddy for now. He's dealing with the real world.