Bitch, are you for REAL?
Jan. 11th, 2007 12:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
akujunkanTen thirty-four p.m; one hour since Bush finished his "great leap forward" speech. You may imagine that I have spent the past 90 minutes doing my best to dispel the utter sense of affront to my values and insult to my intelligence I came away with after having watched it. My comments on specific bits are below. If you feel inclined to read them, allow me to suggest reading the text of the entire speech here, so you know what I'm talking about.
Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.
The commentators seem to be fixating on what a step forward this is for Bush. "He's finally admitted to his mistakes." Um, no he hasn't. Read that statement again. He hasn't even admitted that any mistakes have been made.
The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital.
I would be interested in hearing the percentage of our troops that are stationed within 30 miles of the capital. Something tells me we'd see a correlation. And if there is one, then putting even more troops into that area would be a big mistake.
They also report that this plan can work.
Again with the hedging. This plan "can" work. He's not saying that it will work. Or even that it will probably work. In the grand scheme of things, "can" is not the most heartening of possibilities.
So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq.
More than 20,000 additional troops. He doesn't say how many more. I wonder if he's even decided yet. Or whether the value of "more than" will be ramped up every time the previous value of "more than" fails to make any positive difference whatsoever.
Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared.
Another reason the "more than 20,000" phrasing scares me. One of the reason the sweeps didn't work previously is because, when we had cleared Baghdad, or Fallujah, or the Sunni Triange, or wherever it was we'd cleared, the insurgents just went somewhere else. So it doesn't really matter if Bush's plan actually secures Baghdad: the insurgents will just move their bases to everywhere else in the country.
To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend 10 billion dollars of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year.
Hmm. The Iraqi government standing up? Oil revenues healing Iraq's economy? Stabilization via reconstruction and infrastructure? Elections? Aren't those all things the U.S. government already promised the Iraqi people? That were have supposed to have solved Iraq's problems before? That didn't WORK then?
As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters.
In other words, Sunnis. The majority of Iraqi citizens, members of the Iraqi government? Shia. Bush doesn't have any plans for them. At any rate, Bush goes on about defeatingAl Qaeda Sunnis for another two paragraphs. Then we get this little chiller:
Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.
These two paragraphs are terrifying. Just what we need right now--saber rattling toward two other countries when our armed forces don't even have enough personnel to successfully fight the two wars in which we're already engaged. Seymour Hersh is sounding more credible with each passing minute.
And more importantly, where are we going to deploy those Patriot air defense systems? Which allies are we trying to reassure? And against whom? I cannot stress enough how frightening I find this particular excerpt.
Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.
Look at how that slimy bastard is covering his tracks right here. Remember when the goal was "victory?" When the strategy was "victory?" Now Bush isn't even claiming that we will ever be victorious. We may get closer to success. In other words, I doubt anyone in his cabal really believes that this escalation will have any significant positive affect in our favor.
Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship.
That's all right. We've already declared "mission accomplished" on an aircraft carrier. Surrender on the deck of a battleship would just be overkill...right?
But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people.
All the things Bush has worked so hard to dismantle within our own nation.
In the days ahead, my national security team will fully brief Congress on our new strategy. If Members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust. Honorable people have different views, and they will voice their criticisms. It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. And all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be more likely to succeed.
Bush, you arrogant SOB, demanding that your opponents justify themselves to you. When you have never once justified any of your disasterous decisions and policies that got us into this quamire in the first place.
We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the Armed Forces we need for the 21st century. We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.
"Mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas?" You mean, like a draft would mobilize civilians? Or are you perhaps obliquely referring to all of the military duties you handed over to private civilian contractors like Halliburton and your other croonies in order to pad their bank accounts?
In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. hese young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time. They serve far from their families, who make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner table. They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty. We mourn the loss of every fallen American and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.
I imagine it's MUCH easier to be so glib about this when none of those "extraordinary and selfless men and women" who have "serve[d] far from their families" and "give[n] their lives to ensure our liberty" include anyone you care about.
And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed.
Excepting, of course, when our faith in freedom wasn't redeemed--in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and Afghanistan.
That will be all.
Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.
The commentators seem to be fixating on what a step forward this is for Bush. "He's finally admitted to his mistakes." Um, no he hasn't. Read that statement again. He hasn't even admitted that any mistakes have been made.
The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital.
I would be interested in hearing the percentage of our troops that are stationed within 30 miles of the capital. Something tells me we'd see a correlation. And if there is one, then putting even more troops into that area would be a big mistake.
They also report that this plan can work.
Again with the hedging. This plan "can" work. He's not saying that it will work. Or even that it will probably work. In the grand scheme of things, "can" is not the most heartening of possibilities.
So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq.
More than 20,000 additional troops. He doesn't say how many more. I wonder if he's even decided yet. Or whether the value of "more than" will be ramped up every time the previous value of "more than" fails to make any positive difference whatsoever.
Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared.
Another reason the "more than 20,000" phrasing scares me. One of the reason the sweeps didn't work previously is because, when we had cleared Baghdad, or Fallujah, or the Sunni Triange, or wherever it was we'd cleared, the insurgents just went somewhere else. So it doesn't really matter if Bush's plan actually secures Baghdad: the insurgents will just move their bases to everywhere else in the country.
To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend 10 billion dollars of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year.
Hmm. The Iraqi government standing up? Oil revenues healing Iraq's economy? Stabilization via reconstruction and infrastructure? Elections? Aren't those all things the U.S. government already promised the Iraqi people? That were have supposed to have solved Iraq's problems before? That didn't WORK then?
As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters.
In other words, Sunnis. The majority of Iraqi citizens, members of the Iraqi government? Shia. Bush doesn't have any plans for them. At any rate, Bush goes on about defeating
Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.
These two paragraphs are terrifying. Just what we need right now--saber rattling toward two other countries when our armed forces don't even have enough personnel to successfully fight the two wars in which we're already engaged. Seymour Hersh is sounding more credible with each passing minute.
And more importantly, where are we going to deploy those Patriot air defense systems? Which allies are we trying to reassure? And against whom? I cannot stress enough how frightening I find this particular excerpt.
Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.
Look at how that slimy bastard is covering his tracks right here. Remember when the goal was "victory?" When the strategy was "victory?" Now Bush isn't even claiming that we will ever be victorious. We may get closer to success. In other words, I doubt anyone in his cabal really believes that this escalation will have any significant positive affect in our favor.
Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship.
That's all right. We've already declared "mission accomplished" on an aircraft carrier. Surrender on the deck of a battleship would just be overkill...right?
But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people.
All the things Bush has worked so hard to dismantle within our own nation.
In the days ahead, my national security team will fully brief Congress on our new strategy. If Members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust. Honorable people have different views, and they will voice their criticisms. It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. And all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be more likely to succeed.
Bush, you arrogant SOB, demanding that your opponents justify themselves to you. When you have never once justified any of your disasterous decisions and policies that got us into this quamire in the first place.
We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the Armed Forces we need for the 21st century. We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.
"Mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas?" You mean, like a draft would mobilize civilians? Or are you perhaps obliquely referring to all of the military duties you handed over to private civilian contractors like Halliburton and your other croonies in order to pad their bank accounts?
In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. hese young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time. They serve far from their families, who make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner table. They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty. We mourn the loss of every fallen American and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.
I imagine it's MUCH easier to be so glib about this when none of those "extraordinary and selfless men and women" who have "serve[d] far from their families" and "give[n] their lives to ensure our liberty" include anyone you care about.
And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed.
Excepting, of course, when our faith in freedom wasn't redeemed--in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and Afghanistan.
That will be all.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 2007-01-11 05:27 am (UTC)no subject
on 2007-01-11 09:24 am (UTC)"It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time."
Yes, but against whom? When we sacrifice so many of what we hold as standards and ideals of America in order to spread the ideals of America, what are we working so hard to spread anymore?
Your points are brilliant, and this is a simply brilliant post. You have an impressive mind for political analysis! Only one part I take issue with:
"I would be interested in hearing the percentage of our troops that are stationed within 30 miles of the capital. Something tells me we'd see a correlation. And if there is one, then putting even more troops into that area would be a big mistake."
Correlation does not necessarily imply cause...though of course there is some degree of cause and effect at work here, of course, I doubt it's the majority.
But then, you weren't writing a published statistically sound analysis, just a blog, so I'll let you slide. ;)
This was wonderful reading. Thanks!
no subject
on 2007-01-11 09:24 am (UTC)no subject
on 2007-01-11 07:17 pm (UTC)Yes, but against whom? When we sacrifice so many of what we hold as standards and ideals of America in order to spread the ideals of America, what are we working so hard to spread anymore?
Thank you. This is exactly what I was trying to get at last night. I honestly can't divine what Bush is after, but I'm less and less certain that he inhabits the same reality I do. At any rate, it sickens me that all the international goodwill that the U.S. had built up over decades has been squandered by this president in six short years. Even if I weren't disgusted by it for its own sake, as someone interested in an international career, his actions will complicate things for me considerably.
Agreed on your comment re: causality. I still believe it's valid here given that the object of warfare is to kill the greatest number of the enemy's troops as possible, and thus it makes sense to concentrate your efforts in the area where the majority of your enemy is situated. If the ratio of violence in Iraq:violence in Baghdad is correlated with the ratio of American forces in Iraq:American forces in Baghdad, I think it's safe to assume that that's what the insurgency is doing, and simply pumping more troops into Baghdad will not lessen that problem, which is what Bush seems to be assuming. It's also why I believe that attempts by U.S. forces to "secure" Baghdad won't be successful. And even if they are, it will by no means sound the death knell for the insurgency on the whole. I'm not sure I'm explaining this very intelligibly, so does that make any sense?
And by all means post a link on your lj. I'd be honored.
no subject
on 2007-01-11 07:19 pm (UTC)