This is far from the only valid reason why sensible people should reject throwing a few thousand more Americans into a losing war, but it illustrates my primary concern perfectly. (via)
“We are implementing a strategy to embolden a government that is actually part of the problem,” said an American military official in Baghdad involved in talks over the plan. “We are being played like a pawn.”
America desperately needs the cooperation of Iraqi forces in order to root out the militias. The President has declared as much. Except, the Iraqi forces are the militias. It’s schizophrenic.
Steve
We are not “emboldening” the Maliki government by sending more troops.
To the contrary, we have basically told Maliki: “Either you crack down on the Sadr militia, or you’re going to be replaced with someone who will.”
Of course, there’s a fat chance of Maliki taking on Sadr, and there’s a fat chance that changing the regime again will accomplish anything positive. But Maliki is in a no-win situation and I doubt he feels very “emboldened” at all.
Tim F.
How will we replace Maliki? Iraq is supposedly a sovereign country. It’s an empty threat.
ThymeZone
I really don’t believe that, but it’s a plausible scenario, I suppose.
What I really believe is that Maliki doesn’t really want this job. What I really believe is that Maliki is just one of the players who are tuning the Americans like you’d tune a guitar. Pluck, adjust, pluck. I think Maliki is the guy who put the “more troops” bug firmly up Bush’s ass when Bush visited him late last year. I think he said, Oh yeah? Well you don’t have enough troops over here. If you want me to listen to you, you are going to need to show me some more skin in this game. Show me that you are in this at least until the end of your term, because you have no support at home now.
Jake
And you’d be right.
Which makes the threat to replace him … not so much of a threat. I suppose if Maliki quit Bush could say he replaced him and if things calmed down, try to take credit. In the US at least. Explaining why he gets to Deciderate their leadership to the Iraqis might take some hard work.
And of course if things stayed the same got worse he could say “See, if only that Malikiki had quit when I asked him, things wouldn’t be so bad!”
demimondian
Well, not to say anything nice about the heap of Bushie-doo that the current administration has Left Behind, but…if, in fact, the government manages to convince the American people that SCIRI are the Sadrists (_pace_ srv, I know that SCIRI is in the South of the country), then we could divert the Sadrists to take out SCIRI, which would (a) get rid of the Iranian influence in Iraq, and (b) get the Sadrists out of Baghdad so that the Deciderator could have his success.
Proxy War is the new way forward!
Zifnab
I’d say we’re being played like a Rook, at least.
srv
I can’t imagine how the Sunni insurgents will respond if we start cracking down on the Mahdi army or other Shia militias. Surely they won’t try to pour fuel on the fire (blow up a mosque or two) and make us look like we’ve switched sides…
If Patreaus wants to do a “Tal Afar” on Sadr City, the problem is it won’t be unseen. It’ll be broadcast like “Shock and Awe”. I’m sure that will intimidate them finally, and they’ll all just start behaving like we want them to.
ThymeZone
You just described about half of Israel’s foreign policy model, no?
Punchy
WOW would America be foolhardy to replace this guy. He’s bad, but at least he’s somewhat reasonable. The Shia will NEVER EVER give up the power they currently have, and anyone diff than al-Maliki is most certainly be more Shite-centrist, hardline, and reactionary that this guy.
Shorter–anyone after al-Maliki is SURE to be worse, from the US’ standpoint.
Punchy
The Sunnis don’t want to fight us anymore. They want a truce with US forces. Bullshit, you say? It’s all here…
Steve
South Vietnam was a sovereign country too. You can’t be serious, can you?
Many people took Bush’s speech the same way as John Derbyshire:
But Bush never said we would leave if Maliki didn’t follow through on his promises. We know he equates leaving with losing. What he actually said was this:
If Maliki won’t take on Sadr’s militias (which he won’t), then we’re going to find someone else to carry out the “will of the Iraqi people” and do the job. Of course we won’t announce “we’re changing the regime,” but whatever happens, our fingerprints will surely be all over it. If you don’t think this can happen, take a closer look at history.
John S.
I do love the stench of hypocrisy in the morning.
America is all about fostering fledgling democracies…as long as we approve of them and they are friendly to us. Otherwise, it’s democracy schemocracy.
Jake
Yes, of course. Much in the same way that couple in Ohio fostered a bunch of disabled kids. By locking them up in cages so they couldn’t get hurt.
Why do you hate parenthood?
Otto Man
Fixed.
Otto Man
Wait, now it’s fixed.
Otto Man
I think that should get it.
Otto Man
OK, now we’ve got it.
dslak
Fareed Zakaria also says that, even if we win, we lose.
Rather than simply making bad policy, Bush and Co. may end up aiding and abetting genocide. Freedom marches on.
Otto Man
Alright, that should hold us.
At least until the last helicopter leaves the embassy.
Punchy
You know shit is bad when Iraq makes one ponder the relative smooth-sailing that was Vietnam….
The Other Steve
I still say let him play toy soldier. 2008 is going ot be a bloodbath for the Republican Party.
Teak111
Who cares, the Chargers lost.
ThymeZone
Um, that’s a perverse version of what Karl Rove has been doing. Basically using Iraq as a stage and US troops as props in a political scheme. Isn’t it?
The responsible thing to do is to act in accordance with what is best for the US first, and our troops, and then Iraq, to whatever extent we can. American politics needs to be way down on the list. Otherwise we are no better than the turds in the White House.
CaseyL
Bush has opted to side with the Shia. As long as the militias infiltating Iraqi forces are Shia, no problemo. As a strategy, this might “work,” if by “work” one means “ethnically cleanse Baghdad.”
Looking frantically for a bright side, I wonder if the strategy in Bush’s right hand (side with the Shia in Iraq) will undermine the strategy in Bush’s back pocket (war with Iran), since Iran is a Shia state, and a Shia-led Iraq is unlikely to allow itself to become a launch point for a war against Iran.
Then again, with the nearby Sunni states – notably Saudi Arabia – making noises that they won’t allow the Sunni in Iraq to be driven out, I do wonder if this is just another example of Bush managing to make a bad situation worse.
Teak111
OK, better now. Remember when we used to tell Arafat to crack down on Hamas and Hiz if he wanted peace talks to go forward. Never happened. The insurgents have two enemies: The Amer and the Malitia. Amer rounds them up for questioning. The malitia rounds them up for questioning via cordless drill, then dumps them on the street for all to see. The Amer are mindful of the sunni citizenry, the Malitia see the need to cleanse all of Baghdad of all Sunnis. The key question is whether the Amer will go after the Malitias in the big way (Calling Cheney to SA, Cheney to SA). That really would be an excalation. Vietnam all over again.
demimondian
Bush really has no choice about siding with the Shia in Iraq; the Sunni would have simply reconstituted a dictatorship under the al Tikriti. Unfortunately, the Shia themselves are only united by their loathing for the Sunni — there are at least two (and arguably three) major Shiite factions, the so-called Sadrists, with a power-base in Baghdad’s slums, the SCIRI adherents, with a power base in Basra and the south, and, to some greater or lesser extent, one faction of the Kurds.
So, backing the Shia is a bit of an oxymoron. Which Shia?
Ryan S.
OT Public Service Announcement- Water Kills
This is not a threadjack attempt I swear. ;)
morinao
I’d say we’re being played like a Rook, at least.
No, definitely a pawn. After all, pawns turn into queens if they make it to the other side of the board. So our strategy is to surge all our pawns at once and one of them is sure to get through eventually. Then it’ll get crowned and start jumping backwards.
scarshapedstar
Well, it basically boils down to “kill ’em all” which has been a very thinly veiled right-wing preference from the get-go. How many people in this country would support nuking Baghdad? 45%? Stoking the flames is almost as good as the ever-popular “blackened glass” option.
Now that’s some freedom-lovin’.
PeterJ
They bothched hanging number two too….
Maybe they could outsource the ones left to Haliburton? Don’t think it could get any worse… And then Haliburton would have actually maybe accomplished something…
Punchy
It’s true. Hannity and O’Rielly have said so.
ThymeZone
POTD*
* a point was taken off for the horribly botched spelling of San Francisco. A half point was added back on for not calling it “Frisco.”
Historical Wit
Neither pawn nor rook, played like a bishop. Cause of all the religious fevor involved. its end dayz y’know.
demimondian
My immediate response was to think “what does Nancy Pelosi (and the tuna stock her husband doesn’t actually own) have to do with this?”
Jake
That is a funny joke. People can barely wrap their heads around the concept Muslims coming in more than one flavour. No wonder simps like Coulter want to convert everyone. The nuances of different religions and political factions are just too difficult.
Punchy
So do pit bulls. I love dogs, but I wouldn’t shed one damn tear if everyone of these fucking monsters were euthanized. Or beaten with a baseball bat.
Tom in Texas
Punchy;
I am a pit bull owner (full disclosure — Kona is part boxer, which can account for much of her personality), and they are not any more predisposed to violence than any other dog. In fact, my aunt’s chihuahua is the same age and is crushing Kona in the race to determine who can bite the most humans. The current count is like 25-0, but I can’t keep up with her dog’s vicious attacks. Now, Minx (the rat dog) has never sent a child to the hospital, so her attacks aren’t reported on Channel 11 at 10, but I have seriously never known a chihuahua that didn’t attack any human in sight. They are designed to hate humans. Staffordshire Terriers are not. They are designed to kill other dogs. Properly raised, however, they are incredibly good natured animals.
Punchy
This is patently false. Name another breed that–unprovoked–just flat out kills as much as a pit bull. Name another breed that attacks and kills its own owner. I couldn’t care less if someone’s 15lb. dog puts a minor puncture wound on my ankle. But a pit bull is a killing machine. They don’t stop after one bite, and any attempt to dissuade them to only eggs them on.
Face it…they’ve been bred to be a violent, unrelenting, unyielding, full on killing species. No differentiation b/twn humans and other dogs. I’m glad yours is not violent–yet.
demimondian
OK, Punchy: dalmatians. They’re considerably more vicious, and have a terrible record of attacks on people.
Jake
Homo sapiens? [/snark]
Tom in Texas
Punchy:
The Staffordshire or Pit Bull
You will note:
also:
And finally:
So Pit Bulls have a higher success rate at training than the average dog, are NOT the most likely breed to attack a human, and almost never turn on their owner. Next you’ll tell me there is a plague of sharks coming for us. I saw it on the nightly news. They are attacking people!!
Punchy
Tom, here’s the link to my assertion.
Here.Skim down to Table 1 and 2.
Dave
A truce? And give up our excuse to invade Iran? I don’t think so!
srv
When was the last Chihuahua mauling death? It isn’t about bite ratios, it’s about the capability to rip a kids head off.
Tom in Texas
Punchy;
You asserted “a pit bull is a killing machine. They don’t stop after one bite, and any attempt to dissuade them to only eggs them on.” I note from the study you linked that around 24% of the attacks they studied were from owned dogs, and less than 1/2 of 1% by leashed animal’s off their owner’s property. So it is not specifically Pit Bulls per se that are the problem. It is untrained unowned animals roaming the streets. Pit Bulls do make up a large part of this subset, in part because there is no such thing as a pureblood pit, so the name is a catchall for mutts. Also street animals are obviously less likely to be spayed/neutered, which plays a huge role in animal aggression. However, a nurtered and well cared for dog will probably not turn on its owner or on other humans for no reason, no matter what breed the animal is. If the dog does, the fault is with the animal and not their breed.
Tom in Texas
Also the scare campaign against Pit Bullss makes them less likely to be adopted and more likely to be on the streets, increasing the likelihood they will be involved in an attack. It’s a vicious cycle.
chopper
unprovoked, out of nowhere attacks are quite rare, and happen among all dog breeds.
staffies that attack others (the ones you see on the news)do so because they were raised by asses who think the way to train a dog is by beating it. these aren’t unprovoked attacks, they’re dogs who’ve been basically turned into psychotic machines by their owners. you raise a lab that way and it’ll attack people too, it just happens more often with staffies because idiots are attracted to tough-looking dogs. if you were to snap your fingers and make every staffy on earth disappear, these idiots would just find another breed to mentally mutilate.
the other side of this is how incredibly stupid most people are about dog breeds. my sophie is half english bulldog, half boxer. she’s 80 lbs of chubby cuteness and her face is all jowls and wrinkles. yet half the people on the street who ask me about her (and it happens a lot) ask if she’s a pit bull. she looks nothing like a pit bull, outside of the fact that she’s thick. pit bulls don’t have stubby, wrinkly faces and an inch and a half underbite, people.
apparently “pit bull” has been redefined as “any dog over 70 pounds”.
Historical Wit
When it comes to unprovoked dog attacks, I kind have had my fair share of em. I delivered pizza for 10 years. I was attacked by 4 dogs in 10 years, no bodily harm to me thank goodness, but on all occasions, neither was a pitbull. 2 Dobermans, 1 rotty, and a dalmation.
RSA
I don’t much know or care about differences between dog breeds. What I did notice in the article is this:
I think that the owner of an animal who kills someone should be held responsible in some way. (Not that anyone here or in the article has argued differently here, but I wonder if anyone would.)
BadTux
I don’t get it. I thought we won back on May 2, 2003? I mean, had a big victory celebration on an aircraft carrier and all that, complete with “Mission Accomplished!” sign on the control tower and Dear Leader strutting across the deck in a flight suit with sock-stuffed crotch making the ladies swoon from the force of his sheer manliness? Or if that wasn’t when we won, what about after we killed Saddam’s vile sons and had Saddam’s butt in our jail? Wasn’t that the right time to declare victory, go home with Saddam in the brig of a Navy barge, and put Saddam on trial for war crimes in our very own Nuremberg show trial?
What, exactly, are we doing in the middle of the Iraqi Civil War? Other than that it gives Dear Leader a great big boner and allows war profiteers to loot my pocketbook using the jackboots of the IRS? His notion of sending American troops into the middle of a civil war in order to support one side of the civil war (the Iranian side) against the other side of the civil war (the Saudi side) sounds… err… what’s the word… oh yeah, STUPID. Why do I care who wins the Iraqi Civil War? Let the Iraqis solve their own civil war. Taking money out of my pocket at gunpoint to benefit Iran (by having our troops defend the Iranian-supported Iraqi government) is just plain dumb. I pay my taxes to benefit America and Americans, not to benefit Iraqis or Iranians or for that matter Bosnians or Darfurians (yeppers, I also opposed sending U.S. troops to Bosnia and Kosovo, WTF did that have to do with America and Americans?!).
I realize that the notion that our government is supposed to serve America and Americans, rather than some funny-talkin’ furriners overseas who pay no taxes to the IRS, is sorta heretical nowdays. What can I say. I’m old fashioned that way.
— Badtux the Politically Incorrect Penguin
Punchy
Obviously they weren’t pitbulls. Since you’re still breathing and typing and all…
Again, the distinction I’m making is not the run-of-mill dog bites. It’s agressive, fight to the death attacks that are endemic to the pitbull. Show me labs that tore a child’s arm off. Show me greyhounds that go for the neck. They don’t. Pitbulls do.
Darrell
You take that assertion as a given and then run with it as if it’s fact. Do you have links to substantiate that all, or most of the Iraqi forces are acting as sectarian militias?
I mean, we know there has been some corruption and infiltration of extremists within the Iraqi military, and efforts are/have been made to weed out the bad elements. How successful those efforts have been, and how pervasive the extremist influences are within the Iraqi military, I don’t have a good handle. Do you? If you think you do, I’d like to see links so that I can judge for myself.
ThymeZone
It’s only January 15, but so far this is Darrell’s Insulting Irony of the Year.
Look, everybody! Darrell is going to pretend to care about facts!
Dave
My how understated we are today Darrell.
ThymeZone
What do you think is going on over there, Darrell?
We’re building schools, and Starbucks?
Darrell
If use of the word “some” is such an understatement according to you, then tell us what percentage of the Iraqi military = Sadr-like militias.
Be sure and provide your links, as I’m sure you’re not the type to just make things up.. right?
Darrell
Why is it so controversial among those in the “reality based” community for me to ask for links to something that TimF asserted as a given?
demimondian
Because it’s a jackalope is why, and we’re used to it.
Now, D-boy, why don’t you go have a nice nappy.
Darrell
Now I know you’re a kook. Far from being a “jackalope”, it was the very crux of TimF’s thesis in his post.
demimondian
D-boy, really, you need a nappy. Why don’t you go up to your room and lie down.
Jake
Shorter Darrell: Do as I say, not as I do.
srv
Your absolutely right Darrell, we have always exaggerated the problems in the paradise of Iraq. That’s why it’s going so well.
I will contribute $250 myself to send you over to do a poll of IA units (outside the Green Zone). Anyone else want to help?
TenguPhule
Darrell’s Irony of the Day II.
TenguPhule
It’s still early in the year. Give him some time. I’m sure we’ll see bigger whoppers from him yet.
TenguPhule
Darrell Fails on two points.
1. There are dozens of militia running around in Iraq. We don’t have a handle on many of them because the intelligence on the ground is so poor.
2. Intentionally confusing Sadr’s forces with the rest. Just like how Darrell is unable to tell a Sunni from a Shia from a Kurd.
Ryan S.
Just do a google search. ‘Iraqi army and Militias
Here I’ll save you the trouble.
Kurdish milita Loyalty
Sadr’s Mahdi Army
and this
From here
Ryan S.
Darrell’s links are awaiting moderation.
Darrell
On what basis are you claiming our intelligence on the ground, working with Iraqis is “so poor”?
I didn’t confuse Sadr’s forces with “the rest”. What the hell are you talking about?
dslak
Which group is the one that hates us?
DougJ
Off topic, but I found a great wingnut post on a local blog, apropos of the Spocko-KSFO showdown. I think it is real:
Dress Left
MISREADING THE ENEMY
By Juan Cole
SJ Mercury News Jan 14, 2007 http://tinyurl.com/sjm4b
President Bush’s escalation of the Iraq War is premised on a profound misunderstanding of who the enemies are, how to deal with them and what the limits are of U.S. power.
The president cannot seem to let go of his fixation on Al-Qaida, a minor actor in Iraq, and his determination to confront Iran and Syria. He still assumes that the insurgents are outsiders to their neighborhoods and that U.S. troops can chase away the miscreants and keep them out, acting as a sort of neighborhood watch in khaki. In fact, Iraq’s Sunni Arab elite is playing the spoiler, and until a deal is negotiated with its members, no one will be allowed to enjoy the new Iraq.
Scholars at the American Enterprise Institute, who from the beginning spearheaded the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, express confidence that the United States, which has a $12 trillion economy, an army over a million strong, and a population of 300 million, can overwhelm Iraq. They point out that Iraq only has an economy of $100 billion, a population of 27 million, and a guerrilla movement of just tens of thousands. This comparison is deeply misleading, and it will get thousands of Americans killed.
Guerrilla movements can succeed against much wealthier, more populous and better-armed enemies, as happened in Algeria in the late 1950s through 1962 when the National Liberation Front expelled the French. The real question is not America’s supposed superiority (which so far has not brought it victory) but what exactly the resources and tactics of the enemy are and whether they can be defeated. The answer to the second question is “No.”
Who is the enemy in Iraq, exactly? In the first instance, it is some 50 major Sunni Arab guerrilla groups. These have names such as the 1920 Revolution Brigades, the Army of Muhammad, and the Holy Warrior Council. Some are rooted in the Baath party, an Arab nationalist and socialist party that had ruled Iraq since 1968. Others have a base in city quarters or in rural clans. Some are made up of fundamentalist Muslims. One calls itself “Al-Qaida” but has no real links to Osama bin Laden and his organization, and has simply adopted the name. The Baathists and neo-Baathists, led by Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri (once a right-hand man of Saddam Hussein), are probably the most important and deadliest of these guerrilla groups.
These guerrilla cells are rooted in the Sunni Arab sector, some 20 percent of Iraq’s population, which had enjoyed centuries of dominance in Iraq. From it came the high bureaucrats, the managers of companies, the officer corps, the people who know how to get things done. They know where some 200,000 remaining tons of hidden explosives are, secreted around the country by the former regime. They are for the most part unable to accept being ruled by what they see as a new government of Shiite ayatollahs and Kurdish warlords, or being occupied by the U.S. Army and Marines. These Iraqi Sunnis enjoy the support of millions of committed and sometimes wealthy co-religionists in Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the oil kingdoms of the Persian Gulf.
The Sunni Arab guerrilla cells have successfully pursued a spoiler strategy in Iraq. By engaging in assassinations, firefights and bombings, they have made it clear that if they are not happy in the new Iraq, no one is going to be. Did U.S. engineers repair electricity stations? The Sunni guerrillas sabotaged them. Did the new regime attempt to export petroleum from the northern city of Kirkuk through Turkey? The guerrillas hit the pipelines. Did the U.S. military attempt to plant 50 bases around the country? The cells targeted them for mortar attacks and roadside bombs, inflicting a steady and horrible attrition, leaving more than 25,000 GIs killed or wounded.
The Sunni guerrillas took over territory where they could, mainly concentrating on villages, towns and city quarters in the center, north and west of the country. At some points, cities like Al-Fallujah and much of Ar-Ramadi, Al-Hadithah, Samarra and Tikrit have been at least in part under their control. They have entire districts of Mosul and Baghdad. They have attempted to cut the capital off from fuel, and they steal and smuggle petroleum to support their war. In areas they only partly control, or in enemy areas, they set off bombs or send in death squads to make object lessons of opponents.
The guerrillas know they cannot fight the U.S. military head-on. But they do not need to. They know something that the Americans could not entirely understand. Iraq is a country of clans and tribes, of Hatfields and McCoys, of grudges and feuds. The clans are more important than religious identities such as Sunni or Shiite. They are more important than ethnicities such as Kurdish or Arab or Turkmen. All members of the clan are honor-bound to defend or avenge all the other members. They are bands not of brothers but of cousins.
The guerrillas mobilized these clans against the U.S. troops and against one another. Is a U.S. platoon traveling through a neighborhood of the Dulaim clan, where people are out shopping? They hit the convoy, and the panicked troops lay down fire around them. They kill members of the Dulaim clan. They are now defined as the American tribe, and they now have a feud with the Dulaim. Members of the Dulaim cannot hold their heads up high until they avenge the deaths of their cousins by killing Americans.
The guerrillas also provoke clan feuds between adherents of the two major sects of Islam, the Sunni and the Shiite. They pursue this goal with unbelievable cruelty. They will blow up a big marriage party held by a Shiite clan, killing bride, groom and revelers. They know that Muslims try to bury the dead the same day, so there will be a funeral. They blow up the funeral, too. The Shiite clan knows who the Sunni clans are that support the insurgency.
The Shiites who have been attacked then join the radical Mahdi Army out of anger and fear, and send death squads at night to take revenge on the Sunni clan. If American troops step in to stop the Shiites from taking revenge, that produces a feud between the U.S. and the Shiite clans. The ordinary Sunnis under attack from the vengeful Shiite death squads turn for protection to the Sunni guerrillas. The deliberately provoked feuds have the effect of mobilizing the Sunni Arabs and garnering their support for the guerrillas.
The guerrillas have opened fronts against the Americans, against the police and army of the new government and against the Shiites. There is a third front, in Mosul and Kirkuk, against the Kurds. The guerrillas hit Kirkuk’s oil pipelines, police, political party headquarters and ordinary Kurds in hopes of keeping the Kurdistan Regional Government from annexing oil-rich Kirkuk to itself.
U.S. soldiers cannot stop the Sunni Arab guerrilla cells from setting bombs or assassinating people. That is clear after nearly four years. And since they cannot stop them, they also are powerless to halt the growing number of intense clan and religious feuds. The United States cannot stop the sabotage that hurts petroleum exports in the north and stops electricity from being delivered for more than a few hours a day.
President Bush in his speech Wednesday imagined that guerrillas were coming into neighborhoods in Baghdad and in the cities of Al-Anbar province from the outside. He suggested that, as the solution to this problem, U.S. and Iraqi troops should clear them out and then hold the city quarters for some time, to stop them from coming back. But the guerrillas are not outsiders. They are the people of those city quarters, who keep guns in their closets and come out masked at night to engage in killing and sabotage.
Bush believes that $1 billion invested in a jobs program will generate employment that would make young men less likely to succumb to the blandishments of the guerrilla recruiters. But without security you cannot have a thriving economy of the sort that produces jobs, and any money you put into such a situation will just be frittered away. The guerrillas often make $300 a month, a very good salary in today’s Iraq. There is little likelihood that Bush’s jobs program will generate many jobs that will draw Iraqis away from their guerrilla groups and militias. For a lot of them, serving is a matter of neighborhood protection or ideological commitment. Not everything is about money.
Another reason that Bush’s $1 billion for jobs is not that impressive is that Iran is offering Iraq $1 billion in aid as well. And guerrillas in the southern port of Basra are estimated to be stealing and smuggling $2 billion a year from the city’s oil facilities. Add all that sort of thing up, and the United States is being outspent by a wide margin.
Since the Sunni Arab guerrillas cannot be defeated or stopped from provoking massive clan feuds that destabilize the country, there is only one way out of the quagmire. The United States and the Shiite government of Iraq must negotiate a mutually satisfactory settlement with the Sunni Arab guerrilla leaders. Those talks would be easier if the guerrillas would form a civil political party to act as their spokesman. They should be encouraged to do so. Their first and most urgent demand is that the United States set a timetable for withdrawal of its troops. The United States should take them up on their offer to talk once a timetable is announced.
Bush’s commitment of more than 20,000 troops is intended to address only one of the guerrillas’ tactics, taking and holding neighborhoods. At that, he is concentrating on only a small part of the Sunni Arab territories. The guerrillas do not need to hold such neighborhoods to continue to engage in sabotage and the provocation of artificial feuds.
As long as the Sunni Arabs of Iraq are so deeply unhappy, they will simply generate more guerrillas over time. Bush is depending on military tactics to win a war that can only be won by negotiation.
Ryan S.
While my links are moderating, here’s some accounts of life with militias.
Jake
Fixed.
ThymeZone
Again we are reminded, it’s not easy being Darrell.
Tsulagi
Exactly. And that’s been such fun, let’s do more of that for them. Because you see, if you’re Decider Man you can never fuck up TOO much. There’s always wriggle room for more from the master of low expectations.
Likely scenario coming up? Maliki, Hakim, and others in the Shia majority government tell dipshit and our military commanders Sunni areas need to be hit first. Reasoning being if Sunni insurgents are vanquished and no longer a threat, Shia militias would then disarm. Riiiight.
If there is resistance from U.S. commanders not buying the bullshit, Maliki and Hakim will remind them they now have operational control of their troops. They will order them to Sunni areas with or without us. But not to worry, dipshit would go along with it. Anything that eats up time on the two-year clock is fine with him. Sadr goes to Costco for a lot more popcorn.
Then it will get good. Shiite
militiaIAs start kicking doors in Sunni neighborhoods while we back them up. While clearing areas of insurgents who didn’t get enough advance notice, IAs will probably continue their endearing ways of clearing homes of anything valuable during search operations. That is if they’re feeling upbeat that day; if not, or the valuables owners complain, well then alternative uses for drill bits can be found. But hey, that just increases the number of dead ‘insurgents.’ One body closer to victory.Once IAs, mostly Shia, start clearing the Sunni districts, you can pretty much bet there will be more shit hitting the fan blades. It would escalate. Shia will die too, but in a civil war of attrition, they got more. Maliki will say the government can’t confront Shia militias to disarm until the Saddam Baathists (a term they use for all Sunni) are put down.
Meanwhile, Cheney in an undisclosed location will be cackling about his 80% solution. Dipshit in TX will be enjoying barbeque as time gets eaten off the clock. Those leading Iran will be thanking Allah for the retard wondering if they could finance a drive here to repeal the 22nd Amendment. They’ll be shouting “Four more years!!”
Mike
Punchy,
I seriously suggest you watch “The Dog Whisperer”. He might just change your opinion about pit bulls, since he keeps a large number of them in a perfectly happy group with lots of other types of dogs.
Darrell
One thing you have in common with TimF and John Cole is your aggressive certainty as to how things will play out. (anyone who disagrees is a ‘wingnut’ mindset).
If it doesn’t go down like this, are you willing to post again to admit you were a f*cking idiot, an extremely clueless, arrogant idiot for making such aggressive assertions without knowing what you’re talking about. Or will you just slither away as if you never posted such a thing?
Tom in Texas
As soon as you admit being such an idiot on your actual miscalculations concerning Iraq up to this point, I am sure that others will admit hypothetical future miscalculations when and if they occur.
Darrell
Dickweed, care to elaborate as to my “miscalculations” concerning Iraq? Please be specific and provide actual quotes or have the stones to come back and admit you just pulled it out of your ass.
Tsulagi
Ah, if it isn’t the junior achieving Butt Boy for Bush. Apparently another trait you share with your Retard God is an inability to read and comprehend.
I started my second paragraph with “Likely scenario coming up?” I would provide links to explain “likely” to you, but I seriously doubt they’d help.
Don’t worry, I understand. Dipshit didn’t give a catchy slogan for his new whatever. You don’t have anything like stay the course or they stand up, we stand down to repeat over and over. You’re directionless. Must be disconcerting for a Bill Bennett/Foley man in that situation.
Tom in Texas
Well it would appear you (and quite a few others) miscalculated the amount of usable WMD’s Iraq had prior to our invasion. Now many of those who erred have owned up to their mistake, among them the proprietor of this blog. You have proven yourself incapable of admitting error. Thus, I find immense irony in the fact that you are calling for others to preemptively admit they may have made a mistake about something that hasn’t occurred yet — particularly when those you are calling out admit to making the same mistakes you refuse to acknowledge having made, much less apologize for.
Darrell
Tom must be looking for his stones.
Darrell
Yes, including most leading Democrats. Given the evidence, do you blame us?
Oh my Tom, “immense” irony? You see, the poster I was mocking/challenging was making aggressive predictions with not much basis, just idiocy. Whereas ‘everyone’ in the know thought Saddam had WMDs. If that’s my miscalculation, I own up to it. I wish others would have the integrity to do the same.
jake
So many ironies in the fire.
chopper
darrell, why are you so obsessed with mens’ balls? something you’re ashamed of we need to know about?
Tom in Texas
We did own up Darrell. That’s why we want out. The American people, who initally were in favor of this war, are opposed to additional troops, and 60% are in favor of a resolution opposing this action by Bush. It is nice to see you finally admit some errors in judgement, but you are late to the parade. John and most who originally supported the war admitted their errors long ago.
And as to “making aggressive predictions with not much basis, just idiocy” I can think of a few examples that come from a lot higher than John Cole to illustrate this. The war will pay for itself anyone?
chopper
i can show you a lab that ripped a woman’s face off.. how’s that?
scarshapedstar
Imagine, if you will, George Bush walking into an Iraqi bazaar and trying to purchase, I don’t know, some kind of souvenir. They’d get him to fork over $15,000 for a pullover, and he wouldn’t even realize it.
And now he thinks he can enslave the country without anyone noticing. Jesus.
demimondian
Punchy, you’re wrong here. I loved dogs as a child, but no longer do, as I have this insane affection for breathing. I very quickly developed an antipathy to things which make me unable to breathe, despite their total innocence of intent or malice.
Pugs, bulldogs, etc., really are nothing more than dogs. Inbred ones do attack, but that has nothing to do with the breed, but rather the broken breed. Collies and other heavily “modified” breeds have many of the same problems. (In the day, poodles used to have the same reputation, for exactly the same reason.)
Save your venom for the owners, most of whom have abused and terrorized the animals. They’re the ones who’ve done somethign wrong here.
Darrell
Who the f*ck is “we”. Virtually all the posters at BJ now try and assert that Bush ‘lied’ us into war. I’m not talking about 1 or 2 whackjobs, but literally most posting here. Will you admit that?
Jonathan
Does everyone know that Rumsfeld threatened to fire anyone who even mentioned planning for the occupation phase of the Iraq invasion?
Tom in Texas
We is America Darrell. Quite a few among us believe that Bush did lie us into Iraq etc. etc. Most of us were in favor of the war, however. America as a whole owned up to her colossal mistake in November. We are still waiting for some among us to catch up.
Darrell
If you’re going to make that claim, then square it with this, or just admit you’re a lying hypocrite.
Jonathan
Pentagon planners estimate that casualties will increase with escalation and adoption of new tactics in Iraq.
RSA
You make it sound as if this is some sort of minority opinion. Check the polls. Here’s a Newsweek poll question from late September, 2006:
“Deliberately misled” gets 58%; “Don’t think so”, 41%. Other recent polls produce pretty much the same breakdown. Implying that only BJ whackjobs could hold such an opinion is pretty divorced from reality. That is, the belief that Bush lied us into Iraq is not just held by most posting here, but by most Americans.
Paddy O'Shea
Bush didn’t lie us into a war in Iraq. He just made one of the stupidest and most irresponsible mistakes in the history of this or any other sovereign nation.
Feel better, Darrell?
But that said, I am amongst those who think the little POS lied.
Jonathan
Darrell:
What do you think of Rummy threatening to fire anyone who dared mention planning for the occupation? You know, the part that has turned into the mother of all FUBARs.
The Other Steve
Yup. Iraq was invaded for political gain. I say let the Republicans bear the cross they so desperately wanted.
Steve
It’s because of threads like these that I no longer wonder how Nixon still had a 25% approval rating when he resigned.
RSA
I wonder if Nixon supporters claimed he was still a very popular President, toward the end?
RSA
I wonder if Nixon supporters claimed he was still a very popular President, toward the end?
rachel
I see that Darrell the Dunderheaded Greased Weasel is once again wrestling with reality.
craigie
You keep waving that link around like it’s a get out of jail free card, but it isn’t. Even if I put you on the 30-yard-line by granting that, in fact, everybody “knew” that Saddam had nukes (which, let’s face it, is what the phrase “WMD” is meant to invoke, without actually saying it), you still can’t score. Bush is still a big fat liar.
I’m too lazy to build the linkfest, but from “I’m a uniter, not a divider” onward, everything he’s said (yellowcake, aluminum tubes, I haven’t decided whether to invade, we’ve never been about stay the course, we found the mobile weapons labs, bla bla fucking bla) has been a lie. He’s just a sociopath and a liar (and this isn’t just about Iraq – from Social Security to Katrina, he just can’t tell the goddamn truth).
The only honest thing he’s ever said is that we’re not leaving Iraq while he’s President. Because staying is winning and leaving is losing.
Biden believing Saddam had WMB doesn’t make Bush honest. But keep clinging to that.
Steve
Matt Yglesias posted this interesting link the other day on the subject of whether “Clinton did it too.”
Steve
Also some very interesting discussion in the comments.
srv
Now? There you go lying again. I haven’t ever changed my tune. We weren’t protesting before the war because we thought Bush was telling us the truth, dumbass. We knew he was lying about the threat, about aluminum tubes, drones flying across the Atlantic and dispersing bioweapons, Cheney’s “reconstituted nuclear weapons” crap, his Atta springtime in Prague crap, Rummy’s first week “we know where they are” (if you knew where they were, what the fuck were you doing not bombing them or sending inspectors there before the war?)…
Darrell, I’m not saying you lied. You are lying. Just like your hero. You measure “truth” by what Dems had to parrot in the 90’s to look tough on Saddam – funny how you wingnuts always selectively reference Hillary, Gore and OBL whenever convenient and bash them when not.
Obviously, since you didn’t ever learn how to read properly, our expectations of coherent logic are too big an expectation.
Steve
Just a note to say I don’t think the Dems get a free pass for this sort of thing. I think we all understand the political realities for why politicians take certain positions, but that doesn’t mean they’re excused. You’re responsible for what comes out of your mouth, you don’t get to be like “wah wah, the meanie Republicans would have demonized me otherwise.”
The issue is that when you play along with these little games, you enable the agenda on the other side. If Clinton doesn’t hype up the threat of Saddam during the 90s, does Bush have a harder time selling the war? If Johnson wasn’t so worried about appearing “soft on Communism” when he took office, do we get stuck in Vietnam for another decade? When you shade the truth for political gain, you have to accept some responsibility for the consequences.
dslak
From Tuesday’s edition of Salon:
Paul Wartenberg
dslak is quoting from a Salon article that also asks why there isn’t as strong an antiwar protest out there than the Vietnam era. I mean, we’ve got over 65 percent of the population opposing the war, and the streets are empty of protests demanding our troops return from Iraq, of protests demanding for accountability for our losses, and of protests questioning all the war profiteering going on by this administration.
Isn’t there supposed to be a street protest, finally, coming up Jan. 27th? Why isn’t there more on the blogs about this?
Jill
The only thing that will bring people out into the streets is the reinstatement of the draft.
dslak
What’s the percentage of Americans who oppose protesting things? Has Ann Althouse written something about this? Protesting sounds quite partisan.
demimondian
No, they claimed that his crimes were all made up by the press.
srv
Yeah, it’s pretty well demonstrated that the people could care less about American foreign policy until they’re asked to start dying for it.
Ryan S.
Did anyone catch that bit on recruitment goals on the Daily Show? Did they really lower the goal to 700 for december?
srv
I’m sure the numbers for January will be good then. Had a plane full of recruits going to Ft. Sill from Florida just after New Years.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
This should be the death-blow to the Bush Lied crowd (I mean, it would be if Big Media had any interest in all at ending the Bush Lied meme which they have so ably spread — I’m not so deluded as to think that any Big Media outlet will breathe a single word of this story). Since Clinton’s tenure is far enough removed, a few on the left are finally (after four years of My Ilk constantly saying so and being told we were addleminded fucktards) admitting that Clinton and Kerry and the Democrats were the first to “lie” about Iraq’s WMD threat, as far back as 1997 (while the reports now say Iraq had no WMD or active WMD programs since soon after 1991).
So since it’s OK to throw Bill and John under the bus now (in fact, if you think Hillary can’t win in ’08, it might be a must-throw situation), it’s safe to say publically, as Mother Jones and Matt Yglesias do, that “Clinton lied, TOO!” [Note: So wait, Matt said everybody who said “Clinton did it!” four years ago was a lying fascist stooge of the Bushinistas — but when Mother Jones says it now, all of a sudden it’s finally Truth To Power? Any further evidence of Matt’s hackdom is now rendered surplus to requirements]
So here’s what they’re asking us to believe: Both Clinton and Bush knew there was no real threat of WMD, but they said so anyway to bolster their positions. Both parties since 1997 had endless strings of Congresspeople (some of whom — Biden, Edwards and Gephardt among them — professed to have done independent investigations of the Administrations’ claims and reached the same exact conclusions) to back up the claim that Saddam had WMD and was going to use them eventually.
So each side knew that the other side was lying, and yet we’re supposed to believe that neither side had even one candidate who used as a campaign issue the fact that it knew the other guy (and the leader of the other party) was “lying” about a national security issue that was resulting in dead bodies? Are people who believe this from this planet? This would have had to have been the biggest bipartisan conspiracy (and a perfect one at that, with no leaks and no whistleblowers) in the history of the US. Oh, but there was such a strong bipartisan spirit in those Clinton Years (Democratic History Book version), wasn’t there? United, not divided, and all that.
This is tinfoil hat material. Occam would rightly suggest that it’s far more likely that secret spying on secret programs sometimes will get you a false result. It’s not necessary to lie to be wrong. Clinton didn’t lie. Bush didn’t lie. Tenet didn’t lie. Edwards and Gephardt didn’t lie. France didn’t lie. Russia didn’t lie. Germany didn’t lie. They were all just wrong because of bad intel.
TenguPhule
Given that your masters cherrypicked the intelligence and went to great lengths to poison the well when it came to anyone saying differently, yes.
Yes, Bush *LIED* through his teeth claiming they had recent intelligence on Saddam’s programs…rather then old reports 5 *YEARS* out of date. But then, Darrells are very good at cherrypicking out of date reports to back up their bullshit.
TenguPhule
When his words say one thing and his actions another, I do believe that falls under the definition of a liar.
TenguPhule
Hey ThymeZone, I told you it wouldn’t take Darrell long to reach a new Irony of the Year(tm) milestone.
TenguPhule
https://balloon-juice.com/index.php?paged=225
Every post and claim Darrell has ever made on Iraq from there to here. And I suspect that’s just a fraction of it.
srv
Idiot of the day, lambchop. Do you believe that we’re winning the War on Drugs? Do you believe we need more cops? Do you believe we need a bigger military AND need to balance the budget?
It’s one thing to say alot of crap. It’s what politicians do. It’s a completely different thing to invade a country based on that crap.
Jonathan
Colin Powell stated in Feb, 2001 that:
So, was Powell lying in Feb 2002?
jake
Duh! How can they satisfy their pie habit if they don’t pick a lot of cherries?