Bush Flirting With Disaster In Iraq

Ultimately the state of affairs in Iraq less than two years from now will determine the immediate fate of Bush 43's reputation as President. And while glimmers of reasons for hope emerge around a strategy to be announced this week, one might just as easily conclude it is simply more of the same.

The administration will announce a series of goals for Iraq sometime after a Bush address; however, there is little new there. One possible bright spot, though as yet undefined, might be a change in the rules of engagement. Whether they allow for the US to take on the Mahdi Army militia of Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr is a debatable point, as the Iraqis may opt for a deployment strategy that prevents any such confrontation from taking place.

"Mr. Bush’s plan would “include more specific goals, different rules of engagement and different expectations for cooperation with the Iraqi government.”

The chief challenge in Iraq remains a political one and despite all of the talk, there is little Bush seems to be able to do to influence that central issue. It seems Crittenden has all but given up the ghost.

Support for the war in Iraq is not growing. In fact, it is most likely shrinking everyday. Bush has one final chance to get it right. But if the political stars are not aligned correctly in Baghdad, no amount of American effort is going to create a secular government from a majority Shi'ite led coalition which has, thus far, refused to put their sectarian bias aside.

If young America soldiers continue to die for an Iraqi government which won't stand up for true democratic freedoms for all of its citizens, it will not be very long until even many diehard supporters of the war demand our troops come home. I say that as I remain one ... for now.

Troops would include Kurdish Iraqi army units from northern Iraq and some Sunni battalions to reassure Baghdad’s Sunni minority that they were not being specifically targeted, Mr Osman said.

But he was sceptical about whether Mr al-Maliki or other Iraqi government leaders, Sunni or Shia, were serious about confronting armed militants belonging to their own religious communities.

He said: “I think the problem . . . is political rather than military or security. The religious and political leadership are not willing . . . to stop their militias.”

Comments

[ajacksonian]

From what I can see is that the Nation has the finest Troubleshooters on the planet. That said the Problem Solving side needed to put in place understanding of what America stands for, why it stands for those things and then implementing policy and goals based on that understanding is not only lacking now, but has been lacking for going on two decades now.

Decrying war as 'not getting the job done' requires one to actually tell what the damned job IS that you expect to be done. Saying that American combat deaths aren't 'worth it' does nothing to define what is being looked at as a methodology to achieve those things that are 'worth it'. Running is no longer an option in this small world of ours, and will surely give the enemies of Liberty and Freedom chance to show that tyranny is better than Liberty and make gains on them.

I have yet to hear anyone, on either "side" of the Political spectrum (funny how the spectrum turns into black and white, isn't it? such a great thing for Free People with all options open to limit themselves to the number of '2') has put forth what long term goals America has, what America stands for, why we stand for such things, who we will stand with, and what the goals and objectives of those things are in the long run. No coherent Foreign Policy has been stated since the Truman Administration for an over-arching view of America and her place in the world. That vision of Truman finally ended with the end of the USSR and nothing since then has arisen to take its place.

We hear much from 'wonks' in specialist areas in this or that realm, and much from lobbyists of that or this coalition/ethnicity/business outlook, but we hear very, very, very little on what it means to have a Nation in this day and age and what it means to be an American. If you don't know those things, then how can any loss of life, anywhere, be put into terms that can be comprehended?

I have yet to hear that in the *positive* from *anywhere*: Liberal, Conservative, Democrat, Republican, and all the scattershot parties and ideologies and punditry and so on and on. To get up and denounce something, one must *stand* upon something. Those that denounce have no standing as they have no coherent and positive view, only negativity and abstraction.

Our enemies have simple, clear and objective goals: they want Empire and will go through any size body count to get it. Their scope is global. They want absolute dominion. They make no bones about following no laws, no international agreements and no ethical standard. All of those are weakness to them and they will kill any that stand in their way without compunction or remorse.

Negativity *now* helps them and is lethal to Liberty and Freedom in the long run.

You cannot solve the problem if you are unable or unwilling to state it and deal with it.

And that kills as assuredly as does a bullet... or the enemy's sword at your neck.

[Sniper One]

Lets give Lt. Gen. Petraeus a chance to get the ball rolling. Bush has made him the go to guy, and many are saying he's the guy who can fix it.

That's a hellva lot a pressure on one man. However if he can solve the Gordian Knot (that is Iraq), like Alexander of old, then more power to him.

[MinorRipper]

Well it certainly would have helped if we had a Commander in Chief who was aware of the different sects of Islam (sunni/shia) before he launched this ill-fated war, wouldn't it have??

[yyy]

Im sorry, now we're going to have goals for Iraq? WTF did we have before?

What in god's name are a paltry 9,000 more troops going to do for Iraq's stability?

Just like you nutters, the Bush administration is incapable of learning anything from past mistakes, all they can think about is how to control the message and the media...they have it backwards like you folks do...they think if they can find the perfect message and control the media then success will follow, but war isn't like a politcal campaign, you have to get the successes first and then the good PR will follow.

[Phoenix]

Why, Why, Why....

You are the most annoying broken record. Take a time out and go read Marshall McLuhan. Then come back and report for duty with the answers to your relentless 'whys'.

[basils]

I think the video of Saddam's hanging was so telltale of the social norm there, especially after Bush called to invade, then divide, then DECIDE that Iraq MUST have democracy (in the name of???). Oh what progress we've made for the sake of 'freedom'! Oops, but wait! Let's send more troops so we can be assured!! It's called, 'fuck you America, I only have another year". What a plan.

Gosh, and to think JFK got gunned down.....where the hell is Cat when we need him? I'm thinking about a good islam punk song called, 'get the fuck out'

[Oregonian]

"Flirting" with disaster?

You're running about three years behind the times. It was flirting with disaster to cherry-pick intelligence, ignore world opinion, banish dissent, browbeat the nation with talk of "mushroom clouds," cut taxes in a time of national crisis, and invade a country without enough troops to control it. All of that was flirting, but we're way past that stage.

Bush has now married disaster, gone to bed with it, and spawned a whole brood of bouncy new disasters that will bedevil our children for decades to come.

It sounds like you are slowly - oh, so slowly - waking up to the realization that Al Gore was right. Welcome to the real world.