There are just three brief points concerning the president's speech tonight that, it seems, call into question the level of judgment - or the motives - involved.
First of all, it has been reported that, from a military logistical standpoint, an increase of 20,000 or 21,500 troops, actually results in the addition of only 5,000 soldiers on patrol at any one point in time, the general rule of thumb being a four to one ratio in that respect. This is one of the reasons why military experts have said that this level of additional troops for all of Iraq would be inneffective.
Secondly, we now have 140,000 troops in Iraq and the proposed surge would bring the strength to about 160,000. The point here, quite simply, is that we have had more than 160,000 soldiers deployed in Iraq at times in the past. It did not work then, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that it will work now.
Finally, the president's aggressive comments regarding Syria, and particularly Iran, should be of concern to the majority of Americans who want to see our involvement in the war wind down rather than expand.
Last weekend the Sunday Times of London reported that Israel is preparing to attack several bases in Iran associated with that country's nuclear program, using nuclear bunker busters supplied by the United States. Israel denied the story, of course, but - after tonight - the possibility suddenly seems to have more validity.
Despite the historic mess that his decisions have created, this president is still, somehow, allowed to be the "decider." And it is even more chilling to realize that his advisors continue to be the neocons whose well known agenda involves, not only an escalation in the Iraq war, but also - and more importantly - an eventual showdown with Iran.
Nowhere in the picture we now see is there the hint of an attempt at the type of diplomatic solution recommended by the Iraq Study Group and many others. What we are now looking at is an increase in the level of carnage, many more military deaths, and a possible expansion of the hostilities outside of Iraq.
At this point one must either question the president's judgement, or wonder whose interests he and/or his advisors are representing. It certainly does not appear to be the interests of the United States.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 32
I would quibble with quite a bit, but generally a great article.
The one thing that bothered me more was Bush's effort by inference to link 9/11 and Iraq yet again. He does this in most major speeches. If asked directly he disavows this belief, but he does this all the time. It works as many Americans fervently believe there is a connection.
Good write up, btw
Mr. President: I listened to your speech to the nation, tonight, and realized you may have a problem getting the number of troops you are gonna need to get rid of all the bad boys in the Middle East…I am glad you finally have admitted there have been mistakes, and the way things are now is not acceptable to you or the American public. By the American Public I am assuming you are talking about all the conservatives and the Right wing Christian community that voted for you and still supports you...….so I just want to say, "don't get discouraged…and don't worry about where you are going to come up with the number of new troops you feel you need"…
"Send one of those "America Wants You" draft notices to all those registered folks who voted for you and stand behind you and your decisions regarding this war and not leaving…I am sure they would like to help you in any way they can....they believe in what you are doing…so You just stand tall and lead them like a true commander in chief you are." All I can say is....."Go get um cowboy"!
The Iran news, if Israel has in fact acquired bunker-buster nukes, is terrifying. If Israel launches this attack, the consequences will make the Iraq war look like child's play by comparison.
Logistically, if a civil war explodes, our troops couldn't be supplied by air with more than 25% of what is necessary (oil, food etc)to maintain combat fitness. They probably couldn't get out of Iraq. This has been a concern for over a year.
Kevin S.: The proper timing for impeachment would have been when the country learned that Bush had lied about all of the reasons for going to war in Iraq in the first place or when his no-warrant domestic spying program was exposed. It's just too late now and the result would be another gridlock. Hell, the House has passed more significant legislation in the past two days than the previous congress did in the past two years.
Bush wants 9/11 ties to Iraq in people's minds because it adds a further justification in his mind to his war.
What do we do? How can we stop this insanity? I'd really rather not end up vaporised because GW wanted to get his own way at any cost!
Senator Dick Durbin, chosen spokesperson for the dems, says, "The Commander in Chief has extraordinary authority to move troops to certain places in the world and the President is going to use that authority. First we will bring before Congress the questions about policy, have a debate, come to a conclusion as to whether the policy is supported by congress, and then watch for the reaction from the people and from the president." When asked by reporters what the BEST part of the speech was, Durbin said, "now Maliki is engaged [acccording to the presiden], and the president has been impatient with Maliki, and its about time."
Thanks, DICK -- YOU GO. The fresh new troops and the old worn out beaten up ones will just be patient while you sort it all out. I AM SO DISGUSTED.
Kim C.
Don't be depressed, get out your pitchfork, garden hoe and your taser and join the local protest group. A Draft is in the works. The only reason it's not up and running is because we're not quite conditioned enough and they're so freaking incompetent.
David,
David Gergen and Joe Klein both commented on the belligerence in Bush's speech with regard to the blood and violence we can expect in the coming year and the bits about having the carriers and patriot missiles, etc. The latter perhaps for all the times he's been ridiculed for the premature "mission accomplished." [Bush is not the kind of man who forgives and forgets -- all part of the syndrome.] Gergen, no raving liberal, has made numerous allusions and references to some of the same things Woodward referred to in his book.
I'm sure Negroponte's experience in Latin America will stand Rice in good stead re how to foment -- she's so programmed.
Be careful where you bank and don't be doing any of it by Mail!
I wonder what's to become of the 14 permanent U.S. military bases after "the Iraqis stand up and we stand down," and there is a "free and stable Iraq" that is "an ally in the war on terror?" (Assuming that these are real goals and not just some pipe dream that the Administration conjured up to retroactively justify the invasion/occupation of a sovereign nation that didn't have the capability to threaten their immediate neighbors let alone the U.S. homeland.)
I don't understand what part of the basics of international politics our leaders missed out on in school. What we've done is completely contrary to that goal.
BTW, I'm not happy with the idea that it's oil, oil, oil but if you take the pragmatic point of view based on the idea that we need safety and a strong economy.....
..."Bush's effort...to link 9/11 and Iraq yet again. He does this in most major speeches. If asked directly he disavows this belief, but he does this all the time."
Carolyn G., I am so glad that you noted this. The man is shameless in his deceit and dishonesty.
The Nazis did a few other things that irked the world.
David,
//Finally, the president's aggressive comments regarding Syria, and particularly Iran, should be of concern to the majority of Americans who want to see our involvement in the war wind down rather than expand.
Last weekend the Sunday Times of London reported that Israel is preparing to attack several bases in Iran associated with that country's nuclear program, using nuclear bunker busters supplied by the United States. Israel denied the story, of course, but - after tonight - the possibility suddenly seems to have more validity.//
Lindsey Graham was fairly beside himself with enthusiasm for "the plan" [Graham, the guy who galloped over the hill with McCain at his side to rescue the president from excesses re Military Commissions Act -- they probably chatted about quite a few things while they were there.
Senator Sessions asked General Pace whether he realized the inadequacy of the prisoner bed spaces ['bed' space?] in Iraq, saying that the 10,000 spaces available in Iraq are only one/ninth of the spaces in his home state, for example. "We cannot have a catch and release or revolving door policy. You do realize we'll have to have a place to put them?" "Yes Sir. after you mentioned this problem to the president the other day, Sec. Rice and I agreed that it was a high priority matter that needs to be addressed." Daddy's little helpers, helped along by Joe Lieberman.
I daresay the new and improved GITMO is being readied for overflow.
Well, no. their allies did bomb Pearl Harbor. The Nazi threat to the national interest was pretty clear. Having a country headed by a maniac conquer the world wouldn't have been good for us. You've got to remember that Jews, Gypsies, and Poles were just the beginning of the Nazi plan to eliminate "Non-Aryans."
Saddam Hussein didn't have anything to do with the attack on the World Trade Center. Don't lose sight of that.
Sure, terrorism is a threat. The idea that we can eliminate it through conventional war is laughable. Many wealthy nations have had the same experience with guerilla war.
There's no doubt that the various terrorist groups would love to wipe out the infidels. First they have to put aside their differences so they can work together. Next they have to get a lot more money than they have now. As long as we can keep them apart and relatively poor we're probably in good shape. We'll never solve the problem unless we forget about the hysteria the present administration creates and concentrate on practical solutions.
BTW, we won WWII by having more money than the Axis. Eventually they couldn't keep up with us in munition and food production. It's like gambling. All other things being equal the player with the most money to start with has the best chance of winning.