President Bush has yet to present his new strategy on Iraq and not surprisingly the Democratic Congressional leaders are signaling that they will fight any plan that calls for deploying more US troops.
The President made a decision to attack Iraq with a stated goal of eliminating weapons of mass destruction and remove the Saddam regime. He accomplished that goal. He continues with dogged determination to risk American assets and lives to create an Iraqi Democracy. There is no evidence that the Iraqis themselves have any more interests beyond achieving a reasonable degree of security. Security can be achieved and the US has a responsibility to assist in that goal.
Most experts on the Middle East advised against the Iraq venture. The President's father through Jim Baker tried to get him to moderate his Iraq democracy ambition. Some of the Nation's top brass has as well. The President believes in some alchemy that will turn lead into gold. If the Iraqis some day decide they want to become a democracy that will be well and good. In the meantime President Bush is going to be given a reminder about democracy. Elections mean something and losing them has consequences.
The Democrats have signaled they are available and willing to exercise their newly achieved authority. That should be a sobering experience for the President. That is the way it works. Standing alone can lead to greatness or calamity. It is an all or nothing risk.
More on the Kurds:ReplyDelete
Kurds threaten to uphold the Iraqi constitution
I think you overestimate the amount of people who opposed it from the beginning from a realist or conservative perspective. This is especially true insofar as criticism that gained ground in the press and 'debate' were concerned. Scott Ritter got more airtime than James Baker and Pat Buchanan combined.ReplyDelete
The country would have been better of had the debate taken on such characteristics, but it wasn't.
...On the other hand, the doctrinaire realists are also pretty useless in the wider war.ReplyDelete
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.ReplyDelete
Cutler, your point is well taken. I would have been more accurate in stating most experts "from" the Middle East than"on"......ReplyDelete
I have to be careful with you guys.
Stay the Course on steroids.ReplyDelete
A round on me.
Here is to hope!
The Good Admiral points the way.ReplyDelete
CENTCOM is going to a sea-based force.
We will see if the future AFRICACOM does the same.
Thomas Barnett up now on Hewitt:ReplyDelete
re: "The Good Admiral"
Are you sincere?
Have you seen Oak Leaf's take?
The next post is about Fallon and at the end I have some idle speculation about the future military which coincides with Trish's comment about the Admiral pointing the way to a Sea Force.ReplyDelete
Next up on Hewitt:ReplyDelete
Hugh replays McCain's BS re:
That he spewed on Bennet's show last nite.
He's polished his BS since last run, but it's still BS.
He and Ted Kennedy agree on what's best for this country that he and Ted and Bush are giving away as fast as possible.
bout time for you to start posting whatever dirt you have on Big John.
Have you seen Roggio's piece today about the proliferation of the Taliban and a'Q in western Pakistan?
Talibanistan Expands further into the NWFP
Maybe Trish thinks the Chicom's will help since they are "on board" in Fallon's New (Age) Navy?ReplyDelete
I read the Roggio link. I'm not surprised. Cancer spreads if left untreated.
I've said for awhile now that Musharraf has for all practical purposes, checked out.
I believe that we'll see a change in his attitude; that is granting us more permissions. Hope he doesn't wait too long.
These Fallon comments are walking all over my next post.ReplyDelete
Whit is front and center.ReplyDelete
next thread is up.ReplyDelete