--

Bush can't buy a break, Iraqi's arent doing so well

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070710/D8Q9EA400.html

"Official: Iraq Gov't Missed All Targets"

Even if Bush were the most evil, incompetent fool out there;  you would figure he would get a couple of positive news stories.  Apparently not.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
July 10th, 2007 3:50am
thats something that amazes me as well.  I honestly cant figure it out.

the only thing that makes sense to me is if no one in his administration gave a shit about those targets, including him.

but Im not sure where to take that theory.

I dont think he and the rest of his administration really understand arabs at all.  I think perhaps they are being led to chase ghosts while trying to fix things in Iraq.

I think they are screwed.
Permalink Send private email zestyZucchini 
July 10th, 2007 3:55am
You know, this really is one of the most amazing military failures of all time.

We have such overwhelming force against them, and they are unorganized, untrained, and with not even 1/100,000 of the resources we have, and yet we are not even advancing a tiny bit, but things are steadily getting worse.

It's the military's fault here. Not the ground soldiers, but the leadership and intelligence staff. The CIA/NSA has NO presence in that area and the hardly have anyone who can even speak Arabic.

US military is NOT all that. We spend fuckloads of cash on all this technology for bombing the shit out of people and that's ALL that we can do, just bomb bomb bomb. Remember when they were looking for Saddam and they kept blowing up restaurants and stuff where he might be, killing hundreds of civilians each time. What a major fuck up that was when all it SHOULD have taken was one competent sniper on the fucking ground, directed by ONE intelligence agent who wasn't a spoiled fuck up incompetent.

But nooooo, we can't even do that.

We can blame this shit on Bush all we want, but the next president is going to get the same intelligence people and the same military people and they can swap them out for new ones and it won't do any good because there AREN'T any people who know what they are doing any more. That was decades ago that people were competent.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 10th, 2007 4:00am
US entered WWII in December 1941, right? Then we fought the Nazis AND the Japanese simultaneously in about 30 different countries at once. It was all over a few years later.

Here we are SIX years into the 'war on terror' and NOTHING has been accomplished. Things are getting worse, going backwards. Bush keeps thinking this is going to be a 1 month war. Well, this is a 1 month war repeated 72 times now.

The thing to do in 2001 would be to establish scholarships:

"Interested in studying Arabic and middle eastern studies? Uncle Sam has FULL scholarships for 10,000 students, including room and board. Upon completion of your studies with a B average, you will receive a $100,000 bonus if you join intelligence services for a 5 year tour, or a $200,000 bonus if you graduate with an A."
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 10th, 2007 4:15am
Send 'em hoors, thousands 'n thousands of hoors
Permalink Billx 
July 10th, 2007 4:18am
"We can blame this shit on Bush all we want, but the next president is going to get the same intelligence people and the same military people"

not if the next president is smart.  part of bushs problem is that all the competent, forthright generals etc were sidelined right at the beginning because they told him what to expect.

the people in this administration has no interest in the truth, it has an interest only in people whose opinions agree with their own.  this attitude creates a certain atmosphere.

basically I believe bush is sowing what he reaped.
Permalink Send private email zestyZucchini 
July 10th, 2007 4:19am
If the objectives were to deny others' access to the oil and keep oil prices high while your buddies harvest windfall profits then things are going swimmingly, mmmkay?
Permalink trollop 
July 10th, 2007 4:19am
ayup.
Permalink Send private email zestyZucchini 
July 10th, 2007 4:20am
"the competent, forthright generals etc were sidelined right at the beginning because they told him what to expect"

No, they were more accurate, but not more competent. More competent would KNOW HOW TO WIN A WAR. Just saying winning is impossible, let me go back to my sunny beach house, that's not an indication of military skill.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 10th, 2007 4:29am
Maybe the winning strategy was demand an unconditional surrender in 24 hrs or we nuke the fuck out of everything in Afghanistan, then nuke the fuck out of everything in Afghanistan. Then tell Iraq, Iran and North Korea the exact same thing and see if they want to play chicken too.

I think that would have been a successful strategy.

Another one would have been to DECLARE WAR (we never did), declare martial law, stop the media from reporting bad news, and institute a country wide draft with NO exceptions for schooling or whatever, everyone has to go if picked randomly and those that refuse are sent to internment camps.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 10th, 2007 4:32am
they didn't say it was impossible.  they said it would be hard, he would need hundreds of thousands of men and even then it could take years.

they told him how to win.  he fired them.  he found others.  some of them told him how to win.  he fired them.  he found others.

lather and repeat for 6 years and you get...

what we have now.
Permalink Send private email zestyZucchini 
July 10th, 2007 4:33am
Thing the _I_ am amazed about is the number of people that still think that this war is about fighting terrorism or freeing the iraqi people or finding WMD or spreading democracy? Here's the scoop: it is not about any of that.

Just being at war has such vast advantages to the people in power that it doesn't matter how bad the war goes. Especially for the US where being at war means fighting in a far and away land. Being at war will always be the number one issue in a country, sidetracking any other issues. Being at war destabelizes the region where the war is fought making the US appear to be safe and stable. It also seeds future wars to keep this circus going.
War is always good for business. The military and war profiteers love to project the Malthusian model as it fits them so well.
Permalink Send private email Locutus of Borg 
July 10th, 2007 4:36am
"I think that would have been a successful strategy. "

successful in achieving _what_, exactly?

so Iraq + Saddam might have surrended without a fight. 

what then?

I _still_ dont understand exactly what we are trying to achieve by taking Iraq.

if it is control of oil, there were better ways. 

"and institute a country wide draft with NO exceptions"

the draft killed the army during vietnam.

it killed the popularity of the war and reduced the army to the level of the most pacifist hippie.
Permalink Send private email zestyZucchini 
July 10th, 2007 4:36am
If you assume that Bush wanted to actually go in there and establish a democracy and further the cause of peace in the Middle East, then yes, this war has been a spectacular failure. 

But if you understand his true motives, which are to get control of the oil and to garnish obscene profits for Halliburton and other corporate interests while hugely expanding the powers of the presidency and the Republican Party (although they are starting to defect), then he has succeeded far beyond Cheney's wet dreams.

Bush does not have America's best interests at heart.  He never did, so don't expect anything good to come of any of his policies or strategies.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
July 10th, 2007 5:28am
"then he has succeeded far beyond Cheney's wet dreams. "

well, no.  he hasn't.  they dont have control of the oil....the bill that provided for selling control of the oil fields to (american) oil companies was one of the thingies that the Iraqi government had to achieve.

it hasn't been passed.

what bush has achieved so far is a hell of a mess, and no success whatsoever.
Permalink Send private email zestyZucchini 
July 10th, 2007 6:35am
The scary thing is if Bush can manipulate things in the direction of Putin - invoking imaginary enemies to frighten the populace in order to justify bending the constitution and remain in office for as long as he likes
Permalink Billx 
July 10th, 2007 7:32am
Where's the Pretorian Guard when you need them?
Permalink Those who forget history ... 
July 10th, 2007 7:54am
In this regard I like the Turkish attitude towards democracy. The Turkish army is always and openly ready to overthrow a democratically elected government that compromises the secularity of the Turkish state.
They have a very clear separation between army and government which, I believe, has kept the country politically stable and out of war. 

It's an interesting paradox/equilibrium that can have it's use for countries where religion is too much involved in politics.
Permalink Send private email Locutus of Borg 
July 10th, 2007 8:10am
>> But if you understand his true motives, which are to get control of the oil and to garnish obscene profits for Halliburton and other corporate interests while hugely expanding the powers of the presidency and the Republican Party (although they are starting to defect), then he has succeeded far beyond Cheney's wet dreams. <<

You're attributing evil genius levels of competence to the man when his record clearly shows he's an underachiever.
Permalink Michael B 
July 10th, 2007 8:18am
I think we should hire them all.  For $1,000 a month, we could hire all the currently unemployed Iraqi's for a YEAR, for what we spend on OUR military (And blackwater) in 2 weeks.

Put them to work rebuilding infrastructure, roads, filling in IED potholes.  DISARM the mother's first -- it's appalling to me that we've got a military that's trying to fight a population fully armed with AK-47's and an occasional rocket grenade.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 10th, 2007 8:41am
Just bomb them with dollars
Permalink Billx 
July 10th, 2007 9:02am
No way is Cheney an underchiefer. He's an uberchiefer.
Permalink trollop 
July 10th, 2007 9:15am
> Bush can't buy a break

He's trying. See the debt lately?
Permalink son of parnas 
July 10th, 2007 10:35am
"I dont think he and the rest of his administration really understand arabs at all."

Correct. Look at the lineup they've had - Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld/Gates.

This is not a lineup that understands anything about the Arab world or the Muslim world.

This is a lineup for the Cold War, not for the war we're (allegedly) fighting now.
Permalink Full name 
July 10th, 2007 12:42pm
"they didn't say it was impossible.  they said it would be hard, he would need hundreds of thousands of men and even then it could take years. they told him how to win.  he fired them."

OK, that's a good point.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 10th, 2007 12:58pm
<quote>
The silly season continues. Of course it's not the silly season for the troops in Iraq. Apparently the war goes well there, but slowly. The problem remains: good soldiers don't make good constables. Armies break things and kill people. Few people like to be in the middle of such activities. When you drop bombs on people and break down their houses, they don't like it. In particular young men of a certain age who believe they should be defending their families and their young women don't like it.

Rule by oppression works, but not if American GI's are the oppressors. Petronius cites the Netherlands Decrees by Spain, and their consequences. On the other hand, the Ottoman Empire pacified the entire Middle East for centuries, and despite all our romantic stories of the resistance, Germany held a good part of Europe in relative tranquility for years, in both cases by ruthlessness and cruelty. The Romans occupied areas for centuries by stationing auxiliaries in the regions, and recruiting locals into those units. The best could be posted from the auxiliaries to the Legions and become eligible for citizenship. That, however, is a long term imperial policy.

If we impose democracy on the Middle East we will be installing Islamist states. Is this what we want?
</quote>

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view474.html#Tuesday
Permalink Send private email Ward 
July 10th, 2007 3:20pm
"If we impose democracy on the Middle East we will be installing Islamist states."

OK, the idea then is if people can vote on their representatives, the representatives will install Sharia law and ban democracy as their first move?

Maybe, but that has not happened in Pakistan or Turkey or Indonesia or (I think) Malaysia, all democratic western countries with large muslim majorities.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 10th, 2007 3:43pm
How is Parkistan democratic?

I don't know. It's a real question.
Permalink Rick Zeng 
July 10th, 2007 4:03pm
With respect to Turkey, I don't think we'd see democracy banned. My understanding is that the military wouldn't allow that to happen.

As for Pakistan, the religious political parties normally don't do well, I think they get < 10% of the vote.
Permalink Full name 
July 10th, 2007 4:07pm
They vote for their leaders in Pakistan. Pakistan was one of the first countries in the world to elect a woman as prime minister, and certainly the first muslim majority one to do so.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 10th, 2007 4:23pm
"the religious political parties normally don't do well"

Yes, in the democratic muslim countries that have a secret vote, almost no one votes for sharia law proposals. They just don't want it. Devout muslims the world over are trying to move to western countries because of the oppression they suffer under sharia. But, to be a good muslim, if you ask them, they will say they want it. But as long as they have a secret vote, you find out how they really feel.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 10th, 2007 4:36pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: July, 2007 Other topics: July, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics