The new Iraq plan looks a look like the old plan. And I expect it to work about as well. First, two reference links: The speech, and the fact sheet.
Bush starts out by acknowledging the obvious: 2006 was a disaster. He says any mistakes are his, and that it's clear a change is needed. All good words, but it's disheartening that Bush was months behind the rest of the country in recognizing the downward spiral in Iraq.
He then asserts that "failure in Iraq would be a disaster." In the fact sheet, the phrasing is even starker: "The war on terror cannot be won if we fail in Iraq." Those are scare words, and simply not true. Iraq is hurting our cause, not helping it. But let's address Bush's specific arguments.
Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits and oil revenue from a "safe haven" in Iraq. Nope. Our presence in Iraq has itself greatly increased extremist recruiting and helped inflame an entire region; I doubt our leaving could boost it much more. Plus, Iraq would not become a "safe haven" for terrorists. The Shiite majority has no use for the Sunni fundamentalists in al-Qaeda. Nor do the Kurds. Nor do most of the Sunni clans, who resent foreign interference as well as the attempts to provoke a sectarian war against the numerically superior Shiites. If we leave, the insurgency loses most of its momentum and al-Qaeda loses most of its support.
Iran would be emboldened to pursue nuclear weapons. Perhaps. But they're pretty darned emboldened now, and one reason is because we have our hands full in Iraq. Leaving Iraq would give us a lot more options for dealing with Iran.
That's it; that's what he says to support the "cannot be won if we fail in Iraq" claim.
Next he turns to solutions. First, secure Baghdad. He correctly notes that most of the sectarian violence occurs in the ethnically mixed areas in and around the capital. He also correctly notes that all previous attempts to secure Baghdad failed because we didn't have enough troops.
Again, totally unsurprising — and totally disheartening that Bush has only now come to that conclusion, three years (and at least three "retake Baghdad" attempts) after invading.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Bliffle
I understand that Maliki supported this plan, which is understandable, since as US troops Stand UP, Iraqi troops can Stand Down.
2 - SHARK
Geo. Will: "...Because their allegiances are to sectarian factions, they are not responsive to legitimate central authority. They are part of the problem."
This is an understatement; any attempt to get the Iraqis to "stand up" while we "stand down" -- all of the confidence the Bush admin. places in the iraqi military and civil police -- ignores the fact that there is an implicit/becoming-explicit CIVIL WAR going on.
For the last few years, their ENTIRE STRATEGY has been based on this fallacy: that iraq security forces care more about law, order, and nationalism -- than they do about adressing ancient tribal/sectarian/semi-domesticated primate religious differences.
ie. REVENGE.
======
We need to get the fuck out of Vietn... um, Iraq ASAP.
3 - SHARK
BTW: I'm going out on a limb here;
I predict that within the next two weeks (Jan 20 by my estimation) -- we will see the start of the Iraqi version of the 1968 TET OFFENSIVE.
====
For those interested in real solutions, visit Shark's Plan for Iraq.
4 - SHARK
re: "Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits and oil revenue from a safe haven in Iraq...'
Was it just me, or did a few million other Americans watching this think,
"...which... um... YOU ALREADY CREATED THANKS TO YOUR INVASION!!!!"
??
Fucking irony on a grand scale.
5 - Nancy
Sean, you - and hundreds if not hundreds of thousands - are trying to use logic & common sense, which are two qualities utterly lost on someone like W who lives on fantasy, magical thinking ('if I say it often enough it will become so'), & a state of total denial. Add to these his attitude, amply demonstrated over the past 5 years, that US troops lives' lost don't matter, as long as he's remembered as a victorious War Prez & his ego is gratified, and the picture of the monster we're dealing with is complete. He's Marie Antoinette with a 'let them eat cake' attitude, except in his case it involves lives.
He & Cheney need to be removed - preferably impeached, tried, convicted & then executed - or at least neutralized - asap. I hope the new congress will be willing & able to cut him off at the balls, but I'm not sanguine.
6 - troll
Bush says - *We will interrupt the flow of support from #### and #####. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in ####.*
deja fucking vu
7 - D'oh
This says it all
Ain't much more needed.
8 - Zedd
Has anyone considered getting the leaders of the region along with the leaders of the factions to discuss what it would take for a peace deal??
Just asking.
9 - Nancy
Why? That wouldn't distract the US public from BushCo's spectacular failures elsewhere, & it doesn't fit in with his fake macho Texas cowboy self-image. Therefore it's unlikely. I suspect such a solution might also be beyond his imagination or comprehension, & doubt he'd do it even if one of his own advisers recommended it,if it wasn't what he already had decided he wanted to hear.
10 - Zedd
Yes and he IS The Decider!
11 - ProfEssays
To my mind Bush's Iraq Plan is consistent with his previous actions in this country. Evidently it won't lead to the ultimate victory. However, the positive side of this plan is that more troops will enjoy the adventures of war.
12 - SHARK
Just thought I'd point out: as with every aspect of Iraq, SHARK has been CORRECT in all of his predictions (from pre-invasion to post-occupation!).
This latest one, although not all that hard to call -- was especially prescient regarding the DATE for the beginning -- which at the time I made -- was over a week away.
FYI: Nalle, (et al right-wing, Bush blowin' apologists) -- have been WRONG on EVERY aspect of Iraq.
Who's yer daddy, deluded conservatives?
=======
from Jan. 11 --
"I predict that within the next two weeks (Jan 20 by my estimation) -- we will see the start of the Iraqi version of the 1968 TET OFFENSIVE."
=====
Amazing, eh?
13 - SHARK
Folks, check this. It's a sad reminder of Dave Nalle's legacy hereabouts -- and how he's truly one of the most manipulative, cynical, heinous political 'writers' on BC property.
To be such a rabid, distorting, apologist/defender for this horrible American tragedy -- especially in the face of SO MUCH MOUNTING EVIDENCE -- is an intellectual crime on a gigantic scale.
ie, Yer evil, Nalle -- and like Bush, history is already starting to 'judge' you harshly.
Say yer sorry for your sins, Dave.
Try to gain some respect.
14 - Dave Nalle
Yeah, Shark. It sure is terrible of me to point out good things our troops were doing in Iraq, why, I'm an evil, evil bastard to have HOPE. Hope is the worst characteristic of humanity, damn Pandora for finally letting it out.
I have always been on the side of the Iraqi people, and you won't admit it, but there WAS a time when it looked like our intervention there was going to work out to their best advantage, and that was a very good thing.
Sorry to see you've been reduced to stalker status. There used to be depths to which you would not stoop, but I guess you have now fully embraced the role of ghost pointing a hollow sleeve and moaning senselessly. So much rage, so little positive to contribute.
Dave
15 - Nancy
IMO the stupid bastards in Iraq no longer deserve whatever help we can give them: they don't want it, for one thing, and for another, everything we do build or repair there they tear up - just because WE did it, even if it's for their benefit. In any event, we the average US taxpayers have paid more than our share or what we "owe" or anything else; if anybody deems the Iraqis are "owed" anything further, let THEM pay for it themselves, i.e. let Bush & Cheney & their ultrarich buddies ante up out of their OWN pockets. WE the US people owe NOTHING. The money being wasted is far better spent on repairing our OWN cities, highways, & infrastructures.
16 - SHARK
Heh
17 - D'oh
On the point about dredging up old articles for hindsight review and comparison.
I think it's a great thing, to be able to look at a body of work on a topic, compare what was said to what is actual. It allows a reader to discern just what value to place upon a writer's judgment and understanding.
The idea is that if they showed a decent understanding and solid judgment over a period of time, they become a more worthy source of information and analysis, whereas if they completely fuck up time and again, questioning their thought process is indeed required.
The record is important, as is remembering that such documentation is there, and making it available when pertinent.
18 - SHARK
Thanks, Doh, I too think it's RELEVANT, especially since Cheney is out Marketing Iraq BIGTIME -- and it's a replay of shit we've seen and heard for years now.
Nalle wrote that article some TWO YEARS ago, and it was obvious to many at the time that Iraq was already lost. Nalle then -- like Cheney now -- was in the "glass half full" mode -- trying to convince readers that Iraq's positives outweighed the negatives.
I think the US casualties were at some 1500 or so then. Now they're past 3000 -- not to mention the billions $ wasted.
For all my rude, sardonic Sharkian tendancies -- [despite?] -- I've been consistent and correct on Iraq from Day One. My worthy opponents have been consistently wrong on EVERY ASPECT of Iraq.
It is enlightening to be able to dredge up the history of the debate -- and folks like Bush, Cheney, and even our own highly esteemed Dave Nalle probably wish that the record wasn't available.
But it is.
And frankly, when someone is MARKETING a WAR that causes more American deaths for a lost [probably unworthy] cause -- then they need to be called on it.
And Nalle, you have equal access to ALL OF MY POSTS going back before you were even on Blogcritics. Have at it, peewee: I -- unlike you -- stand by my words and value my personal integrity.
Shark -- "stalker" or "patriot"??
19 - SHARK
Nalle on SHARK: "...so little positive to contribute."
Nalle, can you understand how in a certain universe, posting bullshit like "No One Died In Iraq Today" is an incredibly cynical, manipulative, HIGHLY NEGATIVE thing to do?
Ignoring Reality has a price; but the people paying it happen to be American soldiers -- while you sit on yer ass in yer pimped-out duck blind outside of Austin and try to delude your fellow americans into thinking Iraq is/was worth it.
It's not. It never was.
And your blindness epitomizes that of this administration. It's serious business -- playing apologist cheerleader for a corrupt, ill-conceived war.
War is not to be taken lightly.
20 - SHARK
BTW: I understand that -- as we 'sit and debate' -- that this is not about political ABSTRACTIONS -- especially with yer boy Bush sending another 21,000 troops into Harm's Way for a Mistake.
**DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
** THE Reason MCH is so adamant about his obsession.
21 - Martin Lav
Shark.....I couldn't agree more.
Nalle:
People like you have to be held to account just like Cheney and Bush.
Assuming you are allowed to keep your role here on BC spreading your doctrine of false ideology over and over and over virtually non-stop, while results on the ground in Iraq and elsewhere, continue to contradict with your OPINION OR SATIRE, we "commenters" have a duty to magnify the gravity of your dangerousness to the innocent reader who may happen across this site.
No one in good conscious can allow you and your sole mouth piece CLAVOS to continue your insanity unchallenged.
If you don't like it......just stick to writing in your diary in the confines of your modest compound somewhere outside Austin, Tx.
No One Died in the Compound Today.
Just a stray dog and my ego.
22 - troll
the lie works best when the liar believes...
23 - D'oh
On the topic, and one I will use frequently, now that it is available...
the Tao of D'oh
24 - Clavos
The Tao has been restricted (but not wiped out altogether), D'oh...
25 - D'oh
Ah yes, more's the pity, Clavos. Simple to fix if you just free register with youtube.
Sometimes I forget.
So, instead...we will touch upon an olde syndrome of "monkey, killing monkey..."
We do aim to entertain as well as enlighten.