Commanders Say Surge is a Failure
| Mon Jun. 4, 2007 11:20 AM PDT
The New York Times has obtained a copy of a military progress report on the troop surge in Baghdad which reveals that less than a third of the city's neighborhoods have been brought under control. The surge strategy relied on all neighborhoods being pacified by July. Military brass blamed the Iraqi police forces for failing to do their part. In several instances, the Iraqi police were caught actively assisting bomb-layers. If "blame the Iraqis" is an excuse, it's not a very encouraging one. American troops will, in all likelihood, leave Iraq in 2008, and it seems clear that the Iraqis will not be able to maintain even as much control as American troops have—which isn't saying much.
I hate to say I told you so—I really do—but I did. Then again, it didn't take a genius to agree with—well, everyone except President Bush.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
The fact about who has responsibility for the Iraq war is in fact simple. It is George W. Bush and George W. Bush alone because he made the decision independent of all others. The lesson for Congress seems to be that no Congress ought to give a President the right to decide to go to war ever again, with the exception of a direct attack against us or our allies?because the act of giving the President the right to go to war when no act of aggression was made towards us meant that the President had no grounds to ask for such power?the entire circus that occurred in Congress was in fact the premise for the President to acquire "preemptive" power. There are no innocent Congressional member who said yes?only ignorant members or those who were keenly aware of the consequences. Those who were ignorant have no business being in Congress and either ought to resign for having failed to serve the American people or commit suicide?so as to not loose face and maintain a sense of honor (If we want to perceive ourselves as being Romans then by God act like one), while those who willing knew ought to loose their right to serve in public office for the rest of their lives?meaning either you voted no and continue to serve or else you can no longer serve ever again?that would clean up Congress.
I believe almost everyone knew this would be the outcome of the surge?30,000 soldiers or whatever the number would be like sprinkling 30,000 grains of sand on a beach to stop a 90 foot high Tsunami. The only real move is to remove the President, which would remove his idiotic Doctrine at the same time. What strikes me as the flip side of the Bush Doctrine is that what once constituted offensive and defensive military strategies lost all separation of meaning when the President adopted "preemptive warfare" as a security strategy. Now the mere presence of American military is legitimate to construe as an act of war by any opposing states, or even allies if they decide we cannot be trusted. Why? Because we need no reason whatsoever to go to war?merely a presidential nod. Furthermore the intentions of our military presence no longer carries any weight because these intentions cannot be trusted because they are no longer bound by agreements; all policy builds on the whim of the president?not international agreements and the president has proved beyond all doubt that he has no moral judgment. When the President chose to attack Iraq without finding a "smoking gun" he did far more than corrupt the entire concept of legitimate military action to defend ones land from aggressors or say the protection of Iraq's neighbors because in Iraq there were no threats, no acts of aggression towards the US, friends, allies clients or Iraq's neighbors as well as no connection to terrorists. Yet the opportunity to know the truth concerning Iraq's WMD status existed, which makes the Iraq war all that more malicious?the United States now represents a nation whose foreign policy builds on a policy of unprovoked aggression?which also means that nobody needs any grounds to attack us?but furthermore those who would attack us can make the claim that they act with grounds for their actions because of Iraq (we represent tyranny). The president because of his ideological stance has now set a precedence for how the American military can be legitimately perceived by any would be opponent?for example Russia in regards to this idiotic Bush desire to deploy rockets in Poland?this incident could now take us into a Nuclear Weapons show down with an incompetent idiot at the helm who sits the big button by his bed. If you think about the Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War, the real consequence is that Russia now finds itself in a far improved position of power because its yearly income from oil revenues has almost tripled thanks to the war in Iraq and consequently in terms of power they are actually on the ascendancy while the effect on the US is exactly the opposite, our national dept and trade deficit worsen which means our position of power is on the wane while our leadership is moving us towards a direct collision course with Russia.
The fact about who has responsibility for the Iraq war is in fact simple. It is George W. Bush and George W. Bush alone because he made the decision independent of all others. The lesson for Congress seems to be that no Congress ought to give a President the right to decide to go to war ever again, with the exception of a direct attack against us or our allies?because the act of giving the President the right to go to war when no act of aggression was made towards us meant that the President had no grounds to ask for such power?the entire circus that occurred in Congress was in fact the premise for the President to acquire "preemptive" power. There are no innocent Congressional member who said yes?only ignorant members or those who were keenly aware of the consequences. Those who were ignorant have no business being in Congress and either ought to resign for having failed to serve the American people or commit suicide?so as to not loose face and maintain a sense of honor (If we want to perceive ourselves as being Romans then by God act like one), while those who willing knew ought to loose their right to serve in public office for the rest of their lives?meaning either you voted no and continue to serve or else you can no longer serve ever again?that would clean up Congress.
I believe almost everyone knew this would be the outcome of the surge?30,000 soldiers or whatever the number would be like sprinkling 30,000 grains of sand on a beach to stop a 90 foot high Tsunami. The only real move is to remove the President, which would remove his idiotic Doctrine at the same time. What strikes me as the flip side of the Bush Doctrine is that what once constituted offensive and defensive military strategies lost all separation of meaning when the President adopted "preemptive warfare" as a security strategy. Now the mere presence of American military is legitimate to construe as an act of war by any opposing states, or even allies if they decide we cannot be trusted. Why? Because we need no reason whatsoever to go to war?merely a presidential nod. Furthermore the intentions of our military presence no longer carries any weight because these intentions cannot be trusted because they are no longer bound by agreements; all policy builds on the whim of the president?not international agreements and the president has proved beyond all doubt that he has no moral judgment. When the President chose to attack Iraq without finding a "smoking gun" he did far more than corrupt the entire concept of legitimate military action to defend ones land from aggressors or say the protection of Iraq's neighbors because in Iraq there were no threats, no acts of aggression towards the US, friends, allies clients or Iraq's neighbors as well as no connection to terrorists. Yet the opportunity to know the truth concerning Iraq's WMD status existed, which makes the Iraq war all that more malicious?the United States now represents a nation whose foreign policy builds on a policy of unprovoked aggression?which also means that nobody needs any grounds to attack us?but furthermore those who would attack us can make the claim that they act with grounds for their actions because of Iraq (we represent tyranny). The president because of his ideological stance has now set a precedence for how the American military can be legitimately perceived by any would be opponent?for example Russia in regards to this idiotic Bush desire to deploy rockets in Poland?this incident could now take us into a Nuclear Weapons show down with an incompetent idiot at the helm who sits the big button by his bed. If you think about the Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War, the real consequence is that Russia now finds itself in a far improved position of power because its yearly income from oil revenues has almost tripled thanks to the war in Iraq and consequently in terms of power they are actually on the ascendancy while the effect on the US is exactly the opposite, our national dept and trade deficit worsen which means our position of power is on the wane while our leadership is moving us towards a direct collision course with Russia.
"Commanders Say Surge is a Failure"
The two political parties that almost unanimously opposed invading Iraq (Greens and Libertarians) say:
"Duh!"
(which is what they've had to say repeatedly, as pre-invasion prediction after pre-invasion prediction has proven to be on-target)
Leave us not forget that Dubya needed quite a few "facilitators" in Congress to get our collective ass into Iraq in the first place, and by no means were they all Repubs.
He's been needing quite a few "facilitators" in Congress in order to keep our ass there, and Repubs don't run Congress any more.
Let's make sure that all who are deserving of "credit" for Iraq are getting their share.
There really needs to be an insanity clause in the holders of higher office. Funny .......just about everyone can be declared insane except for the President, Vice President & so on...If I didnt know any better I would swear we are stuck in an episode of "Invasion Of The Body Snatchers".
The fact about who has responsibility for the Iraq war is in fact simple. It is George W. Bush and George W. Bush alone because he made the decision independent of all others. The lesson for Congress seems to be that no Congress ought to give a President the right to decide to go to war ever again, with the exception of a direct attack against us or our alliesbecause the act of giving the President the right to go to war when no act of aggression was made towards us meant that the President had no grounds to ask for such powerthe entire circus that occurred in Congress was in fact the premise for the President to acquire "preemptive" power. There are no innocent Congressional member who said yesonly ignorant members or those who were keenly aware of the consequences. Those who were ignorant have no business being in Congress and either ought to resign for having failed to serve the American people or commit suicideso as to not loose face and maintain a sense of honor (If we want to perceive ourselves as being Romans then by God act like one), while those who willing knew ought to loose their right to serve in public office for the rest of their livesmeaning either you voted no and continue to serve or else you can no longer serve ever againthat would clean up Congress.
I believe almost everyone knew this would be the outcome of the surge30,000 soldiers or whatever the number would be like sprinkling 30,000 grains of sand on a beach to stop a 90 foot high Tsunami. The only real move is to remove the President, which would remove his idiotic Doctrine at the same time. What strikes me as the flip side of the Bush Doctrine is that what once constituted offensive and defensive military strategies lost all separation of meaning when the President adopted "preemptive warfare" as a security strategy. Now the mere presence of American military is legitimate to construe as an act of war by any opposing states, or even allies if they decide we cannot be trusted. Why? Because we need no reason whatsoever to go to warmerely a presidential nod. Furthermore the intentions of our military presence no longer carries any weight because these intentions cannot be trusted because they are no longer bound by agreements; all policy builds on the whim of the presidentnot international agreements and the president has proved beyond all doubt that he has no moral judgment. When the President chose to attack Iraq without finding a "smoking gun" he did far more than corrupt the entire concept of legitimate military action to defend ones land from aggressors or say the protection of Iraq's neighbors because in Iraq there were no threats, no acts of aggression towards the US, friends, allies clients or Iraq's neighbors as well as no connection to terrorists. Yet the opportunity to know the truth concerning Iraq's WMD status existed, which makes the Iraq war all that more maliciousthe United States now represents a nation whose foreign policy builds on a policy of unprovoked aggressionwhich also means that nobody needs any grounds to attack usbut furthermore those who would attack us can make the claim that they act with grounds for their actions because of Iraq (we represent tyranny). The president because of his ideological stance has now set a precedence for how the American military can be legitimately perceived by any would be opponentfor example Russia in regards to this idiotic Bush desire to deploy rockets in Polandthis incident could now take us into a Nuclear Weapons show down with an incompetent idiot at the helm who sits the big button by his bed. If you think about the Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War, the real consequence is that Russia now finds itself in a far improved position of power because its yearly income from oil revenues has almost tripled thanks to the war in Iraq and consequently in terms of power they are actually on the ascendancy while the effect on the US is exactly the opposite, our national dept and trade deficit worsen which means our position of power is on the wane while our leadership is moving us towards a direct collision course with Russia.
Kirilovslgic: For some reason, George W. Bush went to Congress and asked their permission prior to invading Iraq.
Congress could have said no, but they said: "OK George, whenever you think it's necessary, go ahead".
In other words, they abdicated their own Constitutional responsibility to declare war.
Personally, I find that inexcusable.
As inexcusable as the Dems letting the war continue on unabated, after winning control of Congress largely on a promise to put an end to it.
The Founding Fathers clearly didn't want any single person making a decision to take our nation to war. So they put it in the Constitution (the Nation's Highest Law) that the Congress was the entity that must declare war.
Our Congress simply did what the Founders explicitly did not want, and handed the decision to George Dubya Bush.
Every one of them who voted to do so should have been removed from office for violating what they took their oath to preserve, protect and defend.
Unfortunately the American people didn't do it, and a number of those irresponsible members are now seeking the presidency, both as Dems and Repubs.
P.J. O'Rourke was right on target when he said: "Giving money and power to politicians is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
