Here's what's puzzling me about Bush's Iraq 'Plan for Victory':

[Terran]

Bush's speech made it clear that the crux of the administration's plan for success in Iraq lies in training an Iraqi military into competence and independence of American guidance. He went so far as to assert that this is substantially happening now (but see this rather interesting thread on that issue).

So while that sounds good, here's what I don't get, and where I think we're being BS'd once more: if our own mighty military cannot put down the insurgency, how is the Iraqi military supposed to handle it on their own once we're gone? And I think it's a fair assumption that the departure of the US forces will not magically bring all violence to an end. Some will stop fighting, yes, but there's that little civil war problem we've been warned about so much by conservatives these past couple of years. It seems to me this so-called Plan is Bush's own form of cutting and running, in disguise.

[jfkraus]

1. Whoa, that's a lot of money.

What do you suppose this is for? Nation building anyone? Can you say Flip-Flop?

http://www.fedgrants.gov/Applicants/AID/OM/BAG/RFA%26%23032%3B267-06-001/Grant.html

[Ezlivin]

2. Hey, we're pulling out of Korea any day now

Pretty soon those South Korean troops will be ready to defend their country.

Just a few more years....

[liberal N proud]

3. It was supposed to sound good

To the faithful bu$h loyalist.
It was a moral builder among the repuke troops at home. I don't mean the military but the right wing comrades that are supposed to keep the faith to bu$h and company.

[hadrons]

7. this "speech" was also a moral builder for Bush himself ....

the jackass

[Marie26]

4. What's worse

Is that the insurgency has infiltrated the Iraqi troops & police that we're training. Recently, some Iraqi police were torturing prisoners for collaberating with the U.S. The police had allied with a Shiite militia. So by continuing to train troops, are we actually helping to give experience & knowledge to the future militias & insurgents in a civil war? You could actually argue training Iraqi troops could make matter worse! It's bad no matter how you look at it.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Pandora's box won't be closed as easily as Bush and others think.....

It is a certifiable mess and predictions as to what will happen once we start to withdraw are nothing but guesses.

Wes Clark predicts Civil War...that he says has actually already started. Based on his track record on predicting outcomes, I'm going with what he says.....as I hold the view that if things can get worse, they will.

(Click on the link in my sig to sign the petition to demand and pressure this Republican controlled congress to call for an investigation on Iraq....those Bush Bastards!)

[Democrats_win]

6. Plan for victory in Iraq just another clear sky´s initiative-fooled again

Like Nixon saying we´ll say one thing about Cambodia and do another. Meanwhile Democracynow.org discusses the Iraq death squads. That´s the army that we´re really building. Freedom huh?

[NoFederales]

8. BINGO! ....if our own mighty military cannot put down the

insurgency, how is the Iraqi military supposed to handle it on their own once we're gone? ...

How plain can it be? Super point, Terran.

NoFederales

[coalition_unwilling]

11. Ergo, we will never leave, b/c Iraqi military will never be able

to "stand on its own." That's probably the real neo-con agenda.

What strikes me are the obvious and not-so-obvious parallels to the arc of America's involvement and dis-engagement from Vietnam. To wit, Nixon's "Vietnamization" strategy reduced the number of American ground troops while massively escalating the application of American combat airpower in support of ARVN troops. If I understood Hersh's article correctly, this is also what lies in store for Iraq, i.e., we'll reduce American boots on the ground while massively escalating use of American air-power to bomb Sunni resistance.

[leftstreet]

9. Speech was meant for Iraqis - not us

Newsweek's Howard Fineman

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10265452/site/newsweek/

<snip>
With his new “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq,” the president isn’t really aiming for “victory” in the conventional sense. Nothing is “conventional” in a war against Islamist terrorists, and Iraq will remain a breeding ground for them regardless. Rather, Bush’s goal is to begin a draw down of our troops before next year’s Congressional elections. To do that, he needs the Dec. 15 election in Iraq to go well, with Sunni participation. Then the troop reductions can begin.

<snip>
At Annapolis, the president was speaking to audiences in both countries, but primarily to the one in Mesopotamia. Part of his purpose was to convince Iraqis that we still mean business there, and that our own voters don’t have the political leverage to demand an immediate, mass exodus of American troops.

White House aides say Bush’s speech is only the first of a series between now and Dec. 15. That’s a good indication of who the real audience for them is.

[Terran]

10. The true measure of the incompetence of this administration

I think you're right, and Bush is trying to convince the Iraqi public that they can solve their own problems militarily. That's my point: they can't do it any better than we can, AND it's the wrong way to go anyway. It will be interesting, in the long run, to see how they do deal with the insurgency on their own, because they will surely have to. I'm not convinced that the Iraqi government are all Bush lapdogs--they know their country and may be able to clean up our mess without a civil war. I hope so.

[Al-CIAda]

12. Permanent bases and the PNAC say we NEVER leave. -n/t

[Terran]

14. That too is a possibility...

I'm sensing some political urgency now to depart, but I have long assumed that what you say is true. It goes against the PNAC agenda to ever truly leave Iraq.

[arewenotdemo]

13. And now, for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence

[Lexingtonian]

15. you've got a few things to learn about Republicans....

Howard Fineman supposedly said on some talking head show last night that no one in Washington or the U.S. military actually believes the Iraqi trainee military can take over the American role.

For another thing, this Iraqi military they're training up is so thoroughly Shiite that it's really about training up the historically weaker side for the civil war with the Sunnis that breaks out into the open as Americans withdraw. It's a joke to talk about allegiance to this American-imposed constitution crap and its faux federal Iraqi government by this military.

Of course it's all Declare Victory And Get Out. With that famous Kissinger thing, the 'decent interval' between American withdrawal and collapse of the propped up government. It's all straight out of the Vietnam playbook.

The part that strikes you/us as wierd about it all is a wierd inherent thing about the Right worldwide at all times. They don't measure victory or defeat by material changes in reality, when it comes down to it. They revel in being psychologically victorious. Reality always makes them feel small and feeble, ultimately, i.e. human (as it should). Being Agents of God and the Blessed Of God in their own minds is what they always want, but always in these cheap and horrible and petty ways. Everything about them reflects, in the course of time, that at bottom they consider themselves inferior and incompetent.

[Disturbed]

16. W did speak the truth in this statement.

If he were truely honest he would have stated this and left the stage.


"The terrorists want to control the oil. Our way of life will be at risk". George W. Bush (Nov. 2005)

Another time that he blurted out the truth:

Bush: "I don't think we can win the war on terror"; August 29, 2004
Edited on Sat Nov-19-05 01:01 PM by Clarkie1
"I don’t think you can win . But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world."

-- George W. Bush, Aug. 29th, 2004

[Clarkie1]

17. "I don't think you can win...the war on terror" - G.W. Bush

What is so galling to to me is that statement juxtaposed with the jackass' insistence now on "total victory." It's a load of BS, and he knows it himself yet is trying shamelessly to sell it to the American people.

What the hell does "total victory" in Iraq look like? It's a completely empty, meaningless phrase. Instead of dealing with reality and discussing realistic, possibly achievable goals, he struts around as if repeating a lie long enough will make it true. He knows his policy has failed, but isn't man enough to admit a mistake, so he repeats the lie to try and shield himself from a truth he's afraid to face.

The coward has no shame.

[Terran]

18. Actually I was being deliberately wide-eyed and innocent

in my 'puzzlement'. I fully agree with your analysis of the situation, and you said it better than I ever could.