Iraq: not looking good

[jdobbin]

No, he is just determined to show Pelosi and Reid how the Constitution works during this administration.

He's commander in chief. The Congress controls the purse strings. There's your constitution.

[bush_cheney2004]

He's commander in chief. The Congress controls the purse strings. There's your constitution.

Correct...but it takes more votes to override a veto. Advantage Bush. Supplemental spending for the war effort keeps on rolling because Congress doesn't want to be seen as underfunding deployed troops.

This ain't 'Nam.

[Liam]

Correct...but it takes more votes to override a veto. Advantage Bush. Supplemental spending for the war effort keeps on rolling because Congress doesn't want to be seen as underfunding deployed troops.

This ain't 'Nam.

You're right... 'Nam actually had bipartisan support and was not seen by both members as an interventionist war that did not need to be waged.

Advantage Bush? Please, even if Congress folds on war funding (and I suspect they won't entirely fold), the nation knows Iraq is 100% Bush's fiasco and that no amount of funding or defunding will impact the course Bush set the nation upon.

[bush_cheney2004]

You're right... 'Nam actually had bipartisan support and was not seen by both members as an interventionist war that did not need to be waged.

Advantage Bush? Please, even if Congress folds on war funding (and I suspect they won't entirely fold), the nation knows Iraq is 100% Bush's fiasco and that no amount of funding or defunding will impact the course Bush set the nation upon.

Somebody is forgetting about a Congressional vote in October 1998 and October 2002 for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime and WAR. The USA is not a dictatorship.

[Liam]

Somebody is forgetting about a Congressional vote in October 1998 and October 2002 for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime and WAR. The USA is not a dictatorship.

At least it's not a dictatorship anymore. The GOP Congress did more to undermine separation of powers than all the "activist" judges combined. At least we now have a valid two-party system and not the dictatorship Bush and Rove all wamted.

You are right, Congress voted in '98 to have regime change as a main goal in Iraq and the '02 vote essentially authorized the war. But neither vote insulates the administration from criticism that it failed to wage the war competently. Nor does it insulate the administration from the fact that public opinion has now entirely turned against it and the war, regardless of congressional votes.

[bush_cheney2004]

You are right, Congress voted in '98 to have regime change as a main goal in Iraq and the '02 vote essentially authorized the war. But neither vote insulates the administration from criticism that it failed to wage the war competently. Nor does it insulate the administration from the fact that public opinion has now entirely turned against it and the war, regardless of congressional votes.

Did Rove tell Clinton and Blair to bomb the crap out of Iraq in '98 (Desert Fox). Or starve the poor bastards to death with sanctions? Or establish a safezone for Kurds using military intervention and funding?

Bush's approval rating is at 33%...that would not be 0%.

So now the Congressional votes don't matter because of public opinion? That's not how our government works.

[jdobbin]

Correct...but it takes more votes to override a veto. Advantage Bush. Supplemental spending for the war effort keeps on rolling because Congress doesn't want to be seen as underfunding deployed troops.

This ain't 'Nam.

It sure isn't. The Republicans back then got America out of a war the Democrats wouldn't end. This time it's the other way around.

[Liam]

You are right, Congress voted in '98 to have regime change as a main goal in Iraq and the '02 vote essentially authorized the war. But neither vote insulates the administration from criticism that it failed to wage the war competently. Nor does it insulate the administration from the fact that public opinion has now entirely turned against it and the war, regardless of congressional votes.

Did Rove tell Clinton and Blair to bomb the crap out of Iraq in '98 (Desert Fox). Or starve the poor bastards to death with sanctions? Or establish a safezone for Kurds using military intervention and funding?

Bush's approval rating is at 33%...that would not be 0%.

So now the Congressional votes don't matter because of public opinion? That's not how our government works.

No, but you can be damned sure Rove told Bush to bomb Iraq in '03 because it would make for a good political issue in '04 and we all know Rove and Bush whored the hell out of 9/11 in the '02 and '04 campaigns and to impugned the character of anyone who dare question the motives or actions of the administration, like Max Cleland.

Bush' rating is at 33% for a reason: he's a loser who is out of his depth and whose reputation can't even be salvaged by GOP brain trust (such that it is). He will, without question, go down in history as one of the greatest failures and one of the greatest lost opportunities in all of the history of the American presidency.

As far as Congressional votes, historical Congressional votes do matter. Did I say otherwise? Only, they're not nearly as important as the Congressional votes of today and tomorrow. In that regard, I suggest you either hold onto your seat or buy some Depends undergarments.

[bush_cheney2004]

As far as Congressional votes, historical Congressional votes do matter. Did I say otherwise? Only, they're not nearly as important as the Congressional votes of today and tomorrow. In that regard, I suggest you either hold onto your seat or buy some Depends undergarments.

Typical response from those who are shown the folly of their logic and history of American foreign policy. Even those with "Depends undergarments" get one vote each....and many voted for George W. Bush. No amount of whining can change that.

Good luck in '08.

[jdobbin]

Man, what an endless cycle this is.

The Generals are asking for more troops and that death rate among soldiers has risen to about four a day.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/12/...main/index.html

Today was another particularly bad day.

Bush seems committed to send more troops but you have to wonder when things might reach the breaking point.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Today was another particularly bad day.

Bush seems committed to send more troops but you have to wonder when things might reach the breaking point.

The breaking point for what? How many Iraqis are dying per day? Should they leave Iraq too?

[jdobbin]

The breaking point for what? How many Iraqis are dying per day? Should they leave Iraq too?

They already are.

[bush_cheney2004]

They already are.

Then I guess they reached their "breaking point".

[GostHacked]

Man, what an endless cycle this is.

The Generals are asking for more troops and that death rate among soldiers has risen to about four a day.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/12/...main/index.html

Today was another particularly bad day.

Bush seems committed to send more troops but you have to wonder when things might reach the breaking point.

There have been troop escalations since January. Would make an interesting chart to show when the troop escalation started (troop levels before and after) and the rate of violence there during that time period. I have been hearing about troop escalation sine January, and to me I do not think it is working. The military is stretched thin right now, or else troops would have their tours shortened, not extended to 15 months. And this is the second time the tour lengths has been extended.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...1571784,00.html Posted Dec 20 2006

The White House has signaled its interest in plans that could add as many as 30,000 more troops to the country. About 17,000 troops are currently in Baghdad trying to rein in sectarian violence that seems to widen every day, despite a major push by U.S. forces starting in June to secure the capital. The opponents of a troop surge say the failure of this campaign to bring order to Baghdad shows that greater numbers of U.S. forces are unlikely to have an effect on the situation.

Was the surge to happen last June or this June??

It's different in Anbar province, where the presence of American troops on the streets of places like Ramadi actually prompts violence rather than heading it off.

Down here, up there. Overall it stayed the same.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0802096_pf.html

U.S. commanders in Iraq are increasingly convinced that heightened troop levels, announced by President Bush in January, will need to last into the spring of 2008. The military has said it would assess in September how well its counterinsurgency strategy, intended to pacify Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, is working.

But I thought the surge was working? So in Sept they will figure out if the surge is working? Extended until 2008?

The breaking point for what? How many Iraqis are dying per day? Should they leave Iraq too?

No the breaking point of the US military. Troops are unhappy the tour is extended, but they understand. How much frustration can that cause for one person?

More from Washington Post

Partial data on attacks gathered from five U.S. brigades operating in Baghdad showed that total attacks since the new strategy began in February were either steady or increasing. In some cases, certain kinds of attacks dipped as the U.S. troop increase began, only to begin rising again in recent weeks. Overall, "the number of attacks has stayed relatively constant" in Baghdad, said one U.S. officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to be quoted by name.

Getting tired of all these anonymous officials.

"Every day is exactly the same.

There is no loss here, and there is no gain."

NIN - Everyday is exaclty the same.

CD - With Teeth.

[bush_cheney2004]

No the breaking point of the US military. Troops are unhappy the tour is extended, but they understand. How much frustration can that cause for one person?

Still not sure what "breaking point" means? Mutiny? Rebellion in the ranks? Fragged officers? Mass desertions to Syria and Iran?

Troops know damn well what the score is for extended tours and stop loss orders.

[jdobbin]

Still not sure what "breaking point" means? Mutiny? Rebellion in the ranks? Fragged officers? Mass desertions to Syria and Iran?

Think the breaking point means that there is no chance of recovery in Iraq and that the U.S. is so strained that really can't offer much more than they are doing already. You think they have a spare 100,000 to 200,000 troops?

[bush_cheney2004]

Think the breaking point means that there is no chance of recovery in Iraq and that the U.S. is so strained that really can't offer much more than they are doing already. You think they have a spare 100,000 to 200,000 troops?

But how does "no recovery" manifest itself? Iraqis are already killing each other.....what's the difference? This is not the Battle of the Bulge.

[jdobbin]

But how does "no recovery" manifest itself? Iraqis are already killing each other.....what's the difference? This is not the Battle of the Bulge.

I think my meaning is plain. The U.S. can't stop what is happening and in the process of trying to prevent further fighting there, the U.S. has next to nothing in reserve to fight any other battle.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think my meaning is plain. The U.S. can't stop what is happening and in the process of trying to prevent further fighting there, the U.S. has next to nothing in reserve to fight any other battle.

The US is trying to stand up a government in Iraq, not win World War III. What other potential battle are you referring to....Iran? If it was a conventional war then the strategy would be far more straightforward.

[jdobbin]

The US is trying to stand up a government in Iraq, not win World War III. What other potential battle are you referring to....Iran? If it was a conventional war then the strategy would be far more straightforward.

They are standing up to or trying to support the Iraqi government?

There are plenty of potential battles. What is the straight forward plan?

[bush_cheney2004]

They are standing up to or trying to support the Iraqi government?

There are plenty of potential battles. What is the straight forward plan?

Standing up. What other potential battles exist....Syrian invasion?

[jdobbin]

Standing up. What other potential battles exist....Syrian invasion?

Is that all you can imagine?

Let's see off the top of my head: A collapse in Pakistan, Iran invading Afghanistan, Syria invading Lebanon, China attacking Taiwan, Russian turbulence, Cuban civil war...

Almost all of these scenarios have been played out by the Defence department. The one thing they usually says is that the U.S. now lacks the resources to handle another major conflict. They also say that the U.S. has reached critical levels in Iraq in terms of troops.

[GostHacked]

No the breaking point of the US military. Troops are unhappy the tour is extended, but they understand. How much frustration can that cause for one person?

Still not sure what "breaking point" means? Mutiny? Rebellion in the ranks? Fragged officers? Mass desertions to Syria and Iran?

Troops know damn well what the score is for extended tours and stop loss orders.

I'd say breaking point in terms of Military is stretched too thin. Also spread out all over the globe. Little to no reservists to fulfill any emergency operations roles. Iraq, Afghanistan... two major battles.

The US needs another 100 000 to 150 000 aditional troops RIGHT NOW to absolutely kill the violence and the reconstruction can begin. With all the surging going on, it does not seem to make a difference. And according to my last post, the Generals on the ground are taking a wait and see approach.

Small edit le which turned out large.

So with the other thread about how 1 in 10 US troops are harassing or damaging property, you can see how extending the tour can make those numbers rise? The troops know their role, yes. Most signed up for wanting to serve their country. Others signed up to get away from something, or to bail them out of a financial crisis. So the ones that are in it for money, or because the need to will for the most part never be as good as the ones who wanted to serve, signed up. Basicly do they really have their heart in it when serving. I am not trying to be a dick, but I cannot really find other words to describe it.

We know there is about 150 000 troops there in Iraq

Bush Administration says we need a surge only after he puts new Generals in the field to replace the ones that said a surge was needed. (yeah that blows my mind too)

Troops have had their tours extended from 6 months to 15 (two incrimental increases)

Adding 30 000 more troops will not make a difference and resources are wasted on a 'patchwork bound to fail'.

Public support is now in the shitter for this war.

So in a way all this stress on the soldier can make things worse in Iraq. More soldiers 'snapping' and more frequently, that kind of thing. The psychological effect on the troops in Iraq must be incredible, and compound with the frustration that they can't get back up when they need it can make a person go mad.

[bush_cheney2004]

Is that all you can imagine?

Let's see off the top of my head: A collapse in Pakistan, Iran invading Afghanistan, Syria invading Lebanon, China attacking Taiwan, Russian turbulence, Cuban civil war...

Almost all of these scenarios have been played out by the Defence department. The one thing they usually says is that the U.S. now lacks the resources to handle another major conflict. They also say that the U.S. has reached critical levels in Iraq in terms of troops.

I don't think you understand how this Superpower thing works....US grunts are stretched thin, but not military capabilities. The entire force structure was downsized in the face of the very scenarios you describe by design. A true two front war needing more troops would invoke a draft. The US has firmly planted tactical and strategic assets from Israel to Diego Garcia.

Consider this....the US had over 500,000 troops parked in Vietnam in the late 1960's, but still managed to put in a good showing elsewhere. So far the only shortage has been National Guard forces for a few domestic emergencies.

[jdobbin]

I don't think you understand how this Superpower thing works....US grunts are stretched thin, but not military capabilities. The entire force structure was downsized in the face of the very scenarios you describe by design. A true two front war needing more troops would invoke a draft.

Consider this....the US had over 500,000 troops parked Vietnam in the late 1960's, but still managed to put in a good showing elsewhere. So far the only shortage has been National Guard forces for a few domestic emergencies.

Short on troops and equipment. Both Guard and equipment are in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Yes, I'm sure you could institute a draft. Good luck on that for a fight say in: Pakistan.