Speech II

Okay, looked at the text. The main thing people are noting is that there's nothing new here. Like every other "new" strategy for Iraq the president has unveiled (and I think this is the third) it isn't actually new, it's more of the same. That, however, isn't quite true. Bush argues that in the past "there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have." I think this is a quiet reference to complaints that have been bubbling for some time on the time that the rules of engagement on American forces are too restrictive. So, in short, we're going to keep doing what we've been doing for. But we'll have somewhat more troops doing it and they'll be unleashing a somewhat larger level of violence. This last thing, if I'm correct, runs totally against the doctrine in General Petraeus' counterinsurgency manual but it suits General Odierno's tastes, the president's tastes, and the views of conservative pundits, so why not go for it?

The other, and even more important, new thing is that Bush seems to be saying here that he intends to start one or two new wars:

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

It's hard to see how will do these things without launching military attacks on Iran or Syria. He goes on to talk about how he "ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region" and, of course, he put a Navy guy in charge of CENTCOM.

1/11/07 12:18AM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

Any officer attacking Iran without Congressional approval would be in violation of the oath they took to uphold the Constitution.

Bush's carrier may become his Battleship Potemkin

Posted by: alphie on January 11, 2007 12:37 AM

I think you're right. I watched the speech but didn't quite catch the specifics. So, I don't think this is exactly how Cheney scripted it, but it looks like they're going to attempt to parlay a unmitigated failure in Iraq into military strikes against Iran. I guess war is peace after all.

Posted by: fnook on January 11, 2007 12:39 AM

substitute "laos and cambodia" for "iran and syria", and it's not hard to see the historical parellels of this folly.

Posted by: snuh on January 11, 2007 12:43 AM

The time has come for congress to step up and do what President Bush has refused to do for four years: Pay for the War.

The expected 2007 price tag for Iraq is $100 billion. President Bush and Senator McCain are acknowledging that the number of casualties will increase when we send in 21,500 more troops. Since we are calling on these men and women to make the ultimate sacrifice, it is time for America to make a wee little sacrifice itself.

I propose a $100 Billion tax be imposed on Americans across the board with part of the sum coming from an excess-profits tax on the defense and petroleum industries.

It may be symbolic but it will keep the cost off our grand children's credit cards and bring the war home.

Posted by: Scott Ferguson on January 11, 2007 01:01 AM

The "too restrictive" rules of engagement thing means they're going into Sadr City.

This morning Jake Tapper & Martha Raddaz helpfully ventriloquized the party line that the reason the first surge (Operation Together Forward) failed was that the Iraqi government prevented US troops from going into "certain areas" of Baghdad.

Posted by: dave on January 11, 2007 01:04 AM

Oh goodie! We are about to send a couple of thousand American troops in to pacify an area of 1 million angry, armed Shiites. Sounds like a plan! Thank God the Pesha Merga will be going in with us to put an "Iraqi Face" on the operation. The Kurds are Shi'a, aren't they?

Posted by: Scott Ferguson on January 11, 2007 01:17 AM

Oh, jeez. Hope you're wrong (about one or two new wars). Fear you're right.

Did you hear the last line? "We go forward with trust that the Author of Liberty will guide us through these trying hours."

Now I'm really scared.

Posted by: Kit Stolz on January 11, 2007 01:36 AM

Heh, yeah. What better instrument of national unity could we possibly imagine than the Pesh Merga?

Let's hope the Dems develop a real spine. It's up to all of us to help them along, and write the necessary letters. Evidently Marylanders, at least, have half their Senate contigent on the side of the angels. (I expect Cardin feels much the same way.)

Posted by: sglover on January 11, 2007 01:41 AM

Scott Ferguson,

Thanks for your "modest proposal" that PAYGO start here and now. If Bush wants his $100B supplemental, let him explain how he's gonna pay for that sucker. The Dems ought to be out proposing an upper-income surtax to fund that exact amount. Time for Bush's rich enablers to send their kids or hire a substitute like during the US Civil War.

If Kerry lost the First Battle of Bull^*& Run (aka foragainst the $87B) it's time the dems went out and won the Second Battle of Bull^&*( Run (aka Bush vetoing the $100B surtax to prove once and for all he's all about robbing the treasury).

Posted by: STS on January 11, 2007 02:07 AM

Actually - the part about more violence going against the counterinsurgency manual is only partially true. The reference in the manual to the counterproductive effects of too much violence refers to the likelihood that you can breed more insurgents in your attempt to fight them. When someone is driving towards your convoy in what may appear to be a suicide bomber, you don't have time to figure out whether he's just in a hurry to get to a hospital or if he's a threat - you shoot. But if he's innocent, his family will likely grow angry and seek revenge and may produce more insurgents.

BUT - you still have to be serious enough that insurgents know you won't back down. You have to be tough, but fair. The point of this speech is that we've been leaning over backwards to be nice. To win hearts and minds. To avoid offending the Iraqi government. And in the process, we'd allow the insurgents to operate out of mosques, to live in Sadr City without fear, to release bad guys because they are buddies with a high ranking Iraqi official.

No More.

That's what this speech is saying. It most definitely is NOT the same old, same old.

Posted by: K on January 11, 2007 03:01 AM

Actually the Kurds are Sunni.

Posted by: Steve on January 11, 2007 05:18 AM

I'm sure the Kurds will be greeted as liberators in Sadr City!

Knock Knock
Who's there?
Pesh
Pesh who?

Posted by: alphie on January 11, 2007 05:21 AM

Well, I found it reassuring that he didn't mention planned deployments to take out Chavez, Ortega, Castro, Sean Penn, the Smothers Brothers, the Peace Corps, puppies, France and Massachusetts.

And his whispered sweet-nothing to Lieberman made me tear-up a bit. How human-like it was. Who said Artificial Intelligents would never feel?

Funny how one can lower their expectations. If he'd crossed his heart and promised not to launch a nuclear winter, I'd happily have gone to Disney World and toppled a statue of Mickey Mouse, out of gratitude and the thrilling sense of liberation.

Posted by: Kevin Hayden on January 11, 2007 06:03 AM

I think Matt has it basically right. Bush's description of the new rules of engagement in Baghdad stongly suggest the US is about to launch a full-scale war with the Mahdi Army in Baghdad, and other parts of the speech taken together suggest that he is planning to use that operation as a springboard to attacks on Iran and Syria.

Posted by: Dan Kervick on January 11, 2007 08:02 AM

I don't think the part about Iran or Syria means much of anything. I take it in light of the rumor that Bush basically did whatever the opposite of the Iraq Study Group said. They recommended talking to Iran and Syria, so Bush recommends going to war. Nothing much to it.

Posted by: Marshall on January 11, 2007 08:37 AM

Saddam Hussein never really controlled Saddam City during his reign. I doubt the reason for this was too kind and generous rules of engagement.

Posted by: Ed Marshall on January 11, 2007 08:49 AM

What's with these Patriot missile batteries? Who has the threatening missiles and air force that our allies need protection from?

Posted by: Brian Ulrich on January 11, 2007 08:56 AM

In 1969 we had 553,000 troops in Vietnam. We battered N. Vietnam with more bombs than fell during WW2.

Apparently, what LBJ should have done was add 20,000 troops to the 5000 he had in place originally and loosened up their rules of engagement. Then he could have won.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on January 11, 2007 09:25 AM

The Iranian War may be starting already. There are reports of a US raid on the Iranian Consulate in Irbil.

Posted by: Scott Ferguson on January 11, 2007 09:46 AM

OK, there will be a bunch of fuss if the U.S. attacks Iran. No matter how bad it gets, the U.S. will easily survive. That's what it means to be the world's only superpower; even if Russia's missiles are operational, the loss of oil from Iran is not worth the payback, China just ain't got it, and no one else is even close. So, don't overdo the paranoia and retreat to the shelters; the U.S. will survive easily, with at most a few low-tech suicide attacks somewhere, potential (low) loss of maybe a few ships, that sort of thing.

However, there has been many cases of political groups in power who find they cannot leave power without being prosecuted for the things they did in power. The solution, obviously, is to make sure that power is not lost. If the current administration realizes possible danger of that sort, will there be a change of administrations in January 2009? Will the U.S. (as we know it) survive in that case?

...Just asking, that's all...

Posted by: Aslan365 on January 12, 2007 01:19 AM

> I'm sure the Kurds will be greeted as liberators in Sadr City!

> Knock Knock
> Who's there?
> Pesh
> Pesh who?

Gesundheit.

-fred

Posted by: Fred Fnord on January 12, 2007 02:15 AM

reminds me of a joke about a guy that goes to breed his dog, but the animal, having never been around the opposite sex wasnt sure how the "natural act" was to begin and proceed. Isn't the united states' goading of Iran after decimating the Iraq population by over a half a million citizens what the united states was allied with Saddam Hussein to do to begin with? (I mean besides the fact they had a longing eye on those tall firm oil wells all along). They sold him materials, armaments and the Joy of Cooking technology to put them together to use against Iran specifically, and then basically anyone else that annoyed him. The joke ends with the guy telling the dog "I'm only gonna show you how to do this one more time".

Posted by: Tom Friedman on January 12, 2007 07:01 AM

If you read all these comments, you relize hou lost we realy are when it comes to alternitive feuls. I think there might be some conspiracy from our goverments and there is a lot of con artists in this for money. But one thing is for sure - you can not buy a car that uses water as feul. I think we must start using wind and sun energy to safe money at home and spent it on fuel untill hybrid cars become the norm

Posted by: sohbet on August 21, 2007 01:06 PM

sohbet
chat sohbet
mynet sohbet
kızlarla sohbet
sohbet siteleri
islami sohbet
sesli sohbet
kameralı sohbet
sohbet odaları
sohbet net
kelebek sohbet
alem sohbet
canlı sohbet
bedava sohbet
dini sohbet
ideal sohbet
erotik sohbet
internet sohbet
almanya sohbet
bol sohbet
yazgülü sohbet
seks sohbet
isvec sohbet
sohbet odasi
chat sohbet muhabbet
chat mynet sohbet
almanya sohbet chat
zurna sohbet
sex sohbet
canli sohbet
cet kelebek sohbet
sohbet com
ingilizce sohbet
gay sohbet
cinsel sohbet
mynet odalari sohbet
35 sevgi sohbet
sohbet gen tr
kahkaha sohbet
istanbul sohbet
odasi sohbet turk
chat.tc sohbet
sevgi sohbet
yonca sohbet
makas sohbet
cinsellik sohbet
kraltv sohbet
turkce sohbet
ara sohbet
chat cinsellik sohbet
lesbian sohbet
sohbet cet
chat muhabbet sex sohbet
sohbet et
hotmail.com sohbet
keriz sohbet
izmir sohbet
sohbet sohbet
cam sohbet
islam sohbet
sohbet tr zurna
bayan msn sohbet
sohbet sohbet.com
seviyeli sohbet
sohbet sitesi
yazili sohbet
sohbet ankara
kardelen sohbet
konya sohbet
7 islami kanal sohbet
web cam sohbet
java sohbet

Posted by: sohbet on October 3, 2007 05:07 PM

thanks..

Posted by: indir on October 14, 2007 08:23 AM

thank for artichle

Posted by: mirc on October 24, 2007 07:52 PM

thank for artichle ...

Posted by: Pension on November 5, 2007 05:22 PM

Sağır Oda Fan Club
Türk
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
youtube video
forum
downloads
Haberler
küresel ısınma
dizi izle

Posted by: www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması on November 16, 2007 07:14 PM

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
türk
karar

Posted by: mirc on November 18, 2007 08:48 AM

Amaç: hem eğlenmek hemde yarışma coşkusunu yaşatacak forum etkinliğidir. Bu yarışma sonucunda ilk sırada olan arkadaşımız 2007 yılının en iyi SEO'cusu seçilecek ve ödüllendirilecekdir.Ayrıca dereceye giren ilk üç kişiye sürpriz hediyeler var.

Posted by: www.r10.net Küresel Isınmaya Hayır Seo Yarışması on December 17, 2007 04:37 AM

thank a lot

Posted by: wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması on December 21, 2007 05:40 PM

thank you

Posted by: wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması on December 21, 2007 05:42 PM

SEO (Search Engine Optimization) yarışmasınının genel amacı "wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması" kelimesinde google da ilk üçe girebilmektir. İlk üçe girenlere sürpriz hediyeler var.

Posted by: wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması on December 22, 2007 02:29 AM

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
Türkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Turkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Türkçe mırc
Türkce mırc
Turkçe mırc
Turkce mırc
mirc
mirc
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar