How bad is Bush?

Parent Cafe
161

<p>So if Bush and his “advisors” didn’t want things to go badly in Iraq, if Bush is a smart, intelligent person not affected by his history of substance abuse or any other pathology–how could he have be
en so incredibly wrong about what would happen if he deposed Saddam?</p>

<p>This wasn’t a hard prediction to make. There were warnings aplenty from his own father’s experience, the words of his own vice president while in a previous capacity, the predictions of the generals and former NSA head (whom the AEI dismissed as “windbags of war”). </p>

<p>The Bush fans here keep dismissing every explanation anyone has proposed for how this could have happened…but you’ve not advanced one explanation of your own, that I can see. Anytime anyone asks about it, the typical response seems to be that what’s past is past, and we need to just forget about the past and have “faith” that the current decisions are right.</p>

<p>But to me, unless we know what went wrong and that it’s been corrected, I don’t see how we can expect current policy decisions to be any better informed than the previous decisions. And I just don’t see any signs that there have been any corrections.</p>

<p>ETA: And yes, I have been very assertive in some of these discussions. You know why? Because when I first came, anyone who posted in favor of the existing Constitutional protections for religious tolerance was labelled “anti-Christian” “an idiot” “a social (ist?)”, etc. '</p>

<p>People who supported the idea that the recommendations of the generals and not the think-tankers should be followed on Iraq were routinely dismissed as “hating the troops” “wanting us to lose” “wanting to surrender”, “only being willing to defend the country when it was too late”, etc. </p>

<p>Posters who raised concerns about the troops having adequate, say mental health care, were accused of saying all our troops were mentally defective, etc. </p>

<p>When a poster (not me) linked to an article describing casualties in Iraq, all the anti-war posters were accused of being “gleeful” about the deaths. </p>

<p>So yeah, I have given that back, and given it back hard. The result: some of the worst offenders on the neocon side have been much less freer with the insults and the accusations of treason. And I’ve taken on myself a lot of the hostility that was being directed at non-neocons in general. </p>

<p>Perhaps I have crossed the line at times, but at least I’m no longer reading in every other thread about how much we liberals hate our friends, neighbors and relatives who are putting their lives on the line for the neocon agenda.</p>

162

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, President Bush is a human being. In relationship to this fact, when asked if he had ever made mistakes in a press conference several years ago, it would have been nice to see evidence that he thought so by being able to talk about mistakes that he made rather than responding that he couldn’t think of any. </p>

<p>For me, it’s hard to feel a lot of compassion for the situation in which Bush finds himself – at record low approval ratings and apparently more and more harried – because he put himself into it. </p>

<p>The War in Iraq was not thrust on us as was WWII. He and his planners didn’t take into account the risks they were taking and didn’t properly explain them to the people of the United States. </p>

<p>Whether or not you agree with the notion that the Administration lied to get us into war, it must be said by all that we rushed to war. More time could have been taken to escalate diplomatic pressure and gather allies to our cause.</p>

<p>As a result, we are now in a long slog for which we were not prepared. For the most part the nation was content to kind of forget about the fact we were at war. And the Administration actively sought this forgetfulness by not letting our war dead be photographed for instance. But as the deaths and debts climb, it has become more and more clear to a larger and larger number of people that it is not going well and will have none of its promised outcomes.</p>

<p>And Bush put himself into this. I could feel sorry for him if he was presiding over a different kind of war or were a private citizen. But neither is the case. </p>

<p>And I actually don’t think he’s deteriorating because of a heavy conscience, though in this I am only speculating what’s in the man’s mind and may be reaching, as I will well admit. I think it’s because he knows on some level that he has failed and hasn’t measured up in his own family. It’s a family tragedy that has become a national tragedy. Were that it were only a family affair, and then I could view him with empathy, if not sympathy.</p>

163

<p>I actually give Presidents a pass for speaking problems. It reminds me of the old days when it was a lot harder to predict where hurricanes were going, and the premiere meteorologists like Nash Roberts used to stay on the air 24 hours or more till the danger to the area had passed. By the end of it, they were saying things like, “It’s going to go…uh…left.” I figure with all the demands, any President is probably exhausted most of the time. </p>

<p>But we’re still no closer to answering, how the administration could have made such bad predictions about what would happen when Saddam fell.</p>

164

<p>“I pick Gulf War I, when a true international coalition was formed through goodwill, much deft diplomacy, respect for our allies, etc.”</p>

<p>And what exactly did Gulf War I accomplish? Absolutely nothing. In order to keep Saddam from retaking Kuwait we had to maintain large numbers of forces , an embargoe that was a sieve, and constant air patrols and bombings. All of that with ever increasing criticism from our allies and dwindling economic and military support. Gulf War II was fought to avoid that bleed.</p>

<p>The final historical judgement on the Bush prosecution of Gulf War II and its aftermath will only be made after what is now the inevitable Gulf War III. We will withdraw in shambles from Iraq because the leaders of one party lust for power more than the common good. We will inevitably have to go back and die for the same ground a third time because there will never be peace and security until radical Islam has its back broken.</p>

<p>Bush was betting on a domino effect happening after a stable and more or less democratic government was established in Baghdad. That might have been a pipe dream and in addition the execution might have been tactically flawed but it wasn’t a lack of vision or strategy that got us to where we are.</p>

165

<p>

I agree with your first sentence, but not the second.</p>

<p>Keeping in mind that I’m neither a historian nor military expert, here’s what I think. I think we tried to wage “war light.” By that I mean, we thought we could have the Spark notes version – not too much invested up front, and not offend anyone’s sensibilities in the process. I think Colin Powell was right about one thing in particular – only go to war as a last resort, but go with all the force you need to win. You can’t have a half-hearted effort. Some military blogs I’ve read have talked about the limitations on Rules of Engagement. I hate war, but if you engage in one, you’d better go with the clear intention to win. And I think that means more troops/armament/support than you think you need.</p>

<p>I think Petraeus understands that and is attempting to correct the situation. And we’d better all hope that he’s successful, regardless of the political issues on this side of the Atlantic. If we fail in Iraq, I think the consequences will haunt our foreign policy for decades to come, and open us up to further terrorist attacks. That’s just my opinion, not Limbaugh, Cheney, Rumsfeld or anyone else.</p>

<p>Finally, Dennis Prager has an interesting article on the topic. <a href=“http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/new_form_of_evil_is_why_americ.html[/url]”>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/new_form_of_evil_is_why_americ.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

166

<p>No, HL? Just what was it then, if not complete and sheer chutzpah that Americans can trump all?</p>

<p>Had there been a strategy, Bush would have listened to his commanders on the ground, who called for more troops from the beginning. Had their been a vision, they would have anticipated that invading a country would be no cakewalk. </p>

<p>So, I’d say they pretty well screwed up in both the vision and strategy department.</p>

167

<p>“mini, could you please explain what you are referring to when you say Clinton killed children? Pretty please?”</p>

<p>Of please don’t get mini started on that again. Mini’s politics are flakier that a well baked croissant. A real intelligent and articulate and often insightful fellow but he has his own private Moriarty. I can’t stand Clinton myself but he isn’t a baby killer. If sanctions worked a hardship on Iraqi citizens while Saddam was building gold-plated palaces all over the country then the blood is on Saddam’s hands not Clinton’s.</p>

168

<p>

</p>

<p>And it was a dramatically bad bet. Liberators become occupiers in about 2 seconds flat, and that is why you don’t introduce democracy from the barrel of a gun. If you try to do so, you end up with insurgency or revolt. In this case, additionally, we let the country fall into chaos. And given it’s mixed make-up, civil war has ensued. No big surprises there.</p>

<p>Iraq wasn’t the place to go to break the back of Islam, if that’s what we wanted. It was a Baathist – meaning secular, socialist – country. If you want to break the back of Islam, you’d have to go to Saudi Arabia and Iran first.</p>

<p>People like you may view Iraq as the big bogeyman that we had to subdue. It’s actually a distraction, but one that is now costing us dearly because of the mistake of going back for Gulf War II. Why do insist we’ll be going back to pursue this distracting obsession again in Gulf War III?</p>

169

<p>Allmusic - invading the country was a cakewalk. The problem was they underestimated the difficulty of forming a non-sectarian government and the willingness of Al Qada to stir up a civil war between Shia and Sunni.</p>

<p>To be sure the Bush administration made a number of tactical mistake. I don’t think a shortage of troops was really one of them though. The real problem was an unwillingness to use the force we did have ruthlessly. The people of Iraq expect ruthlessness from their governors. We could have fullfilled their expectations wither by keeping the Baathist military or leveling Fallujah at the first sign of resistence. Bush did not have the stomach for either of those choices. He is to good a person.</p>

<p>So now it will be left to some future president to wage Gulf War III and pacify the region. That will be a much more costly affair than I and II.</p>

170

<p>

</p>

<p>But once again, sjmom, it’s same old, same old. </p>

<p>Petraus’ input is not guiding policy. Petraeus’ testimony before Congress–that it would take 250,000 troops to be effective was totally disregarded. Instead this 20,000 figure was picked with no explanation of why it would work when world respected US military professionals with decades of experience said it wouldn’t (and would likely make the situation worse).</p>

<p>It’s the same pattern–experienced, knowledgeable people over-ruled in favor of neocons with poor track records, and no one seems to be able to give any rational explanation. </p>

<p>These really are life and death decisions. Take the munitions dumps. According to the GAO, thousands of American lives likely would have been saved if we’d secured the munitions dumps early in the conflict. (This is where the insurgents are getting the materials they need to make the roadside bombs that are the leading killer of Americans in Iraq). Yet they’re still not secured.</p>

<p>Securing the munitions so they couldn’t be used against our soldiers should have been job one. Anyone who’s read much history knows that in warfare, planning and logistics are vital. If you can keep the other guy from arming himself and nourishing himself, you’ve gone a long way to winning the war. It’s why so many Merchant Mariners ended up in lifeboats in the ocean during WWII–they were escorting the supply ships, and blowing the supply ships out of the water was a major objective of our enemies. It’s one of the reasons Germany couldn’t win the invasion of Russia, the supply line was just too long.</p>

<p>I have a lot of trouble understanding how anyone can say they want stability in Iraq and not make it a high priority to secure the munitions dumps. Would you believe I were serious about my household safety if I had handguns and bullets lying all around my front yard for anyone to pick up and use on my loved ones?</p>

171

<p>“Liberators become occupiers in about 2 seconds flat, and that is why you don’t introduce democracy from the barrel of a gun.”</p>

<p>I don’t know. It worked pretty well in NAZI Germany and Facist Italy and Japan.</p>

172

<p>“If you want to break the back of Islam, you’d have to go to Saudi Arabia and Iran first.”</p>

<p>There is no road to Tehran that doesn’t go through Baghdad. From Iraq you face Iran, Syria, and Arabian prninsula. That is why if we withdraw we will inevitably have to fight a Gulf War III and bleed for the same ground again.</p>

173

<p>

</p>

<p>Yeah, after a grueling war, two hydrogen bombs, with vanquished peoples who, particularly in the case of Germany, had significant experience with democratic government. Are you suggesting that if we had occupied them before surrender, it would have been easy? 'cause that’s the closest analogy. And if you don’t see the differences, you fail to understand the sacrifices made by ourselves, the British, and the Russians in World War II.</p>

<p>Vietnam is a good countervailing example, among many others.</p>

174

<p>None of those countries was likely to erupt in civil war when it’s head of state was removed. You don’t have anything near the sectarian tensions. </p>

<p>And we won WWII in no small part because we had an administration committed to getting the best advice, bringing in anyone who had an area of expertise that could help. They were extremely creative about identifying people with special talents who could help win. They never took their eyes off the prize; nothing was more important than accomplishing our goals.</p>

<p>By contrast, what we have now is an administration that deliberately excludes capable people–in the case of the hospital rebuilding, for example, they removed the world’s leading expert in wartime hospital rebuilding to put in an adoption social worker who made a fiasco of it. That’s a pretty egregious example of taking your eye off the ball and prioritizing non-pragmatic goals over being successful. And I’m not seeing much to suggest that the administration has changed courses on this; they haven’t even given the American people any explanation for why they are doing things that are so counter-intuitive</p>

175

<p>

</p>

<p>Are you seriously suggesting that Iraq is just a prelude for invading Iran? What about the flank on the other side, Saudi Arabia?</p>

<p>What security interest, in particular, would we be fighting for? Please tell me that.</p>

<p>Because if it isn’t oil, and it isn’t the security of our ally Israel, I’d like to know exactly why you would want to see us embroiled in such a massive military undertaking in a part of the world that otherwise shouldn’t concern us too much.</p>

176

<p>Bedhead, the movement among some of the neocons to launch an unprovoked attack on Iran is huge and growing. Millions of people bought John Hagee’s book where he makes the case for how the US must attack Iran to order to fufill God’s plan for the end of the world and bring about the Rapture/Second Coming. To those who believe in this, any attempt to bring stability to the Middle East or peace to the region is sinful and defying God. Many prominent politicians have lent support to Hagee’s cause by appearing at his functions.</p>

<p>Frankly, I don’t get it. People have been predicting the Second Coming since the early days of the Christian church. People didn’t want to plant crops because they didn’t think they’d still be here when they ripened. The New Testament makes it pretty clear that no one knows when the day will come. So trying to manipulate events to accelerate it? I just don’t see how they can justify it in Scripture.</p>

177

<p>Conyat: Within my own family, there are religious people who think this way, and it makes me literally ill. It is the President Bush as the Agent of God’s Unfolding Will in the End Times view of what we are doing. I have talked at length with family members who hold this view, and the discussion always ends at the point that I can’t know God’s will and therefore any criticisms I make of Bush or our Iraq war policy, etc. are not worth considering. It is truly faith-based governance.</p>

<p>And note: I am not anti-Christian. I just don’t want people who think that God talks directly to them (as many of these people do including, I think, Bush) making life or death decisions for others. I had a boss who thought God talked directly to him, and it resulted in some really bad behavior toward people that the boss didn’t like.</p>

<p>I am aware about the push to go to war with Iran, and it makes my skin crawl. As if our military doesn’t have its hands full already. I think the factions calling for this are made up of people like you are talking about on the religious Christian right and also by Hawkish Pro-Israel neocons who apparently, in the face of no success in their central experiment in Iraq, are now content to forget about it and move their targeting to Iran. Iran has of course said that it wants to eradicate Israel from the planet, thereby fanning the flames.</p>

178

<p>BedHead - the reason we were able to impose our will in Germany and Japan after the war was because we were ruthlessly willing to use force and take lives. The American people and its government were not and are not willing to do to Iraq what we did to Germany and Japan - firwbomb its cities and kill its citiizens by the millions.</p>

<p>I do’t think we would have had to firebomb baghdad but we probably would have needed to level Fallujah early on in order to gain the authority we would have needed to impose order on the country. BTW the British had to invade and conquer Iraq during WWII so it is not like there is no precedent for a western government replacing a Pan-Arabist Ultranationalist government in Iraq by conquest.</p>

179

<p>“Are you seriously suggesting that Iraq is just a prelude for invading Iran? What about the flank on the other side, Saudi Arabia?”</p>

<p>You are the one that told me were waging war against the wrong country and that Saudi Arabia and Iran were the loci of radical Islam. </p>

<p>War is politics by other means but if don’t want to have to use those other means you have to make a credible case that you can use them. Iran is particularly susceptible to asymetric warfare right now. But of course you need to be in a position to make use of those long porous borders to supply disgruntled internal elements:-)</p>

180

<p>“Vietnam is a good countervailing example”</p>

<p>Well except that we did not invade and conquer Vietname. Rather we stepped into the middle of an ongoing civil war and rather than trying to impose democracy we were busy imposing militart coups. On top of all that we had not shortage of troop - there were 530,000 American over there when I turned 18 and hence draft age. Finally the prevailing liberal wisdom, at least among those few liberals who don’t relish American defeats, is that the strategic mistake we made was Americanizing the war and putting the RVN’s in a support roll rather than letting them lead the warfighting with us in the support roll.</p>

<p>Where does conyat hang out anyway? I have never heard of these wack jobs he is talking about. Are they like the Masons? I understand you have to kill somebody to be a 33rd degree Mason.</p>