<p>of the Very Small? I didn’t hear anything about the brave fighting men and women of Palau or Molvania? How can we win the war without their continuing and increased commitment? Where’d they go?</p>
<p>I loved the blame game set-up. The Pres. sends more aggressive occupying troops to a country where the puppet gov’t says it doesn’t want them. (Maliki made it clear he wants NO more “Coalition” troops in Baghdad.) The people want the American troops out, and overwhelming favor killing them. Then, when the occupier fails, we can blame it on the occupied, who didn’t want us there to begin with.</p>
<p>At least there was no more nonsense about “training” Iraqi forces. Why would you want to train them if, with their training, they want to kill us?</p>
<p>Meanwhile, by not cutting off funding, the Democrats abandon U.S. troops to the lying, cheating, deceit, and malfeasance of the GWB and his henchman. </p>
<p>With the caveat that I didn’t watch the speech (working late), I did read the text and, having done so, I’m not entirely sure that we haven’t declared war on Iraq and Syria. Care to clarify for me Mini?</p>
<p>I won’t agree on lying, will possibly concede on cheating vis a vis “henchmen,” give you malfeasance and raise you gutless and short-sighted.</p>
<p>The U.S. invaded the Iranian counsulate in northern Iraq today, and took hostages. You can just imagine the outcry if Iranian troops invaded the U.S. counsulate in France, and did the same.</p>
<p>“The U.S. invaded the Iranian counsulate in northern Iraq today, and took hostages. You can just imagine the outcry if Iranian troops invaded the U.S. counsulate in France, and did the same.”</p>
<p>Wouldn’t the French just do it for them? I have a confession to make here (feel free to bash away): I’m deeply, profoundly worried. Perhaps terrified is the right word, that we are on a collision course with Iran. I am losing sleep over this.</p>
<p>Also, Mini, I used to think you were a mean and scary guy, but I’ve come to enjoy and look forward to your posts, insight and humor.</p>
<p>Thanks. The thing is - the U.S. has so much to gain through rapproachment with Iran. It is, after all, the closest thing to real democracy among Muslim Middle Eastern nations. (the other thing is - I’m absolutely convinced that, in a war with Iran, the U.S. would lose - but heaven forbid!) </p>
<p>A Republican commentator perhaps explained it best last night, though - the U.S. has become a client state of Saudi Arabia.</p>
<p>This is becoming a bigger quagmire by the day. 100 or more Iraqi civilian casualities almost daily, and even the generals do not think that additional troops will have any impact whatsoever on quelling the violence. I almost spit out my morning when I heard Gates announce on CNN that he recommended raising troop levels by over 90,000 in the next five years. We go from 21,500 surge to 90,000? Yay for the War Prez!</p>
<p>It is hard to imagine that Bush would ignore his own bi-partisan study, as well as the will of the American people and the Democratic congress (who won’t stand up to him anyway, and he knows it). But he has, and he will continue to act in an unchecked manner, since no one has the will to stop this president from his reckless course of action.</p>
<p>First, this is not true - General Petraeus, who has always been well respected for what he has accomplished in Iraq, is strongly in favor of it. Secondly, I find it interesting that the same generals whose advice was followed that got us into the “quagmire” are now the saints of the left. Does no one else see the irony of this?</p>
<p>General Petreus is strongly in favor of 250,000! troops (1 per every 20 in the population, he wrote) for Baghdad alone, not 20,000.</p>
<p>The silliest part of the whole thing is that the President called for Iraqi soldiers to go door-to-door in Baghdad, winning hearts and minds. But since they can’t be Shiite soldiers (which make up 80% of the Iraqi armed forces), the plan calls for bringing down Kurdish brigades from the north to do the winning. The only problem? They don’t speak Arabic!</p>
<p>"I’m absolutely convinced that, in a war with Iran, the U.S. would lose - but heaven forbid!) "</p>
<p>I don’t know. The only way America is going to fight all these battles is to have a draft. We do not have enough volunteers to fight on so many fronts, so we will need to conscript. That is the point where alot of Americans will probably draw the line and decide if we want to spread “democracy” by military force.</p>
<p>We may lose by Amercian default [if that is a real loss] because I don’t think the majority will buy into the preemptive strike concept again. I don’t think Iran would ever start something beyond words with us. They aren’t stupid either. It’s easier to talk a big game than to have one. I think they are smart enough to know that if they ever struck at the US or even Isreal, it would be the last thing they did.</p>
<p>“A Republican commentator perhaps explained it best last night, though - the U.S. has become a client state of Saudi Arabia.”</p>
<p>“I think they are smart enough to know that if they ever struck at the US or even Isreal, it would be the last thing they did.”</p>
<p>Who said anything about them striking anyone? Iran has NEVER invaded another country, even when attacked with chemical weapons at the urging of the United States, they never attacked another country. Even with 200,000 aggressive enemy troops on both of their borders, they never attacked another country. </p>
<p>They sure aren’t stupid. Even though the U.S. has now taken hostages from their consulate, I think they understand very well that the U.S. is looking for an enemy to distract the American people from its own government’s criminal malfeasance.</p>
<p>One of the (many) problems, FF, is knowing who recommended what. Do you know for a fact that the president has merely been following the advice of the generals before now? And have the generals all agreed? When they’re in uniform, they don’t always air their private advice to the commander in chief, nor would the c-in-c publicize disagreements.</p>
<p>We can both guess that others secretly all agree with us. But the fact that Colin Powell was against the war at the beginning is evidence to me that Bush was NOT listening to Powell or other current/former uniformed officers, but rather to Cheney,et.al. And one thing Cheney doesn’t do, is represent the military.</p>
<p>There will be absolutely no public support for a draft. It would be political suicide for Bush and the Republicans.</p>
<p>On the other hand, they have never paid any attention to public opinion, and are doubtful to start in the future. </p>
<p>Forced conscription would bring people to the streets. No way are most of the (small number of) people still supporting this horrific war going to risk the lives of their own loved ones on the front lines.</p>
<p>AM: Yes, you have found links that prove my point. At what point do we say to a general who has served his country well but whose stretegies have not worked that perhaps its time for some new ideas?</p>
<p>Hayden, Tommy Franks is no longer in uniform and he has never said that any strategies for fighting the war were imposed upon him - he remained a strong Bush supporter after he retired. I’m sure that he could have sold a lot more books if he had chosen to be a whistle blower.</p>
<p>The “new idea”, from Petreaus, is 250,000 new troops in Baghdad alone.</p>
<p>At least we can now all agree that four years and a trillion dollars of military involvement have been an abject failure “grave and deteriorating…but we’re making progress.” From Franks to Abizaid, all a bunch of incompetents. (or maybe there was something wrong with the mission?)</p>
But the point is that none of these generals, whose views you now perceive as if the have just come from the mountaintop, are in agreement with the Pelosi/Murtha/Allmusic proposal of bugging out. So, are the views of these generals only to be adhered to when they disagree with Bush, but when they disagree with yours they are just stupid generals who got us involved in a quagmire. Doesn’t work both ways.</p>
<p>The War ended a long time ago. The generals were all saddled with an occupation, and as a result of the occupation, the percentage of the population that thinks it desirable to kill Americans rose from 20% to well over 60%. </p>