Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[tw]

From the Washington Post of 26 Jun 2007:

A GOP Plan To Oust Cheney
The big question right now among Republicans is how to remove Vice President Cheney from office. Even before this week's blockbuster series in The Post, discontent in Republican ranks was rising.

As the reputed architect of the war in Iraq, Cheney is viewed as toxic, and as the administration's leading proponent of an attack on Iran, he is seen as dangerous. As long as he remains vice president, according to this thinking, he has the potential to drag down every member of the party -- including the presidential nominee -- in next year's elections. ...

Today, another group of party elders, led by Sen. John Warner of Virginia, could well do the same. They could act out of concern for our country's plummeting reputation throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East.

Let's look at the Middle East. Under George Jr, the Oslo Accords were destroyed and the Intafada II expanded to war all over Palestine and even into the most northern cities of Lebanon. Under George Jr, Iraq that was probably on the verge of an Orange or Rose revolution, instead was put into Civil War with democracy no longer considered possible. Many (without a political agenda) now believe Iraq with become a theorcratic dictatorship dominated by Shia.

And Afghanistan that was justified by 11 September. More than 50% of the country has now fallen back into Taliban hands since "America does not do nation building". We all know the genius who repeatedly stated that violation of Military Science 101.

Meanwhile Iran that once had a strong reformist movement is now a bastion of wacko extremists. That key turning point was the famous "Axis of Evil" speech based in a political agenda; listing countries that were a threat to no one.

Pakistan is now under threat of Islamic extremism and rattles nuclear weapons. India is being exempted from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - a treaty setup specifically to stop what India is doing.

Turkey is talking about invasion of Kurdistan. Somolia is now only peaceful when Islamic extremists control the country. And the US keeps sending multiple carrier task forces with amphibious task force to threaten ... well we still don't know who Cheney want to attack next.

As scholar after scholar have noted - today it was Robert Dallek, a presidental historian who just published Nixon and Kissinger - everything in the Middle East that this administration has touched is now a disaster. Show me one success. There are none. Zero. Dallek said this noting the similarities between Nixon's Vietnam and George Jr's Iraq. Virutally everyone without a political agenda notes both events are so extremely similar; complete with the rhetoric.

"If we don't stop them there, then they will attack us here." Some in the Cellar also foolishly advocated that nonsense claim in 2003. Same thing in Nam was called the Domino Theory. Deja vue Nam. You would think Cheney et al had learned from history. No wonder top Republicans would love to execute a coup.

Do you know how bad Iraq has become? It is even worse. Republicans Lugar, Warner, and others want Cheney out.

Gen David Patraeus recently said Americans may be in Iraq for another 9 or 10 years. Patraeus is correct if we continue this Cheney doctrine. No wonder top Republican Senators have been so angry for so long. No wonder they fed George Jr only peanut-butter and jelly sandwiches.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by tw

As scholar after scholar have noted - today it was Robert Dallek, a presidental historian who just published Nixon and Kissinger - everything in the Middle East that this administration has touched is now a disaster. Show me one success. There are none. Zero. Dallek said this noting the similarities between Nixon's Vietnam and George Jr's Iraq. Virutally(sp) everyone without a political agenda notes both events are so extremely similar; complete with the rhetoric.

Public opinion, of course, can change. In 1973, 1974 and 1975, Congress undoubtedly felt it was reflecting the country's disillusionment with the Vietnam War, and it forced a disengagement over the Nixon administration's strong objection. Yet military historians are coming to a consensus that by the end of 1972, there was a much-improved balance of forces in Vietnam, reflected in the 1973 Paris agreement, and that Congress subsequently pulled the props out from under that balance of forces -- dooming Indochina to a bloodbath. This is now a widely accepted narrative of the endgame in Vietnam, and it has haunted the Democrats for a generation..

If we let ourselves be driven out of Iraq, what the world will seek most from the next president will not be some great demonstration of humility and self-abasement -- that is, to be the "un-Bush" -- but rather for reassurance that the United States is still strong, capable of acting decisively and committed to the security of its friends. Given our domestic debate, to provide this reassurance will be an uphill battle in the best of circumstances. It will be even more difficult if President Bush succumbs to all the pressures on him to do the wrong thing in Iraq.

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Public opinion, of course, can change. In 1973, 1974 and 1975, Congress undoubtedly felt it was reflecting the country's disillusionment with the Vietnam War, and it forced a disengagement over the Nixon administration's strong objection. Yet military historians are coming to a consensus that by the end of 1972, there was a much-improved balance of forces in Vietnam, reflected in the 1973 Paris agreement, and that [b]Congress subsequently pulled the props out from under that balance of forces -- dooming Indochina to a bloodbath.

If America had pulled props out from under Saigon's army, then why did that army never once stand on its own with props? As made so obvious in Halberstam's 1965 "Making of a Quagmire" and Sheehan's "Bright Shining Lie", Saigon's army never operated under stress without full American support.

A classic example was Saigon's attack on the Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos with multiple divisions, full supplies, and American airpower in support. This time, American units were not in that operation. Communists simply let Saigon drive deep into Laos - and then destroyed those Saigon divisions. Whole Saigon units would disappear. Classic Diem Bien Phu. How could this be? America provided everything including air power and supplies. But American troops were not part of the invasion. Saigon’s soldiers did not trust their officers. Proven but again, Saigon never had a viable army.

Why? 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Saigon never had a viable government. Lack of support made obvious even in movies such as "Good Morning, Vietnam" and "Full Metal Jacket"(?). How bad was it? What was even a biggest source of Communist supplies? The US.

Things were so bad that Le Duc Tho would provide Kissinger with N Vietnam secret assessments complete with time lines. Paris negotiators were simply reminding Kissinger how bad things were in Saigon. Saigon fell apart faster than even N Vietnamese estimated because - 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. S Vietnam never really had a viable government - in 1963 Halberstam's book or in 1973. It is total nonsense to believe America could keep supporting a full scale war where it was actually supplying both sides and where insurgents were far stronger. Insurgents repeatedly avoided confronting direct attacks making Saigon appear equal only on paper.

Gen Petreaus constantly repeats what everyone here should now know. He says he cannot win “Mission Accomplished”. As was also true in Nam, he is correct. Petreaus says he can achieve stunning tactical victories - just like in Nam. Made to look even better because insurgencies don’t confront 'surges'. Where is that strategic objective? Americans cannot achieve a strategic victory - just like in Nam and for obvious reasons. If you are not hearing Petreaus, well, he is making that point painfully obvious to those who understand basic military concepts.

A strategic objective can only be achieved by Iraq's government. As made just as obvious in Halberstam's book, et al, Iraq's army also will only be as viable as its government. Maliki's administration is about as incompetent as the many who preceded him. But then who supports Maliki? Same Americans who also believed Chalibi.

Number one problem - widespread government corruption. Deja vue Nam complete with American supplies flowing to the enemy. Other problems include a government more interested in partisan politics than a national agenda. Who visits province chiefs to gain their support? The Maliki government? Of course not. Just as John Paul Vann and others had to do in Nam, so Americans do in "Mission Accomplished". In both wars, the national government had little public support. Americans bought support then and pay for it now. Support did not come from people working for their country.

American presidents in both wars said otherwise. Maliki's government only has support when it is convenient for others to support him. Maliki is a good source for American handouts. Maliki's government is a government of convenience as demonstrated by four years - and still Iraq has no viable army.

Rocket man can setup across the river to attack the green zone. Nobody saw anything? Of course not. Rocket man is not the enemy. Insurgents could spend all morning outside Abu Ghriad setting up mortars even with a surveyor transit. Everyone saw it. Nobody said anything? An organized attack on Abu Ghriad was a surprise to Americans? Of course. These same Iraqi were described as welcoming Americans – by whom? Deja vue Nam.

Petreaus says he cannot achieve a strategic victory. He can only give Iraq’s government time to establish itself. But that has not been happening. Worse are the many power brokers (described by Americans as a monolithic Al Qaeda) who would be positioning themselves and supplies for this expected ‘end of calm’.

An insurgency never confronts a traditional military power. When the 1st Marine Division sat in Khe Sanh on the verge of being overrun, meanwhile insurgents were elsewhere. We call that the Tet Offensive. That is what insurgents do. Insurgencies are especially dangerous when quiet; when appear to be defeated.

When insurgents disappear from the battlefield, then tactical victories are proclaimed. It happened in Nam. Many make those claims in "Mission Accomplished". Some actually believe a monolithic Al Qaeda exists – and that it had a capital?

Insurgents are not dumb. They know this 'surge' cannot be maintained. Americans cannot maintain this without a draft. Already 10% of recruits have criminal records. The strain on America is great. When America tapers back, expect to see where insurgents have relocated and who stops working with Maliki. A strategic objective is not being achieved. Everyone would be waiting for a multiparty civil war – ie Lebanon style.

Meanwhile, a country currently with so little violence now has millions of refugees. A number now estimated to increase by 50,000 every month. Is a strategic objective being achieved? Or is a nation slowly readying itself for an expected upturn in civil war. Remember that civil war that we were told did not exist? Same people also claim things are getting better every month. They also proclaim another myth of insurgent united under an Al Qaeda banner. How many lies did Nixon say before Americans finally conceded he was lying? How many lies must George Jr tell before we acknowledge realities in "Mission Accomplished"?

Well, in Nam, the generals lied. At least the Generals are being honest about what they can do in “Mission Accomplished”.

Just like in Nam, when a major offensive is conducted, then the battlefield is devoid of insurgents. That proves we are winning? Even Gen Petreaus says America cannot achieve a strategic objective - another lesson made so obvious from Nam. An offensive with so much quiet is a calm before a storm - as N Vietnam planned for their final victory in early 1970s.

Le Duc Tho even showed their secret assessments to Kissinger knowing full well that America could do nothing. He was simply showing that they also knew what Kissinger knew. The defeat of a corrupt Saigon government was inevitable. Only on paper was Saigon's army an equal. N Vietnam had a government that even many S Vietnamese supported. The Iraqi army repeatedly duplicates Saigon's abilities. Without inclusion of American units, neither army (Saigon or Iraq) could operate in fierce battle. A problem directly traceable to governments that did not work for the country and that were/are even chock full of corruption. Armies that mysteriously lose units as soon as combat gets too dangerous. Deja vue.

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

[If we let ourselves be driven out of Iraq, what the world will seek most from the next president will not be some great demonstration of humility and self-abasement -- that is, to be the "un-Bush" -- but rather for reassurance that the United States is still strong, capable of acting decisively and committed to the security of its friends.

Time to worry about that was back in 2002. I was. Anyone who read those 2002 posts know damn well how much I feared the mistake now called "Mission Accomplished".

Three conditions are required for war. 1) A smoking gun. 2) A strategic objective. 3) An exit strategy defined by the strategic objective. These were posted here how many years ago? Five?

Your logic is too little too late. Damage was done long ago. Just another example of damage that does not appear in numbers until years later.

You are using the same logic that massacred so many of my generation. Those who have contempt for the troops used that rationalization. Even a poker player would never be so dumb as to use that rationalization. At the poker table, one who blindly used such rationalization becomes easy money for everyone else.

A smart man learns early when he has created an unwinnable situation - and folds long before the damage is evident. Our last hope for victory required 500,000 troops in country over one year ago. And that was a conservative number. Military doctrine puts the number at 600,000. You are supposed to know such basic concepts when somehow taking a Gen Curtis LeMay's 'big dic' attitude. Even LeMay conceded that Nam could not be won. But to get his attention, we even had to sacrifice 10% of this nation's nuclear bombers.

Yesman065 - at what point do you temper your reasoning by first learning basic military concepts and history? Three fundamental requirements are necessary for a military victory. None. Zero - exist in "Mission Accomplished". So you would throw away more good American soldiers? That is the definition of contempt for the troops.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by tw

Yesman065 - at what point do you temper your reasoning by first learning basic military concepts and history? Three fundamental requirements are necessary for a military victory. None. Zero - exist in "Mission Accomplished". So you would throw away more good American soldiers? That is the definition of contempt for the troops.

My reasoning is working just fine, thanks.

To me, trying to deny them financial support and treating them as pawns in an attempt to make your political opponents look worse - in effect - USING the troops so you may gain power--- That is the definition of contempt.

Oh hell I'll just post another link you won't read cuz it doesn't fit your agenda.

A War We Just Might Win

AND from the NYT of all places.

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

My reasoning is working just fine, thanks.

I don't know. You are making claims from an article that does not say what you claim. First O’Hanlon and Pollack, as I recall, were two of the best Iraqi analysts who were attacked for removal by Rumsfeld because they were not saying the political agenda. They advocated nation building. They came to the Pentagon via Sec of State Powell because they were some of the best experts on Iraq. They were driven out by an administration of wacko extrmists who somehow knew "America does not do nation building".

And what do they write. Details that fit in exactly with what I posted. A War We Just Might Win

We are finally accomplishing something in Iraq, at least in military terms. We have been losing massively at every level for four years. Those who replaced knowledge with a poltical agenda are easily identified. They said we were accomplishing something where even simplest minds knew that was not true.

IOW with generals who were not selected and constrained by wacko political agendas, then we are winning tactically. Petraeus repeatedly said he can win tactically.

Did Yesman065 hear what massive numbers of analysts are also saying in response to this commentary and in agreement with Petraeus? "Mission Accomplished" cannot be won militarily. These temporary victories provide Maliki time to create a political solution - the strategic objective. So what is Maliki doing? Nothing. Not even basic legislation is being passed. Lawmakers all went home. Iraqis appear to be fortifying positions for a wider civil war.

Why does this commentary get big play? The wacko extremist propaganda machine is pushing this one commentary massively because they finally have an accomplishment that is not a lie. Why do wackos forget to mention the rest of what Petraeus says? Why does Yesman065 also forget same; confuse tactical victories with strategic success?

Again, Yesman065 - either you never read or did not grasp what was posted repeatedly even to you. How many times must this be repeated to put O’Hanlon and Pollack into proper perspective? Somehow you are assuming that victory in battle means victory in war. Only fools and those with a 'big dic' perspective believe that. "Our bombs are bigger. Therefore we will win?"

We won most every battle in Nam - and lost. That war could not be won for reasons even cited in 1960s by Halberstam and Sheehan's books. For reasons also cited by the 'wise men' in 1968. Same exists in Iraq.

Yesman065 - they are repeatedly talking in the news about tactical verses stratgeic objectives. Do you not yet get it? You are making claims from an article that does not say what you claim. By not learning the bigger picture, you fail to comprehend the point in that commentary.