Oooops! Course Correction!

George O Well · #1 (**permalink**) 10-20-2006, 02:11 PM

"President Bush will meet soon with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his top military commanders to discuss the situation in Iraq, where violence is escalating. Gen. John Abizaid, the head of U.S. Central Command, will fly to Washington while Iraq commander Gen. George Casey will be involved from Baghdad, where the U.S. is having to rethink its crucial security plan."

>>>What's to rethink? Just because we're further away from democratizing that country than we were four years ago is hardly reason to not "stay the course", eh?

Eternal Footman · #2 (**permalink**) 10-20-2006, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George O Well

"President Bush will meet soon with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his top military commanders to discuss the situation in Iraq, where violence is escalating. Gen. John Abizaid, the head of U.S. Central Command, will fly to Washington while Iraq commander Gen. George Casey will be involved from Baghdad, where the U.S. is having to rethink its crucial security plan."

>>>What's to rethink? Just because we're further away from democratizing that country than we were four years ago is hardly reason to not "stay the course", eh?

Yes, shame on us for not developing and implementing a flawless strategic war four years ago. Afterall, every variable can be taken account for in war, at least that the way RISK works. Bush's use of "Staying the course" means to remain on task until the desired goal is accomplished. It does not however mean we will remain static in our strategy throughout the span of the war. I realize it's not your style George, but let's be realistic and not jump on every mundane detail to criticize the war.

cat's meow · #3 (**permalink**) 10-20-2006, 04:23 PM

Printed in the Memphis Commercial Appeal this morning, front page, the M.C.A. is by no means a liberal rag BTW, they are pretty meat and potatoes conservative...

Quote:

Iraq war at 'tipping point'
Photo Christopher Bodeen/Associated Press

By Michael Abramowitz and Thomas E. Ricks

October 20, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The growing doubts among GOP lawmakers about the administration's Iraq strategy, coupled with the prospect of Democratic wins in next month's midterm elections, will soon force the Bush administration to abandon its open-ended commitment to the war, according to lawmakers in both parties, foreign policy experts and others involved in policymaking.

Senior figures in both parties are coming to the conclusion that the Bush administration will be unable to achieve its goal of a stable, democratic Iraq within a politically feasible time frame. Agitation is growing in Congress for alternatives to the administration's strategy of keeping Iraq in one piece and getting its security forces up and running while 140,000 U.S. troops try to keep a lid on rapidly spreading sectarian violence.

On the campaign trail, Democratic candidates are hammering Republican candidates for backing a failed Iraq policy, and GOP defense of the war is growing muted. A new NBC-Wall Street Journal poll released this week showed that voters are more confident in Democrats' ability to handle the Iraq war than the Republicans' -- a sea change from the last election.

Few officials in either party are talking about an immediate pullout of U.S. combat troops. But interest appears to be growing in several broad ideas. One would be some kind of effort to divide the country along regional lines. Another, favored by many Democrats, is a gradual withdrawal of troops over a set period of time. A third would be a dramatic scaling-back of U.S. ambitions in Iraq, giving up on democracy and focusing only on stability.

Many senior Republicans with close ties to the administration also believe that an aggressive new diplomatic initiative to secure a Middle East peace settlement is essential to a successful strategy in Iraq, as well as a new effort to engage Iraq's neighbors, such as Syria and Iran, in helping stabilize the country -- perhaps through an international conference.

One point on which adherents of these sharply different approaches appear to agree is that "staying the course" is fast becoming a dead letter. "I don't believe that we can continue based on an open-ended, unconditional presence," said Sen. Olympia Snowe, a centrist Maine Republican. "I don't think there's any question about that, that there will be a change" in the U.S. strategy in Iraq after next month's election.

Richard Haass, a former Bush administration foreign policy official, told reporters Thursday that the situation is reaching a "tipping point" both in Iraq and in U.S. politics. "More of essentially the same is going to be a policy that very few people are going to be able to support," said Haass, now the president of the Council on Foreign Relations. He added that the administration's current Iraq strategy "has virtually no chance of succeeding" and predicted that "change will come."

Many Senate Republicans are waiting for the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker, a Republican, and former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton, a Democrat. Both Baker and Hamilton have made it clear that they don't see the current administration Iraq policy as working -- though they don't plan to issue recommendations until well after the mid-term elections, probably in early January. Many foreign policy experts believe the commission could sway President Bush more than most such study groups because of Baker's close ties to the Bush family.

In an interview this week, Hamilton said there is no "magic bullet" to turning the situation around in Iraq but said frustration is clearly rising over the current course. "I can't walk out the door without someone handing me a recommendation," he said.

Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., a member of the Foreign Relations committee, said he is open to "significant changes" in the U.S. approach and is hoping the Iraq Study Group can supply them. "I don't think anyone in the administration is pleased about the current state of affairs," he said. "I would hope that members of the administration are willing to learn from past mistakes ... and choose a different path that would allow us to meet our objectives."

How open President Bush will be to a change in course is unclear, even as the violence escalates -- this week has been one of the bloodiest for the Americans in Baghdad in months. In recent remarks about Iraq, Bush has sounded a more flexible tone, saying he is open to suggestions for changes and emphasizing that his commanders adjust tactics constantly. He has repeatedly made it clear than American patience with the new Iraqi government is not open-ended.

Levelheaded · #4 (**permalink**) 10-20-2006, 04:25 PM

I know this sentiment will draw vengeance from all sides of the political aisle but I believe "W" knows he fucked up. He knows the invasion was a fuck up and the lack of plan ,the cocky assumptions etc. I know right and left will damn me for this opinion but IMHO I think "W" sees this clearly.

Personally it makes him more human , more real, possibly humane yet again what will America do to solve the fuck up?

cat's meow · #5 (**permalink**) 10-20-2006, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levelheaded

I know this sentiment will draw vengeance from all sides of the political aisle but I believe "W" knows he fucked up. He knows the invasion was a fuck up and the lack of plan ,the cocky assumptions etc. I know right and left will damn me for this opinion but IMHO I think "W" sees this clearly.

Personally it makes him more human , more real, possibly humane yet again what will America do to solve the fuck up?

Damn you? No, I will rather praise you here. This 'W's MO. I seem to remember driving my car home the day (this past year) when Dubya said "...in looking back on it I probably would not have used such rhetoric as 'for us or against us'". I nearly hit a tree because I was laughing my ass off so hard...what a big stupid piece of s*** that press conference was. Why did he even bother. His 'soft and tender' side...LOL!

...and you ask the $64 million question my friend...

Quote:

...yet again what will America do to solve the fuck up?

...a pretty f***ing big hole has been dug, that I know.

Still Dizzy · #6 (**permalink**) 10-20-2006, 06:27 PM

Like ALL wars, ALL football games, and MOST marriages, your game plan will change.

George O Well · #7 (**permalink**) 10-20-2006, 06:50 PM

"Yes, shame on us for not developing and implementing a flawless strategic war four years ago."

>>>ANY plan would have been better than the neocon plan to paint bullseyes on the backs of our GIS and have them walk the streets of Karballah, eh?

George O Well · #8 (**permalink**) 10-20-2006, 06:58 PM

"Richard Haass, a former Bush administration foreign policy official, told reporters Thursday that the situation is reaching a "tipping point" both in Iraq and in U.S. politics. "More of essentially the same is going to be a policy that very few people are going to be able to support," said Haass, now the president of the Council on Foreign Relations. He added that the administration's current Iraq strategy "has virtually no chance of succeeding" and predicted that "change will come.""

>>>There IS no Iraq strategy that has a chance of succeeding except, possibly, the one being proposed by the Sunni insurgents.

George O Well · #9 (**permalink**) 10-20-2006, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levelheaded

I know this sentiment will draw vengeance from all sides of the political aisle but I believe "W" knows he fucked up. He knows the invasion was a fuck up and the lack of plan ,the cocky assumptions etc. I know right and left will damn me for this opinion but IMHO I think "W" sees this clearly.

Personally it makes him more human , more real, possibly humane yet again what will America do to solve the fuck up?

>>>As Bush's AA councellors told him, acknowledgement is the first step to recovery. If he DOES know he fucked up but continues to let people die, then he is just a miserable low-life shithead.