« "We See No Need for Action" | Main | Flynt Leverett's 1000 Words--What the Administration Doesn't Want You to Read »

December 16, 2006


It's become clear to me that no these fucknuts are not going to leave Iraq, no matter what. But WHY, they can't be this delusional. Is it just that much more time to feed their big industy buddies? Are they stalling for an opportunity to blame the loss on someone else? Who's core interest is driving this? Who is President Cheney serving? Also, has anyone else noticed how close Darth Cheney has been staying to his avitar lately. Every photo I've seen of George in the last week or so has had Dick right on his shoulder. Spooky.

I disagree - delusion is the most plausible explanation. There have got to be easier troughs for feeding the corporate piggies, and by this point it should be clear to anyone who is non-delusional that kicking the can down the road won't work for another two years.

The one bright spot is that they're screwing McCain. By sending more troops, they deny him the ability to claim in '08 that everything would have come out rosy "if only we'd taken my advice and sent more troops."

I don't know who Cheney's master is, Yog-sothoth or somebody, but the AEI says what they are told to say, no matter how stupid it sounds. They'd cluck like a chicken if they were told to.
Looks like Baker's expensive plea for reality is DOA, Cheney is shepherding Feckless Leader around, and nobody in the press can say two words about Iraq without saying 'surge'.
The surge itself is meaningless, this is all just to drown out the ISG and any Democrat that makes a squeak.

Here's the kicker....

We're supposed to send an extra 31,500 COMBAT troops (and 40K-70K support troops to that) by JUNE.

And JUNE, JULY, and AUGUST are going to be spent wiping out the sunni insurgency in Baghdad.

Have any of these idiots looked at the weather report for Baghdad in July? And condidered how US forces are supposed to function in full body armor in that kind of heat in an urban environment against a mobile and agile guerilla force?

We need to keep in mind that these are the SMART people who support this war...the people who try and think about stuff before they say something....


If their smart people are this dumb....Its really scare what Shrub is gonna want to do....

oh...and thanx for reminding me of this...

Plan removes the rationale for Shia militias

uh DUH.... the "rationale" for the Shia militia is setting up an Islamic republic under Sharia law. The Sadrist want a "purely Arab" system...the SCIRI and DAWA continue want something alligned with the Persians...

(what sucks is that I know this, and these idiots making six figure salaries don't. )

You know, I'm really feeling Freepatriot's pain right now. This government is acting in direct conflict with the clear will of the American people. They should be removed. Unfortunately, I don't think impeachment is a realist proposition, even at this dreadful juncture. Republican Corporate media, still doing its job.

These guys are really out of control. And don't forget this chick is probably reflecting some inside the WH thinking too:


You have to love the part near the bottom where Israel is causing us to lose in Iraq. So it isn't just the American people...

If you seriously want to know why the US is pursuing an illogical path of chaos and destruction, you must read a comic. "Addicted to War" is something I came across months ago, and finally bought to share with my war-mongering friends.

It has the clearest explanation, with references in the back, of our military policy and who profits. This is a capitalistic country, after all, and profit is the name of the game.


Securing oil wealth isn't dirtying one's hands and getting all sweaty on the job. It is a matter of controlling contracts and leases. Political power? A method of channeling monies to the wealthiest 1%. Monopolies and tariffs equal economic control, and are as much warfare as driving a line of tanks over once-productive fields.

So, a lot of people will suffer, and cultures be destroyed, simply so that executives from an incestuous group of war profiteers can wallow in their wealth.

What gets me is that all these idiots simply assume that "The Solution" is "Send More Troops."

Yeah? Send more troops? To do what?

Our troops are not police, and they do not speak Arabic. Our soldiers have two functions. They kill or destroy "The Enemy" (whoever that is.) and they hold ground to prevent its occupation by "The Enemy." Our ground forces have the technology so that they can reach out and kill with a single shot anyone they see in a circle around them that reaches out to a radius of three kilometers. They can do this almost as well at night as they can during the day.

But the bad guys know that if we can't see them, or if we can't distinguish them from the good guys, they have the opportunity to do a lot of damage. That's why this war is being fought in the cities.

So let's say that we double the number of troops over there. What do they do to solve the problems of distinguishing the bad guys from the good guys? This kind of war is lost when you kill too many good guys.

Nothing about sending more troops changes what they are doing over there, and we don't have 180,000 or so arabic-speaking police to send.


The magical thinking here is that the solution is simply "More Troops." That means that the problem has been defined as "Not Enough Troops." But that is not the real problem.

The basic problem is what the troops are trained to do, compared to what needs to be done. And the AEI is filled with psuedo academics who have no military experience. They see someone with a uniform and a gun and assume they all do the same thing and they are all interchangeable. Sorry. A soldier is not a cop. It takes years of training and a totally different kind of selection, training and support system to take a soldier (or civilian) and make a cop out of him.

But if sending in more troops will not "solve" the war in Iraq, it will do several things:

1. Delay the date "W" has to admit his failure and kick the can down the road to where the next President has to deal with the failure.

2. Set the right-wing talking points for the coming argument "Who lost Iraq?"

3. Eliminate McCain's strongest argument for electing him President. [He has said the solution is more troops. Bush tries more troops. It fails. McCain was wrong. Bad start for a Presidential campaign.]

4. Prevent the Democrats from cutting military spending and doing anything about America's social and educational needs.

5. Keep the money flowing to the defense contractors.

6. No's 4 & 5 above make it more difficult for the Democrats to show their constituencies that electing Democrats actually made any difference at all. As long as the war continues, the stop the war people are frustrated, and the social needs Democrats see their funds spin down the rathole of the war. It will make Nadar's statement that there is no difference between the two parties seem true.

Frankly, I think that if Bush has to face his total failure he will commit suicide. But as long as he has the free hand in foreign policy that is built into the Constitution, he can keep on trying utterly absurd ideas and not feel that he has failed yet. It is his enemies (mostly domestic - Democrats and turncoat Republicans) who are preventing his success. He can blame the outsider rather than himself.

His level of grandiosity and his direct connection to god will continue to give him hope that he can pull off a miracle as long as he can contiue to act in foreign policy. He has to believe that to continue.

We continue to live in the Chinese curse of interesting times.

The saddest part of all of this is recognizing how much their "solutions" make sense from their perspective. It'll work to accomplish several things they need right now. It's not good for the country but it's good for them. From the beginning their decisions were bad for us but "oh too profitable" to let guilt or conscience get in the way. I mean their have been literally hundreds of times in our short history that the decisions made by those in charge were not really in the best interest of the majority. In some ways, when feeling really cynical, I wonder if democracy isn't just a dream, a good idea but one that cannot come to fruition because of greed.

It scares the crap out of me when I understand that what they are doing is best for them, and horrible for humanity. It seems particulary poignant when I hear John Lennon's "war is over". I cry every damn time. Will we ever learn the lesson that Jesus and Buddha came to teach us about war and greed?


I'm listening to House of War right now--also about the military-industrial. A really interesting book so far (I'm just about 2 hours into it).

Perhaps the opponents of the Iraq war ought to "own" the question, "Who Lost the Iraqi War?"

Back in the early 1950's, Republican Politics turned on the question, Who lost China? (as if anyone misplaced it or it was ours to lose...). Senator William Knowland of CA, Joe McCarthy, Robert Taft and Democratic Collaborator, Pat McCarran of NV put Grape Jam on their Breakfast Wondertoast with that question for fifteen years, and it was what Johnson and Russell were referring to in the middle of Vietnam when Johnson's famous tapes caught them deciding that any withdrawal of troops from Nam would make Democrats irrelevant for another three decades. I really don't want any of our elected officials to make this point -- but I do believe opponents to the war ought to do so, for the political purpose of taking it off the table.

We need a decent list based on what people said and argued in 2001 into mid 2003. Who pimped for this war?

Then there is a second catagory -- who argued for how long that everything was going great, and was not open to listening to even professional military criticism of strategy and tactics? Who closed their eyes to the abject failure of Bush as Commander in Chief. (never let the term "Bush's War" get far from the center of the argument.) Ultimately Bush remains the owner of it all.

If we don't start asking the question pretty soon, the Mythical ownership of the failure of the Iraq War will fall to those who were half-hearted or opposed it -- just as the long haired hippies with their drugs and awful loud music came to "own" the military failure in Vietnam, and in some parts of the popular mind, they still own it.

We need to read the history of this game and play to win this time.


Superb point. On that note, I like Richardson's move of this week, identifying McCain as the guy wanting to escalate. Smart politics.

It kills me how Bush is acting as if not being rushed into making decisions is a sign of strength. During Katrina, with people hanging to the tops of buildings, he displayed some of the same don't-rush-me arrogance.

I swear to God, these guys are channelling Adolph and Goebbels. It's eerie, but not too surprising, as it comes out of the same mindset. How could we ever lose if we are so strong? The only conceivable reason is weakness of will. The whole enterprise from the start was a massive exercise in 'signalling'. The first invasion was to signal the world that the USA isn't somebody you can mess with. After that, when things started to go, as they say, not entirely in our advantage, the signal was, we will pay any price, so there! Now the signal is to our own troops. Buck up boys. You aren't trying hard enough! Here's a bit of help, and get out there and think positive!

What assholes. We are going to get our own Stalingrad on the Tigris.

Reminds me of a nature show I saw, in which locals easily caught monkeys by placing some goodie they coveted inside a container with a hole in it just big enough to reach through. A curious monkey would invariably spot the goodie and reach in to take it. But now, having made a fist, they couldn't get their paw back out. The monkeys would shriek and hop as they watched a local coming to get them-- but they'd never did what could have easily allowed them to escape: let go of the goodie.

Looks like those vast reserves of oil are BushCo' and the Neo-cons' goodie. Stupid monkeys, let go.

Since our rulers have screwed the Iraqis and us, and the U.S. is going to get out of Iraq, now we have to spend several years trapped in murderous, criminal fluff. This is just today's heaping portion. There will be a lot more. None of it signifies anything real. Reality bites.

The military increase is needed and should be kept. the world is too dangerous and isn't going to change.

I may sound totally cynical at times but not one bit of who I am believes that this has to be "the end of the world", nor do I believe that there are no solutions. It just that we have to switch paradigms. Sometimes it happens with a slight blip that builds to crescendo. Sometimes it pops over a very short period of time. But a paradigm shift is needed - one that changes the way our brain responds to emotion. One that actually replaces fear, anxiety and hostility. And I know that just when you fight for what you believe the rest of the world should be doing, and are willing to die for it...so too, should you be willing to die for peace. That's the dialectic.

``In some ways, when feeling really cynical, I wonder if democracy isn't just a dream, a good idea but one that cannot come to fruition because of greed.''

Hm... I think that you might have difficulty convincing, say, the Swedes of that.

But maybe what you say suggests that ultimately democracy is not consistent with capitalism, current appearances to the contrary. I, at least, find that view attractive.

Completely unregulated capitalism may not be do-able. It may mean that the entire republican paradigm is dead. Maybe dead for good. The idea that taking care of corporate america takes care of america was somewhat believed during the Reagan years. Many believed that "trickle down" was dead. But then when Clinton came into power the republican quikly blamed his economic successes on the previous Reagan years of de regulating corporate America. And without a doubt the republicans pushed Clinton to balance the budget, but he did it with a balance of social programs and taxes for the wealthiest americans. We all know it makes sense to have the richest americans paying more of a progressive tax than the flat tax that they get today.

Your spin'n your wheels here. Col. Lang's analysis is quite clear, no venting required.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad