Democrats & Liberals Archives

Finally, A Definition Of Victory In Iraq

Bush has repeatedly stated that decisions on the Iraq war are made and carried out by the Generals “on the ground.”
He puts the responsibility of fighting this war squarely on the shoulders of his commanders.
He says this war is for the protection of Americans.
He made us wait patiently for the results of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.
Is he listening to the Generals?

Is he listening to Americans?
Did he listen to the ISG?
Is he stalling? Stupid? Ditracted?
Nope.


The president just last month told The Washington Post, "It's important to trust the judgement of the military when they're making military plans." He goes on to say, "I'm a strict adherer to the command structure." He also said, "I would change the policy if my generals would ask me too."

Why has he disregarded their opinions and suggestions since 2003?

Why did he go on national television last night and do it again?

The Bush administration was told there were no WMD by many credible sources, this administration ignored them. Why did we so desperately need to get in there?
The Bush administration was told that the size of the military force in 2003 was too small. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush and The American Enterprise Institute ignored them. Why would they take so many risks?
The Pentagon has notified the Bush administration that Iraq was turning into a bloody civil war and not just an insurgency, the Bush administration and his "think tank" pals ignored them. What was worth all those American and Iraqi lives?
In November, the American people voted for the most part, dramatic changes in Iraq. They wanted our troops to come home from this foreign policy failure, the Bush administration ignored them. What was worth killing your already tarnished legacy, not to mention kill you political party and future?
Congress is calling for the funding for this war be stopped, will G.W. ignore them too? What is so important that you would disregard checks and balances and maybe go down in history as the worst president ever?

The Bush administration has always seemed distracted. When Katrina hit, they were clueless. While we watched the situation in Iraq deteriorate, they seemed to be watching the wrong war. While the rest of the world was shocked and appalled by the images from Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, this administration was like whuh? When the rest of the world realized Iraq was an obvious civil war, the Bush administration acted as though things were going well.

Are they that stupid? No

They have had other things on their minds. Victory.

Exxon Mobil, Chevron and BP are jockeying for position to exploit Iraq's massive petroleum reserves.
The Bush administration is manipulating Iraqi debt, showering Bush puppets(unelected Iraqi officials) with gifts, changing Iraqi laws and fixing the bidding process to secure billions of dollars in contracts from Iraqi oil. The current undersecretary of oil, Ahmad Al-Shamaa, told reporters at Bloomberg News that "the current, unelected cabinet want to approve contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars to private foreign-owned corporations before the elected assembly assumes authority." The Bush administration and his corporate master "Big Oil" have been plotting the privatization of Iraq's oil industry for their control from day one of the invasion. They had to stall until they could steal from the Iraqi people without them being in a position to protest or prevent it.
We need 20,000 new troops to secure these fields and allow Exxon Mobil, Chevron and BP to continue to profit from this war and the death of our soldiers and Iraqi citizens. The president has asked for additional billions of tax payer money and thousands of Iraqi and American lives to win in Iraq.
At least we know what win means.

$450 million contract to Bush's oil buddies and the Bush, Cheney energy cartel for the development of the massive Suba-Luhais and Hamrin oil fields.
Think of it as the worlds largest, dare I say, one big ass trophy.
The lives of our military, Americas credibility and a strong future economy, are all worth tossing aside to this small group of men because they stand to gain hundreds of millions of dollars.
What do we get?
What do the additional 20,000 soldiers get?
How about their families and friends?
Now that the real reasons we invaded have been made clear and we finally get a precise definition of victory in Iraq, can we bring our military home and impeach these despicable, greedy, murderers?

Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at January 11, 2007 12:46 PM
Comments
Comment #202623

GEEECH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Another war for oil story. Don’t it get old telling the same old fable all the time?
It sure as hell gets old hearing it all the time.
And even if it was true we can blame the Liberals for it. They’ve blocked every attempt to drill for oil hear so we have to go somewhere else for it.
Just think y’all are responsible for the 3000 troops killed in Iraq. And all because y’all don’t want the US to be energy independent.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 11, 2007 4:00 PM
Comment #202625

Bush has let the military run this war. Of course, some guys are unhappy. As with any large organization, there is significant difference of opinion. But Bush has certainly not micromanged the war.

He is commander in chief. He cannot and should not just turn everything over to the generals. But there certainly is not the kind of thing Johnson did in Vietnam. Wasn’t the criticism of Bush that he was not paying enough attention? Are Dems changing again, as they did with force levels?

BTW - war for oil is just dumb. YOu could have had all the oil anybody wanted at low prices from Saddam.

Posted by: Jack at January 11, 2007 4:11 PM
Comment #202635

Andre,

I don’t find your assertions at all unbelievable. Although this is old news (about older news) it certainly lends credibility to the idea that the administration is at the very least biased by “Big Oil” in their decisions:

Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html

One has to wonder, why totally disregard the ISG, or the Biden-Gelb Plan, etc, etc. I suspect there are a number of reasons and I find it perfectly reasonable to think that “big oil” plays a large part.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 11, 2007 4:54 PM
Comment #202660

Andre, for arguments sake lets assume you are correct in all you say. Then….

1. when exactly do you want us to pull out?
2. what do you think will be the consequesnces of us pulling out to Iraq and to the middle east in general?
3. If the flow of middle east oil is disrupted for an extended period of time due to the chaos stemming from our pull out how do you suggest we fix that situation?

Posted by: carnak at January 11, 2007 6:30 PM
Comment #202688

Mr. Brown the truth is the truth even if you don’t like hearing it. Anwar has less then six months worth of oil. Thats not much oil now is it. Thinking like yours will keep the good guys in power a long long time.

Posted by: Jeff at January 11, 2007 8:17 PM
Comment #202702

Jeff
So say the envirowakhos. But I don’t believe a word they say. They’re just a bunch of insecure little wimps trying to be dictators over everyone.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 11, 2007 9:31 PM
Comment #202707


Ron Brown: the oil reserve at Anwar has been estimated to be a six month supply for the U. S. by oil company geologists, not environmentalists. If the oil companies do get to drill there, none of that oil will come into the U.S. because it will be exported to Asia just like most if not all of the oil being drilled in Alaska is going there now.

Posted by: jlw at January 11, 2007 9:59 PM
Comment #202710

Then we need to quit sending out oil over there and keep it here. And still drill for oil here.
Maybe not Anwar but there’s other places. And there’s existing wells that’s been shut down for years while we allow ourselves to be held up by OPEC.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 11, 2007 10:03 PM
Comment #202743

Ron: Many of our wells were capped because it was cheaper to buy oil from OPEC than it was to pump our own. Now that oil is in the $60 per barrel range, many of our well are going into production.

The reason given for exporting Alaskan oil is that most of our refining capacity is in the East and Southeast so, it is cheaper to export the Alaskin oil to the Pacific Rim and import oil from Mexico, Venezula and the Middle East.

Speaking of Veneusla, remote villages in Alaska are paying $5.75 per gal. for gasoline and $7 per gal. for heating oil. There is a huge markup because these products have to be flown into the villages. Veneuslan President Hugo Chavez has offered to provide free fuel oil to these villages and most of them have accepted his offer.

Posted by: jlw at January 12, 2007 12:54 AM
Comment #202754

Can I, as an outsider, propose a strategy for success in Iraq?

It seems to me that the US is attempting to force its will on the people of Iraq. This is a recipe for making more enemies and bringing about more deaths, Iraqi and American, and causing more destruction.

How about if instead of carrying on this senseless war, the US provided a vision of the future for Iraq, and more important, Iraqis, that was simply irresistible? What i’m talking about is suggesting that the US military will leave by a certain date. Let’s say for arguments sake,31/12/07. At the same time as making this announcement, a new policy towards Iraq is promulgated. The US will invest the monies currently going towards supporting it’s military operations, into a detailed and visionary plan to reconstruct Iraq, the purpose of which is to rapidly bring about huge economic development and the jobs that go with it. Paint a picture of a settled Iraq, at peace with itself and prospering. Now get into detail. Set benchmarks. Obviously the first thing that is needed is a settlement between the warring factions in Iraq. Suppose the first tranche of the development plan was dependant on the disparate tribes and groups coming to make peace with each other, and truly reconciling. If this could be achieved, it would take the fear out of the situation in Iraq for all Iraqis, getting thier focus onto the future for themselves, their families, their tribes. You would be aligning the attention of all on a worthwhile future. With the kind of investment involved, together with Iraqi oil revenues, you could present a vision of Iraq as the Switzerland of the mid east. I know this would require gaining the confidence of Iraqis in America’s good intentions. But with sufficient will and committment, such a task in by no means impossible.

Truly, such a strategy would be beating swords into ploughshares. I think of the old cliche, a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still. So you have to bring his will into line with yours. Again, I think of the old fable I learned. You know, the one about the wind and the sun? The wind and the sun had a dispute about which was more powerful. Unable to agree, the decided to have a competition. There was a man walking in the street with an overcoat on. They agreed that they would see who could get the man to take off the coat. At this, the wind huffed and puffed, trying to blow the coat off the man. Of course at this, the man simply gatherered his coat tighter around him. The more the wind blew, the more he secured it in place. Next it was the Sun’s turn. With that, the sun beamed high in the sky, radiating the man with its wonderful warm rays. In no time at all, he was taking the coat off and loosening his collar. the moral of the story is obvious.

This would also help to regain Americas reputation in the world. The big plus factor of course, is that it would mean an end to the loss of patriotic young american lives. That would truly be the icing on the cake.

I don’t pretend it would be easy. I don’t have all the answers at this point. It is an idea which has just occured to me. But I know instinctively that if a determined decision was made to make it work, a way could be found. As an old friend of mine says, there’s a back door out of hell, if you can find it! This would also be a means for the US to extricate itself from the military industrial complex. By extension, it just might help to restore Americas image in that part of the world, providing a desirable for other countries in the region. People attain much more by working together by agreement, than by trying to impose th eir desires on others.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at January 12, 2007 7:22 AM
Comment #202755

Paul,

Unfortunately, your plan requires a thought process foreign to most capitalistic Americans, as there is little or no profit in it.
Your picture of a bucolic Iraq is also one that is difficult to wrap one’s head around.
Had we invaded during the Gulf war, as we had promised, things could possibly have been quite different.
The concept of revenge, and vendetta seem very much alive in the Middle East, and changing a mind set that is millenia old will take many generations.

Nice thought though.

Posted by: Rocky at January 12, 2007 8:07 AM
Post a comment