The Iraq War retrospective Thread

[kandrathe]

*Of course, I think the terrorists prefer us to elect GOP fearmongers. It keeps all the fires stoked. Makes recruiting easier. Improves the effigy industry. Keeps things black and white -- just how conservatives like things.

Either party serves their purpose, and both sides are fear mongers only with different topics, although both have now decided the solution is for you to pay taxes or borrow from your kids to increase the size of the federal power so the government can solve "our" troubles. The nanny state.

The jihadists don't really care what your position is, unless you are reciting from the Koran. If we are too hawkish, they'll pick a fight. If we're too passive, they'll call us weak. If we are inconsistent, they'll call us on that as well. They actually probably prefer democrats, because they tend to put their head in the sand and ignore the problem allowing the terrorists to flourish (e.g. like under Mr. Clinton's watch). In fact, if Mr. Obama gets elected, I'm sure we'll be too busy passing "global warming abatement" legislation to worry about border security or international terrorism. It is the 800lb gorilla riding the donkey, while the elephant keeps trying to stomp on the cockroaches hiding in caves on the Pakistan/Afghan border.

[Vandiablo]

They actually probably prefer democrats, because they tend to put their head in the sand and ignore the problem allowing the terrorists to flourish

I already assumed you'd say it, so no surprise there. And you didn't even need a new attack.

(e.g. like under Mr. Clinton's watch).

Bush II was happy to not do anything, until 9/11.

If you really want to go down that road -- which I think is stupidity -- there's this: Reagan gave more to the terrorists by withdrawing Marines after their barracks were bombed. The Great Appeaser. So nyah.

I think you are mistaken if you think the U.S. did nothing in 1992 to 2000.

In fact, if Mr. Obama gets elected, I'm sure we'll be too busy passing "global warming abatement" legislation to worry about border security or international terrorism.

For one who chides others for their loyalty to dogma, you're pretty good at it yourself.

[kandrathe]

Bush II was happy to not do anything, until 9/11.

If you really want to go down that road -- which I think is stupidity -- there's this: Reagan gave more to the terrorists by withdrawing Marines after their barracks were bombed. The Great Appeaser. So nyah.

I think you are mistaken if you think the U.S. did nothing in 1992 to 2000.

I agree that the approach of Bush the Elder and Reagan was wrong headed in hindsight. It did not address terrorism seriously. But, then again, terrorism has become much more sinister since the Achille Lauro, Pan Am 103 and the Munich games. But, you will note that we have little trouble with Mr. Khadafi. I would also agree, before we head down that road, that the entire mess with Iraq and Iran might have been avoided with a different policy by Reagan.

For one who chides others for their loyalty to dogma, you're pretty good at it yourself.

There is a difference between dogma and sarcasm that is not easy to read into the text. :)

My only point is that you shouldn't delude yourself into thinking Mr. Obama's rule will change anything other than perhaps the subject toward which we are supposed to be afraid. If everyone would take off their rose colored glasses, they would see that even Ms. Clinton was terribly unqualified. Mr. Obama was a neighborhood activist and civil rights attorney, who at the end of his 1st term as State senator in 2000, decided to make a long shot play for the big league of US Congress, lost his first play for the House and then won his current Senate seat in 2003 as a gimme(unopposed). Then in his first two years as a Senator in Congress, decides to make a play for the White House. It seems like President is the job nobody wants and almost anyone is qualified, which is perhaps one reason why we keep deriding the stupid mistakes of American Presidents here in the Lounge. The things I like about Obama are that he has class, he delivers a good speech and he has charm and charisma.

What nuanced genius is this guy going to bring to international decision making? Probably that of his current advisers, Anthony Lake and Susan Rice. His domestic agenda will most likely be heavily shaped by Tom Daschle, Karen Kornbluh, and Robert Rubin. When it comes to terrorism, he will recruit someone to tackle that problem and advise him on what his position should be, ala Richard Clark.

[Vandiablo]

There is a difference between dogma and sarcasm that is not easy to read into the text. :)

If the sarcasm is reinforcing the dogma, then it is also dogma.

My only point is that you shouldn't delude yourself into thinking Mr. Obama's rule will change anything other than perhaps the subject toward which we are supposed to be afraid.

In a previous post (IIRC) you were talking about how the jihadists don't care who it is or what they say. True enough. So you can't change them. What can be changed are the moderates in the countries where jihadists are generated.

Bush started off well, getting Pakistan on his side. However, all the bungling in Iraq (some of which was not the administration's fault, but certainly the lion's share is theirs) has been horrific for public opinion in those places, and their governments are harder pressed to crack down on militants. Why'd they let the Cole bomber go? It seems that a score of American lives was only worth a couple years in jail, no more.

Perhaps more emphasis on empathy will prevent more trouble than emphasis on the retribution. The president should keep up the "big stick", but in public we should see more "speak softly".

If everyone would take off their rose colored glasses, they would see that even Ms. Clinton was terribly unqualified. etc etc

Yeah, the last 7.5 years we've had a "qualified" guy and see what that got us.

I think by your standards the last two "unqualified" presidents were Kennedy and Truman, and you'd find Lincoln on the list too.

-V

[kandrathe]

If the sarcasm is reinforcing the dogma, then it is also dogma.

I might be reinforcing a liberal stereotype, but hardly anyones dogma.

In a previous post (IIRC) you were talking about how the jihadists don't care who it is or what they say. True enough. So you can't change them. What can be changed are the moderates in the countries where jihadists are generated.

I don't know that appealing to moderates helps. If these moderates appear to be even tolerant of West, the jihadists label them as apostate and target them as local examples. I don't agree that you "can't change them". My thinking is that we need to be more "Akido" in our approach to terrorism, in that their own energy should generate their pain.

Bush started off well, getting Pakistan on his side.

I'm not sure they are on our side, although they don't appear to be against us. I'm still uncertain exactly what leverage we have on Pervez Musharraf.

However, all the bungling in Iraq (some of which was not the administration's fault, but certainly the lion's share is theirs) has been horrific for public opinion in those places, and their governments are harder pressed to crack down on militants.

There was some bungling, some mediocrity, and a ton of bad press. It would help the cause if our own press wasn't so negative. I'm not advocating positive inaccuracy, just not the incessant "if it bleeds it leads" approach to pulp reality.

Why'd they let the Cole bomber go? It seems that a score of American lives was only worth a couple years in jail, no more.

You mean Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri? He is in Gitmo possibly facing the death penalty.

Perhaps more emphasis on empathy will prevent more trouble than emphasis on the retribution. The president should keep up the "big stick", but in public we should see more "speak softly".

Before we advocate a change of policy to "speak softly", we should determine if it helps or hurts the problem. To complicate the issue, for any government in such a position, there are at least three groups you need to consider, 1) your supporters, 2) your adversaries, and 3) your enemies.

Yeah, the last 7.5 years we've had a "qualified" guy and see what that got us.

There is a difference between qualified and competent.

I think by your standards the last two "unqualified" presidents were Kennedy and Truman, and you'd find Lincoln on the list too.

Well, Truman was a Senator for 10 years and VP for almost 4, and Kennedy was in Congress for 7 years as representative, and 7 years as Senator. It is questionable as to whether serving in a state legislature, or as a state Governor helps one to be President. Personally, I'd like to see that they have some success and record as a leader.

[--Pete]

Hi,

It is questionable as to whether serving in a state legislature, or as a state Governor helps one to be President. Personally, I'd like to see that they have some success and record as a leader.

The problem is that the presidency is a unique job. It requires executive capabilities, including but not limited to leadership. It requires insider knowledge at the national level. And it requires general knowledge on the national and international level.

Candidates with national legislative experience are often lacking in the executive capabilities, never having had to run anything (LBJ typifies this). Candidates with gubernatorial experience often lack the insider knowledge (Carter is a great example) and sometimes show an amazing ignorance of international affairs (Shrub, for instance). It is a rare candidate that combines all the necessary traits and has all the necessary experience.

So, IMHO, the wonder is not that we've had some real disasters in the office. The wonder is that most presidents have done a competent job and some have been excellent.

The only way to find out if any particular candidate is going to do well is to wait. No one that hasn't held the office (and some who have) is 'qualified'. And the lame duck amendment enforces the tradition that, about when a competent person has finally figured the job out, that person is permanently fired.

--Pete

[Vandiablo]

You mean Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri? He is in Gitmo possibly facing the death penalty.

Am I mis-remembering? I thought the Yemenis let several conspirators go. Am I confusing the Cole with something else? That's why I don't do a lot of details.

-V

[--Pete]

Hi,

Am I mis-remembering? . . . That's why I don't do a lot of details.

"A mind is a terrible thing to lose." - Dan Quayle

--Pete
















I know, I know. That's really a paraphrase, not a quote. But it loses too much if you do the whole "". . . you take the United Negro college fund model that what a waste it is to lose one's mind or not to have a mind is being very wasteful."

[kandrathe]

Am I mis-remembering? I thought the Yemenis let several conspirators go. Am I confusing the Cole with something else? That's why I don't do a lot of details.

Ah, my google-fu reveals this and this...

The key here is that this is not US justice, but Yemani corruption. However, it is much like Clinton pardoning the Puerto Rican terrorists to possibly garner favor for Hillary's NY senate bid.

"After we worked day and night to bring justice to the victims and prove that these Qaeda operatives were responsible, we're back to square one," said Ali Soufan, a former FBI agent and a lead investigator into the bombing. "Do they have laws over there or not? It's really frustrating what's happening."

The key question being Do they have laws over there or not? When it comes to killing infidels, obviously not.

[Occhidiangela]

Political conditions have changed, though I'm not convinced they've changed as much as you appear to think.

Horse apples. Rummy be gone. Karen Huges bailed years ago. Rove is gone. Rice replaced Powell. The only two still standing are Bush and Cheney, and Gates has been a significant change at Sec Def. Bush is on third AG. Scumbags like Wolfowitz and Feith are gone, but not locked up.

What do you mean the administration hasn't changed?

Bush strikes me (just my personal impression) as someone whose certainty is matched only by his lack of self-reflection and his disregard for the opinions of those who don't agree with him. Not a happy combination in a man who holds the levers of the US military, as events have shown.

You prefer indecisive people to lead? Bush ain't smart, that's for damned sure, and he's stubborn, for sure, and he's been willing to play the loophole diving game on a variety of issues that show a distinct shortcoming in his grasp of moral and persuasive power.

I am curious to know: what do you think a president ought to do, lead or let other people think for him while he begs for approval and grasps for consensus? That was Bill Clinton's style, and that ain't leadership, which was one of his significant shortcomings as president, for all of the political craft he displays, and displayed.

The Bush administration won't get public support for military action against Iran at this point, especially having cried wolf once already on the nuclear issue.

You seem to have missed the point: they won't get Congressional support, which is where the decision and resource base lies.

But if they've decided it's necessary, or they think that the wimps who follow them won't possess their wisdom and fortitude, I can believe they might use every means available to try and make it happen.

Great, we have a conspiracy theorist on the Lounge. Was 9-11 an inside job, Thecla?

Perhaps the US military would not go along with Iran as easily as they apparently did with Iraq (Fallon vs Shinseki not withstanding) but I expect you know a lot more about that than I do.

Not any more, in terms of my currency and being in touch.

I was very disturbed to see Fallon go. Between him and Gates, a solid line of "a war here makes no sense" was getting out. From what I have read, it seems that Rice and Gates are pushing back a bit at Cheney's tendency to saber rattle, and that's a good thing. Bush is, it appears, having trouble setting a tone and getting the team going in one direction. That's what you get when a middling to average MBA from the MBO era, rather than someone who gets leadership, gets to a high executive position.

As a side note, given Shinseki's fate, I find Bush's current supposed deference to the "military commanders on the ground" in Iraq rather than the "politicians in Washington" --- as if Bush himself were not himself a politician in Washington and the commander-in-chief to boot --- highly ironic.

This would be a result of the 2006 elections wherein he lost his Congressional rubber stamp. I will note that my time over in the fun box was overwritten by the suits in Washington making successive dogcrap policy moves that influenced what we were doing materially: see among other things Rummy's trying to reduce the footprint in 2004, in the middle of a civil war where the US had chosen a Shi'ite faction as its "side" and the two years it took to get Zarqawi, and the thousands who died while he was running amok.

Certainly the Iraq war was, and very bad politics at that.

My statement about war and its relationship to politics needs no qualification, whatsoever. Your remark suggests that the Iraq war is in the past. It is a current operation, Operation Iraqi Freedom. I even have a t-shirt and a medal, for all the good that does anyone, citing my participation in this particular extension of politics. Joy.

Your opinion of Hersh is less important than the accuracy of his information.

His sources are the usual nebulous band of unnamed sources, and given his propensity for spin and chicanery, I am sorry, I remain skeptical of anything he claims unless he backs up his facts more substantially. There is no question that various resistance movements in Iran have been able to get direct and indirect support from the US, for years, much as various movements garnered US support during the Cold War vis a vis the Soviets and their clients. Yes, the US ran spies and support for dissidents, covertly, in the Soviet Union.

To pretend this means the US is doing something unusual, different, or more dangerous than previously is purest spin. Big boy geopolitics, and realpolitick, at work. America is a Power. Pretending it isn't will cloud any analysis of what is going on all over the globe, which is where we have been engaged since 1945. That is 63 years of the US as a Power. Fantasies of a republic protected by the two oceans need to be dispelled.

True or not, I find it quite plausible that influential factions within the Bush administration would like to provoke Iran into an armed confrontation with the US before they leave office.

I see, so you do think 9-11 was an inside job, huh?

To be clear, I don't believe the US and Iran will get into direct military conflict any time soon (rhetoric aside, it isn't a feasible option for the US) but the fact that it's even conceivable is pretty bad.

It's been conceivable since 1979, and even resulted in US forces and Iranian forces trading shots in the Persian Gulf. Please check the Google on Operation Earnest Will and Praying Mantis, 80's version of US/Iran clash of arms, at a low level. It also got an Airbus shot down when it failed to respond on International Guard freq when it was flying over a surface action between USS Vincennes and some Iranian patrol boats.

I noted a suggestion above, IIRC from kandrathe, that a clash with Iran means an invasion as per Iraq, five month TPFDD and logistics build up, blah blah, blah.

Please stop with that, folks.

The force to do that isn't available for a sustained multi year war with Iran, nor is popular and Congressional support there. The likely form of any armed action versus Iran is air strikes, Maritime strikes, possibly maritime raids on coastal or port facilities, and likely some Spec Ops.

It's a sucker bet even then, unless the leadership in Iran goes out of its way to provoke such an attack. The last two years of probing have shown them the threshold of what will or won't incite a US response: these people aren't stupid.

Bush's lame duck position, and Gates reservations about use of armed force are significant political obstacles to a rash, last act of defiance from W before he is put out to pasture.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

I noted a suggestion above, IIRC from kandrathe, that a clash with Iran means an invasion as per Iraq, five month TPFDD and logistics build up, blah blah, blah. Please stop with that, folks. The force to do that isn't available for a sustained multi year war with Iran, nor is popular and Congressional support there. The likely form of any armed action versus Iran is air strikes, Maritime strikes, possibly maritime raids on coastal or port facilities, and likely some Spec Ops.

It's a sucker bet even then, unless the leadership in Iran goes out of its way to provoke such an attack. The last two years of probing have shown them the threshold of what will or won't incite a US response: these people aren't stupid.

To put that conversation in context...

Zenda: Ah well, this discussion is getting rather pointless. Isn't your time better spent looking for reasons to declare war on Iran?
Kandrathe: If you say so. :POr, maybe the truth is dashing your illusions. Haven't you read the extreme fringe liberal literati? The next war will be launched once we figure out how to fake another 9/11 and pin it on Iran.

I was (tongue in cheek) referring to the extreme liberal fringe literati, who for the past year have been trying to predict "when" and "how" the conflict with Iran will tip from saber rattling to outright thrusts.

If I were to make a prediction about a war with Iran, I would only add to your list that another battleground would more likely be closer to Basra. The folks in that area need to decide if they would like to be a part of a reconstituted Persian caliphate, or retain their Iraqi identity.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I will note that my time over in the fun box was overwritten by the suits in Washington making successive dogcrap policy moves that influenced what we were doing materially:

Same old song we sang 43 years ago. The more thins change . . . ;)

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
Same old song we sang 43 years ago. The more thins change . . . ;)

--Pete

Yep. What is criminal is that so much useful critique of that four decades old war was available, and in so many cases ignored.

Big irony: Colonel H.R McMaster, who wrote Derelection of Duty, an excellent analysis of the political military policy level of mistakes, was a poster boy for the administration, for a while, in the media coverage. He was one of the few senior leaders in Iraq who, with the 3rd ACR, got it mostly right in the execution phase that the suits, none of whom ever read his book, obviously, were trying to screw up.

There he was, actually unscrewing the turd they had laid. There they stood, applauding, all the while not realizing they still needed to wipe their arses before pulling up their trousers.

I'll stop, it just makes me mad.

Occhi

[Thecla]

What do you mean the administration hasn't changed?

I mean exactly that: the same administration, the Bush administration, is in office.

You prefer indecisive people to lead?

More false alternatives, Occhi. But since you ask, yes I'd prefer an indecisive genius over a decisive idiot.

Bush is the worst US president of modern times (and perhaps of all time, but I'm a bit vague about some of those guys in the 20's --- I dare say there were some pretty bad ones in there too). I happened to catch a bit of Bush's news conference with Gordon Brown a little while back. I've never seen a leader so uncomfortable at sharing the stage with a US president. Brown looked like he was going to shrivel up and die every time Bush reached across to grab him by the arm. My favorite quote from GWB in that conference:

And so it's -- I said the other day that, you know, one of the things that I will leave behind is a multilateralism to deal with tyrants, so problems can be solved diplomatically.

Great, we have a conspiracy theorist on the Lounge.

Right. Next I'll be proposing really wacko stuff, like the Bush administration using WMDs as a pretext to invade Iraq.

My statement about war and its relationship to politics needs no qualification, whatsoever. Your remark suggests that the Iraq war is in the past.

As far as statements of universal validity on war and politics are concerned, I'll leave them to you. My remark referred to the invasion of Iraq; I intended no implication that the war is over.

His sources are the usual nebulous band of unnamed sources. I am sorry, I remain skeptical of anything he claims unless he backs up his facts more substantially.

Your skepticism is entirely appropriate. Unfortunately, given the secrecy and lack of transparency in the Bush administration, we seem to be reliant on unnamed sources to find out what they might (or might not) be planning.

I see, so you do think 9-11 was an inside job, huh?

You suppose wrongly, but somehow, I am not surprised.

It's been conceivable since 1979, and even resulted in US forces and Iranian forces trading shots in the Persian Gulf.

What was theoretically conceivable before the US invasion of Iraq has, unfortunately, become all to conceivable in reality after the invasion.

The likely form of any armed action versus Iran is air strikes, Maritime strikes, possibly maritime raids on coastal or port facilities, and likely some Spec Ops.

They surely have drawn up all the plans to attack Iran's suspected nuclear facilities. Some of those would require pretty big bombs, I imagine.

It's a sucker bet even then, unless the leadership in Iran goes out of its way to provoke such an attack. The last two years of probing have shown them the threshold of what will or won't incite a US response: these people aren't stupid.

Iran is going to take brinksmanship as far as it will go. They know the US doesn't have the wherewithal to respond. And if Iran and the US are foolish enough to get involved in armed conflict, it seems to me that there is a significant chance of a serious escalation.

Iraq, no doubt intended as a deterrent to Iran (and perhaps as a military staging post), has ironically proven to be more of a deterrent to the US.

Bush's lame duck position, and Gates reservations about use of armed force are significant political obstacles to a rash, last act of defiance from W before he is put out to pasture.

Is Bush really going to care about what congress thinks? He's already adopted the position that, in a time of self-declared war, he can do anything he thinks fit to "defend" the country. As a lame duck, he doesn't care what anyone thinks, especially since he "knows" he's right. The military is ultimately under his command. They can disagree, resign even, but they have to follow orders.

Anyway, not to disagree with what you say --- I think the obstacles are too significant to allow for a US strike on Iran before W leaves office; but there may well be people in his administration who would dearly love to bomb Iran's nuclear sites before they leave office.

[Occhidiangela]

Is Bush really going to care about what congress thinks?

Now that he hasn't got majorities in both houses, he's stuck doing so. This is no longer 2003.

He's already adopted the position that, in a time of self-declared war, he can do anything he thinks fit to "defend" the country.

I note that in the past four years, he's run into legal and political challenges to his policy on captives, on domestic surveillance, and has had to use the veto power as a political expedient. It is my read that he has learned, the hard way, about the limits of his office.

As a lame duck, he doesn't care what anyone thinks, especially since he "knows" he's right. The military is ultimately under his command. They can disagree, resign even, but they have to follow orders.

This sort of reductionist scare mongering isn't worthy of the Thecla I've come to know and love over the years. You will note that Bush had to hide behind the uniform of general Patraeus, rather than sending the CENTCOM commander or the Secretary of Defense to Congress last year to testify about how this Surge was and wasn't working. Thank God he had the sense to put Ambassador Crocker up there as well.

Anyway, not to disagree with what you say --- I think the obstacles are too significant to allow for a US strike on Iran before W leaves office; but there may well be people in his administration who would dearly love to bomb Iran's nuclear sites before they leave office.

I don't doubt for a minute that Dick Cheney would like to do that. He and his office have been a constant source of rhetoric in that regard since late 2005/2006, which is about the time the Presidency of Iran changed, and funnily enough about the time the Bush administration finally admitted, after two years of raw denial, that a multi-faceted insurgency was alive and well in Iraq, some parts of which were garnering Iranian covert support. The war of symbols and bellowing, part of war in the modern age, or at least political conflict, is waged in the 24/7 media. Some of it is bluff. Some of it isn't. This is deliberate. One can improves one's position when one's opponent is left uncertain as to one's actual intentions, though Saddam found out that bluff can have nasty consequences.

Saber rattling doesn't always mean a war is coming.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

Saber rattling doesn't always mean a war is coming.

I read an intelligent analysis of the situation today (here).

"U.S.-Iranian negotiations are always opaque because they are ideologically difficult to justify by both sides. For Iran, the United States is the Great Satan. For the United States, Iran is part of the Axis of Evil. It is difficult for Iran to talk to the devil or for the United States to negotiate with evil. Therefore, U.S.-Iranian discussions always take place in a strange way. The public rhetoric between the countries is always poisonous. If you simply looked at what each country says about the other, you would assume that no discussions are possible. But if you treat the public rhetoric as simply designed to manage domestic public opinion, and then note the shifts in policy outside of the rhetorical context, a more complex picture emerges. Public and private talks have taken place, and more are planned. If you go beyond the talks to actions, things become even more interesting.

[Thecla]

Now that he hasn't got majorities in both houses, he's stuck doing so.

If there were armed conflict between the US and Iran in the last days of the Dubya administration (I repeat: I don't think it's likely to happen, only that the possibility cannot be dismissed as ridiculous) it would not be as the result of some congressional vote or other, so the lack of a majority is irrelevant. It would arise (willingly or unwillingly) from a cross-border confrontation, something in the straights of Hormuz, a strike by Israel on Iran (widely assumed, presumably correctly, to be made with the tacit support of the administration), or who knows what else. The Bush administration has demonstrated time and again that it will do what it wants first (usually in as much secrecy as possible) and fight legalities second.

I note that in the past four years, he's run into legal and political challenges to his policy on captives, on domestic surveillance, and has had to use the veto power as a political expedient. It is my read that he has learned, the hard way, about the limits of his office.

No doubt it's cramped his style. But what's remarkable to me is how much Bush has been able to get despite a democratically controlled congress (largely because the solid support of the senate republicans has prevented the override of any veto that doesn't contain a significant bipartisan helping of pork). For example, he got full Iraq war funding with no timetables, and legal immunity for the phone companies in the wiretapping case. As far as challenges to Guantanamo etc. go, those have come principally from the supreme court, not congress. In fact, the last supreme court decision finding the military commissions act unconstitutional overturned congressional legislation (even if that legislation was the previous republican congress's rubber stamp of the Bush administration's previous unconstitutional attempt at a system of military commissions).

This sort of reductionist scare mongering isn't worthy of the Thecla I've come to know and love over the years.

Well, that's really sweet of you Occhi :wub:but I'm not sure that even California permits the union of two cross-dressing rouges. What this does show, however, is that I've been altogether derelict in the amount of reductionist scare mongering I've engaged in over the years. I'll definitely step it up in the future.

You will note that Bush had to hide behind the uniform of general Patraeus, rather than sending the CENTCOM commander or the Secretary of Defense to Congress last year to testify about how this Surge was and wasn't working.

It's one of the big advantages of the presidency. Bush can hide behind the uniforms when he wants, and he gets to pick the uniforms he holds up in front of him. And, while in uniform, the military has to be very circumspect about what they say in public regarding their commander in chief. No doubt, using the surge ("this is the surge that never ends, it goes on and on my friends") to run out the clock on his administration was an easy choice for Bush to make; the republicans were glad to stand behind the US military; and perhaps those democrats who feared (with good reason) that a rapid withdrawal could lead to a catastrophe were secretly happy to blame it on the republicans.

I don't doubt for a minute that Dick Cheney would like to do that.

Few seem to. It's one reason to remain worried.

Some of it is bluff. Some of it isn't. This is deliberate. One can improves one's position when one's opponent is left uncertain as to one's actual intentions, though Saddam found out that bluff can have nasty consequences.

Yup---it's hard to separate the bluff from the real here, but as far as Iran goes I don't believe the uncertainty will lead to any improvement of the US position at all. They know that the costs of a US attack on Iran are too great. They will call any bluff, and then we'd better all hope it really is a bluff.

Saber rattling doesn't always mean a war is coming.

It doesn't always mean that peace is coming either.

[Occhidiangela]

It doesn't always mean that peace is coming either.

That's a non sequitur, given that there is no war between Iran and the US now, other than a war of bloviation.:P

Occhi

[Taem]

I don't mean to rehash an old thread (well, not that old), but I had need for comment. You see, in my business, I meet a great deal of foreign travelers, and work with quite a few Brazilians also. I should also mention that my grandmother houses no less than three to six students from abroad year round, from Germany to China to some places I didn't even know where on the map. My point? After having conversed with several of these individuals (English is required to learn in many European countries, and even most of the Chinese that come over already know some English), it was to my astounding attention that I discovered everyone from any country other than America, Canada, or Mexico knows of this whole oil = $ for America thing - EVERYONE! I felt so deceived, so left-in-the-dark. Why wouldn't our leaders want it's own people to know the truth about how America makes it's interest off other countries oil? Why mask the invasion of Iraq as a whole WMD campaign instead of just say, "Well folks, unless we invade Iraq and change the value of oil there from the Euro to the Dollar, the American Dollar will loose about 20% of its current value so, for America!" If the Bush administration had told us the truth instead of concocting elaborate lies, I might have had more respect for our government. Before I knew of the oil/$ thing, I honestly thought Bush was a power-crazed mad-man (ala Hilter), but never ventured so far as to compare nuts to bolts, however now that I know the truth, well I can actually support Bush's actions and I understand why he did what he did; what I cannot accept is his deliberate deception of not out our country and its citizens, but the deception of the world and the U.N. How utterly deplorable. If you Americans or Canadians still have any doubts about what Zenda said, print up the article and ask any foreigner about it - you will probably be as astonished as I was at their response: they are not shocked when you tell them, as a matter of fact, they look at you more like, "duh! Everyone knows that!"

[kandrathe]

If you Americans or Canadians still have any doubts about what Zenda said, print up the article and ask any foreigner about it - you will probably be as astonished as I was at their response: they are not shocked when you tell them, as a matter of fact, they look at you more like, "duh! Everyone knows that!"

There is a "well, duh" aspect to the idea that oil is strategically important. I think maybe even that in order to keep economic stability the US would engage in a war. The issue is that if that were true, there are better targets than Iraq strategically to provide the US oil. It might make more sense if the US was interested in keeping Europe from an economic meltdown, therefore ergo the Western democracies as a whole. The oil in the middle east, frankly, is too far away from the US to be useful directly. I would rather we put Mr. Chavez out of the oil business. But, by having the middle east supply the needs of Eurasia, it reduces the price of the commodity world wide. That helps the US (and world) economy. I think if you want to really understand geopolitics and oil, then research the history of Saudi Arabia. You will understand why Britain and the US often stand shoulder to shoulder, and why economically, Saudi Arabia is the worlds most important trading partner. The truth of petroleum economics is that Saudi Arabia is the largest producer of oil in the world, and the US is the largest consumer of oil in the world. Without the Saudi wealth and power of oil, Wahabism would be a backwater Islamic sect practiced by nomads and some fixed poor settlements around the Persian Gulf. The US as the largest consumer of oil has a lot of influence in from whom we will buy the oil, thus making or breaking economies. The oil monopolies, like OPEC, and OECD have the option of embargo or lowering production rates to control prices, or try to devastate an economy (like the 70's OPEC embargo).

Edit: As an after thought here, consider the US position on Saudi Arabia AND Israel. Isn't it convenient that we are poised as the protector of both the seat of Islam, and the seat of Judaism? We probably helped (at least indirectly) supply the Israeli's with nukes, and another power in the middle east close to having nukes is... drum roll please... the Saudi's! Yeah, yeah, we all know about Iran... But, check out the Saudi program. Anyway, I find the balance of power that the US wields between Saudi Arabia, and Israel a very interesting geo-political phenomena. Then, consider who is helping Iran get nukes and ballistic missles... Russia, North Korea, China... So, the Cold War proxy fighting is over... or is it?

The Zenda article errs in many ways by making mostly unsubstantiated claims about the importance of trade deficits, national debt, and replacing the gold standard for an oil standard (strategic petroleum reserves). The article is really based on some truth, which I've mentioned above, the importance of petroleum as a strategic mineral to the world (and the world economy). Much of the rest of it is Chomskyesque drivel which replaces logic with intellectualism. If you can't dazzle us with brilliance, then at least baffle us with bull excrement.

For example, the article concludes with "However, the rate is held in shape artificially, like by the hoarding of the central banks in China, Japan, Taiwan and other countries. Because these hoardings mean an impoverishment of these countries and because the US speeds up the debt building indefinitely, there will be a moment that these central banks have to stop hoarding dollars. So the question is not IF the dollar collapses, but WHEN. Because traders are misled by the apparently healthy dollar rate, many still accept these IOU’s, which nestle like green cancer cells in all economies of the world. The result is ineluctable. All infected banks, enterprises and economies will be dragged along the day the demand for dollars sags and the US empire collapses."

This is ludicrous economic thinking and obviously wishful thinking ("collapse of the US Empire") on the part of Rudo de Ruijter(an "independent" journalist from the Netherlands). He also believes the US faked 9/11. Yes, there are idiots all over the world. They are not isolated, as some Eurotrash would want you to believe, in the red states of the US.

The strength of the US economy is established by our GNP and GDP, and what Rudo de Ruijter does not do is show you the national debt as a percentage of GDP. Also, trade imbalance becomes more meaningless as more and more US industries diversify abroad. I don't know many large US companies that do not have foreign subsidiaries that offset the dollars weakness within that companies bottom line. What hurts the economy is sudden unpredictable change. A weak dollar means that US goods are cheaper to everyone in the world, and even people in the US are better off buying domestic products. A weak dollar is good for US manufacturers, and hurts foreign companies seeking to sell products in the US. That Toyota just got really expensive, but the GM looks like a better buy now. A good site on understanding the value of a dollar.

National Debt, and deficit spending is a political issue with which we need to wrestle down. Debt vs GDP You can see we are better off than we were post WWII, but much worse off than we were during the 1980's. You can see the inherent power struggle between Dems and Reps in their approach to deficit spending. The three options are 1) spend less, 2) raise more taxes, or 3) borrow. #1 and #2 have higher political consequences, so the default for both is #3. What does this have to do with Petroleum? Nothing.

So Meat, I would not be so easily swayed by the "common" vilification of the US by your foreign visitors. The trashing of "neo-con" ideologies, and the Bush-Cheney oil war are common beliefs outside the US. Look deeper and discover the truth.

The truth lies in protecting "The Kindom". The truth lies in having a place outside of "The Kingdom" to house US military bases and spying operations. We are probably not there to promote democracy, or necessarily stop the spread of WMD's. We are there because Iraq moved from friendly to enemy and aligned itself with the people who are against the US and our strategic interests (one of which is cheap oil). We are there because the UN failed. We are there, because it was possible for us to take it from Saddam (a despot) with little loss of life. Even though there has been an insurgency which has claimed unnecessary lives, the price for taking Iraq has been small. That was the gist of my original post. Compare the price and value of taking of the strategically important "Iraq" with the strategically meaningless taking of Rome, or Iwo Jima in WWII. Yes, it is somewhat apples to oranges to compare tactical step stone battles to wars, but I'm just trying to make a point about comparative costs. Now, the sticky part of Iraq is having an exit strategy that leaves Iraq as a place that is "friendly" to our(e.g. Saudi, European) interests.