Man, don’t you know what’s really going on?

/sarcasm

This strikes me as a bit rash.  The US has yet to completely resolve the hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Even the most hawkish must realize that fighting three seperate contemporaneous campaigns would over extend even the United State’s substantial military might.  The US is a super power, but it isn’t omnipotent.  Even if Iraq isn’t another Vietnam, which it might very well be, starting another war is just asking for an unwinnable conflict.

The US is a super power, but it isn’t omnipotent.

Oh, I don’t know about that

heh

I’m crossposting here, but the post really belongs in this thread…

From the NY Times: Bush Says Election Ratified Iraq Policy

Here are some choice quotes.  I’ve added some comments here and there (slightly edited from the first time I posted it, re-posted for convenience)…

President Bush said the public’s decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.

“We had an accountability moment, and that’s called the 2004 elections,â€? Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. “The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me.”

So all those protests just washed away, huh?  Nevermind the 48% that didn’t vote for him or his Iraq mess.

For the first time, Bush said he will not press senators to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, the top priority for many social conservative groups.

...The president said there is no reason to press for the amendment because so many senators are convinced that the Defense of Marriage Act—which says states that outlaw same-sex unions do not have to recognize such marriages conducted outside their borders—is sufficient.

...[Later,] Scott McClellan called to say the president wished to clarify his position, saying Bush was “willing to spend political capital� but believes it will be virtually impossible to overcome Senate resistance until the courts render a verdict on DOMA.

Ah, a blessing.  Wait, a blessing with a caveat.  No, make that not a blessing at all, but it sounded like one.

Last week, Powell said U.S. troop levels could be reduced this year, but Bush said it is premature to judge how many U.S. men and women will be needed to defeat the insurgency and plant a new and sustainable government. He also declined to pledge to significantly reduce U.S. troop levels before the end of his second term in January 2009.

Pardon me, could you say that again?  January 2009?  We’re pouring money into a cause he has that little confidence in resolving?  We can’t continue spending like we are for another four years.

As for perhaps the most notorious terrorist, Osama bin Laden, the administration has so far been unsuccessful in its attempt to locate the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Asked why, Bush said, “Because he’s hiding.”

Well, duh. Once again he wows us with his strong stance on the perpetrator of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Bush acknowledged that “some of the decisions I’ve made up to now have affected our standing in parts of the world,� but predicted that most Muslims will eventually see America as a beacon of freedom and democracy.

Right.  They’ll just “see the lightâ€? after all these years.  I only wish he were being cynical.

“It’s important for people to know that I’m the president of everybody.”

Well, you may be the President of everybody, but you’re not the boss of me!

He may not make it a preemptive war. I read an article that said Wolfowitz was trying to find a way to detonate a small nuclear device here in Houston to kickstart the patriotism needed for such a massive attack.

That’s not to say I believed it, but I wouldn’t but anything past this administration now.

September 11 2001 ?

Spocko, I loved seeing pics like that back in early 2000. You don’t see pics like that anymore…

Now you just see pics like this:

They may not need to fight a “Third” war.

The Iraqi elections in two weeks may give the [mis]Administration the reasoning (flawed as it is) to invade Iran.

They will “determine” that Iran meddled in the elections, that they had forces cross over to “help” Iraqi Shia vote… blahblahblah

Then the EU negotiations over Iran’s nukes will fall down and go splat again…

THEN Bush, in order to protect our troops from a preemptive Iranian nuclear strike will pre-preemptively invade Iran.

Farfetched… four years ago I would have agreed.. now only Eris knows…

fnord

“Seymour Hersh, writing in the latest New Yorker magazine, reports that American soldiers have been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran. The missions have been underway for several months, in preparation for potential U.S. military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.�

“Hersh says that the operations have been authorized by the president with little or no congressional oversight.�

Of course he says this without any actual proof, just rumors and conspiracy theories.  Hey, I heard that U2 is part of the special forces group which is gathering intelligence from Iran.  This was confirmed by a “government consultant with close ties to the Pentagonâ€?.

There are many who claim that 9/11 couldn’t have happened without some government complacency.  It is starnge that the Admin fought so hard to keep any kind of independent investigation from happening regarding 9/11.  It is also interesting to note that The Project for the New American Century, whose members are some of the most influential people in the Admin, mentioned the need for a “new Pearl Harbor” to galvanize the public.

According to the PNAC report, “The American peace has proven itself peaceful, stable, and durable. Yet no moment in international politics can be frozen in time: even a global Pax Americana will not preserve itself.” To preserve this “American peace” through the 21st century, the PNAC report concludes that the global order “must have a secure foundation on unquestioned U.S. military preeminence.” The report struck a prescient note when it observed that “the process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor.”

It is actually on page 63 and says: “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event- like a new Pearl Harbor.”

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Also, CNN reported yesterday, that the Pentagon tried to deny Hersh’s report as poor journalism.

Hmmmm… maybe in Dave’s pic, Bush had run out of toilet paper.  Looks like he is trying to figure out where to shove it.  I have a few ideas.

He may not make it a preemptive war. I read an article that said Wolfowitz was trying to find a way to detonate a small nuclear device here in Houston to kickstart the patriotism needed for such a massive attack.

That’s not to say I believed it, but I wouldn’t but anything past this administration now.

Chill, people. I am certain that Bush would like to invade Iran. Thats the modus operandi he believes in. But it ain’t likely AT ALL.

1) Even though they were hell-bent on invading Iraq from the start, they took, what, 2 years to prepare and ‘fertilize the ground’ for it.

What they are doing now is send up trial balloons.

What do you do with trial balloons? You shoot ‘em down. More forcefully than before Iraq, because we know whats coming if we let em have their way.

2) US troops ain’t infinite, and even Rumsfeld (if not all in the Bush administration) has noticed by now. The US CANNOT invade Iran. Best they could do is hold some major pockets. The rest - not even a pretense like in parts of Iraq.

Now, there won’t be an invasion of Iran anytime soon. Military strikes (airstrikes, special forces, with or without Israel) though…

NOW you’re talking a possible reality.

BTW - I originally chose that quote of Bachalon because I think thats pretty much the conspiracy theory approach.

I don’t believe in secret conspiracies of that kind. The real conspiracies can be read about in the news and listening to politicians when they preach to the party faithful. If you listen closely, that will tell you 90% of what is going on. The really secret moves are rarely more than a tiny part.

Even if Iraq isn’t another Vietnam, which it might very well be, starting another war is just asking for an unwinnable conflict.

I really don’t know that winning the conflict is the goal of this war (or possibly wars).

Terroran,

You have a point there, if I remember correctly the US tends to vote Republican during war time (if I remember correctly of the 11 “war presidents” in the 20th and 21st centuries, only 4 were Democrats: Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, and they all have acronyms as monikers).  Such being the case, it would likely be in the Republican’s interest to keep the US at a constant state of low level conflict to drum up support.  I mean consider what happened when G-dubs dad managed to resolve a war in the middle-east, he didn’t even get voted in for a second term.  I guess if the Republicans must be worried about what will happen if the conflict in the middle-east is ever resolved.  I mean what else drives conservative ideology other than fear (and perhaps greed).

Yeah, it seems to ring true.

This may not be a very tasteful analogy, but having your state at war is kind of like having your team in the playoffs. Even if you don’t watch the game(or care for the sport), you still cheer for the team, hoping they will bring home victory.

Then I guess when you think about it, sports have always kind of resembled some sort of archaic miniwar. Two teams fighting head to head in conquest of the other, victor takes all (just instead of pillaging and raping you get a cup).

I believe the covert operations taking place in Iran are no different than the covert operations we are conducting in many other countries.  They are merely gathering intelligence and identifying targets.

Ingolfson’s comments seem on the mark to me.  The administration is flying this up the flagpole to see who will salute.  Now, if Iran continues to meddle in Iraqi affairs and refuse to negotiate with the EU, then we will probably see surgical strikes.

In effect. this will decimate the Iranian forces and raise hostilities in the Middle East but it will have eliminated the possibility of any large scale attack from Iran.  The downside is the US will be involved in major combat operations in the Middle East so far into the future that fossil fuels will have been depleted.

In effect. this will decimate the Iranian forces and raise hostilities in the Middle East but it will have eliminated the possibility of any large scale attack from Iran.

Not knowing what the military capabilities of Iran are, I don’t know how effective “surgical strikes” could be. US forces would almost have to redeploy towards the Iraq/Iranian border to meet a potential retaliatory attack or infiltration, but that would also mean fewer troops to deal with the insurgency and an even larger logistics train to attack. It seems to me that current US combat forces are fully engaged in Iraq and even a credible threat of attack from Iran or somewhere else could make things really interesting.

And who knows what creative ways the Mullahs have concocted to answer any US action…

The downside is the US will be involved in major combat operations in the Middle East so far into the future that fossil fuels will have been depleted.

If the US can sustain it and assuming that everybody else would only stand by to watch. There are so many conceivable unintended consequences…

I think the only thing not mentioned so far is the manning level of the military. Morale as well. As more people question the validity of Iraq, how many youngsters will sign up should Iran become another war of choice. Does a man who personally ran from the draft have the balls to invoke one?

Some points to make.

1) Benefits not morality
With regards to conduct of international/foreign affairs, the focus should be benefits accrued to the home nation rather than morality per se. Or so as I have been told when talking to this person who among other things works for the government with regards to international affairs and have been to Baghdad.

Of course one could debate the benefits of a particular action and that benefits can be defined widely and be viewed in both long and short term.
A) “Survival” / Power: State’s position internationally
B) Economic
C) “Election”: Catering to supporters

2) “Rule the world” + “Seize Oil”
I do not think there is anything wrong with adopting the above policy except perhaps phrase it differently. If one does not do so one may not be doing their job.

A) “Rule the world”
Ultimately conduct of international affairs is all about establising one’s position in the world. Those at the bottom will want to climb and those on top will want to remain. And of course by ruling the world I do not mean those silly cartoon bad guys menacing rubbing their hands together. But rather it means securing trade interests overseas, drawing in investment, protecting investments etc.

Think of it as a company. As the CEO of the company their job is to ensure that the company keeps its position in the market. And the ways to keep their position or improve could be through direct competition, co-operation or perhaps even hostile takeovers.

B) Seize Oil
This could be explained through economic or survival interests. Oil is essential to the lubricating of the economy and without it the economy will grind to a halt or more realistically, it would increase the cost of business. For example, if there is only one source of clean water in the whole world and the country controlling it decides not to export to the country, it would be logical for that nation to attempt to seize.

But often one has to plan strategically in advance to secure the vital materials. For example, China (which according to estimates will consume as much oil as US by 2020-5) is currently securing oil fields across the world such as Sudan, Iran, Venezuela, also in the purchase of Canadian company Noranda to obtain the oil sands in Canada and there is talk of purchasing US energy firm Unocol. Internationally, China would veto any strongly worded measures in the UN directed against Sudan or Iran.

The difference is that at this moment US have the military capability to either seize the oil or to be more precise prop up regimes favourable to US while China have to rely on paying above the market rate to obtain these oil fields.

C) Human Rights
The interesting bit at least to me with regards to US policy is its interaction with human rights. For example, if the US merely wanted to secure oil, they could simply drop the sanctions and cut a deal with Saddam, deal directly with Sudan, etc. But that would be in direct contravention of its so called human rights policy. At least with nations such as China one can make the very valid argument that trade with the country improves the lives of the people there and in the long run human rights would improve as a result. But such an argument is difficult to make with regards to oil investments.

So what do you do when you want something that is beneficial and crucial but there are constraints to dealing with the person who holds it. One simply remove that person from the equation.

Ultimately, I would question whether human rights actually play a part in US foreign policy or whether it merely operates as a mask for its actions or is invoked for supporters of the party or perhaps adopting it would result obtaining a better result. I should make one final point that the mere fact that a policy is a “me first” or one that is lead by benefits does not mean everyone else would suffer for in many cases benefits are not a zero or negative sum game.

You sum up the main talking points of the Wolfowitz Doctrine (which is basically world domination in a post-cold war environ). But it is very much a “me first” attitude. There is no thought given to benefits for others, particularly if they fail to share our values/culture.

This approach has been attempted several times in the past, almost always with fantastic short term gains. Always with long term failure.

Countries can be very vindictive when reacting to perceived wrongs. All Europe has to do (particularly Russia) is cash out the dollar in favor of another currency and we’re screwed. They can’t do it yet, but who’s to say in 10 years oil can’t be traded in the euro?

My point is that ultra-aggression, especially when the government committing it is percieved as arrogant and hypocritical, is almost always met with a backlash equal in magnitude. We may attempt to jockey for position in a world with dwindling resources but are our gains going to be greater than our vulnerabilities?

I’ve not yet read Sy Hirsch’s piece in the New Yorker. Given the fact that he broke the My Lai story, and was pivotal in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal being reported, I wouldn’t dismiss his claims out-of-hand. I would guess that any informers he may have on this story might want to remain anonymous. Granted, an administration exacting revenge on anyone informing the media on it’s questionable, covert activities seems far fetched......oh, wait......

After the rest of the rationales for Bush’s war crumbled, I have heard quite a few pro-war types use the “strategic oil reserves” argument for the war.  What people don’t realize is that oil-based economies are on the way out.  Type in “oil peak” on a search engine and read the articles.  Oil demand has now surpassed oil production and even opening up areas like ANWR won’t change that.  Wolfie and his cronies might even be aware of it and not care because they won’t be around to have to clean up the mess.  “What goes up...”

Going by this documented timeline Id say involvment of George Dubya Christ in 9/11 has at least some merit.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/02_11_02_lucy.html

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6895.htm

cant look at the Emperor during his preselected coronation.
http://airamericaradio.com/layout.asp?baseurl=MikeMalloyShow/1-13-05/MikeMalloy.wma

Here is a good interview with Seymour Hersh about Dubya.
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/events/replay.html?event_id=170