Posts
Or, Why the Conservative Thing to Do Would Be to Leave Iraq Instantly
The exact figures are a little hard to confirm, but it certainly looks like the number of US troops killed from the initial invasion of Iraq through Saddam’s toppling was only a few hundred. Even counting all the deaths back home on 9/11 itself, the combined total is still less than we have lost since the occupation/pacification of Iraq started dragging into infinity.
The comparison between our pre and post occupation losses is even more pronounced if we count all casualties including mental problems, not just the deaths. Once we start looking at dollar figure drains on our treasury and economy from just conquering versus sticking around for “peace keeping” and “nation building,” the adverse cost comparison becoming truly staggering.
What that suggests is we should pull out immediately and say we will be back if they ever try anything again we don’t like such as looking at us cross-eyed. (After all, since they didn’t really have anything to do with 9/11 or have the nukes we thought, it must have been the Saddam’s sneer that justified invading).
It certainly calls into question the thinking of those who insist we must stay to keep them from attacking us later. Haven’t any of those geniuses who got us into this mess and want to keep us there ever heard of that quaint concept called cost/benefit analysis?
[more irreverence at resistence-is-possible.blogspot.com]
Showing posts with label declaring peace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label declaring peace. Show all posts
2007/05/28
“A STRUGGLE TO UNDERSTAND THE PREZ’S PUZZLING PENNY ANTE APPROACH TO HIS SUPPOSED STRUGGLE FOR CIVILIZATION”
Or, 10 Questions to Terrify Bush about His War Against Terrorist States
Our feckless leader, George Bush, continually proclaims in increasingly strident rhetoric that continuing to occupy the countries we invaded is important. Nay, vital to our future. He insists it is not merely an ego trip or an attempt to steal oil or a chance to wear a flight suit and pretend he is courageous, but a “struggle for civilization itself.”
Okay, let’s take him at his word for the moment. Perhaps he has better information than the entire rest of the world. Perhaps he accidentally got something right. Perhaps God does speak directly to him.
In any event, his call to arms is a serious proposition and deserves full consideration. We are willing to march into the abyss and indulge his every vainglorious whim. BUT... if this is truly a “struggle for civilization itself” as asserted, if this is truly a task suggested directly to Bush by the voice of God himself, if this is truly the most important aspect of the current Administration, then we have some questions.
Dear President Bush . . .
1. Why aren’t you demanding your own children join the military? It looks like the military could use every warm body available if what you say is accurate. Even if the girls are addiction prone or even fearful cowards like yourself, they could still scrubs pots and peal potatoes in a military Mess Hall if nothing else and free up others for combat.
2. In fact, why aren’t you instituting a draft to induct all the children of your fellow Warhawks into the War’s efforts? Don’t we need them for the “surge” before the Army if permanently broken?
3. Why aren’t you donating your vast family fortunes, particularly the unearned portions, to either the War’s efforts or its side effects? After all, you presumably won’t need it if you fail and civilization collapses into barbarism. Show us you mean what you spout by sacrificing to the cause what you Republicans treasure most - your personal treasure.
4. While we are on the subject, why aren’t you taxing your friends who are making billions war profiteering by price gouging and jailing the many who are engaging in theft and corruption? Make them give it all back so that we can fund your follies.
5. Why aren’t you using all the tools at your disposal such as the diplomatic ones that have proven to work in the past? We realize that you are terrible at diplomacy. Anyone who gropes the female head of state for Germany on TV obviously hasn’t a clue in that regard. Nevertheless, there are some talented people out there assuming you haven’t finished culling all the career foreign service employees in the State Department yet because they might be secret Democrats.
6. Since you are always talking about how we must do things if there “is even a 1% chance” they might be successful, how about offering your testicles to Iran for instance in return for a halt to their nuclear weapons program and full inspections? They could brag about it, but we wouldn’t care if it worked. Either way, it would be a literally minuscule price to pay and well worth it if we got what you have been demanding from them. Surely there is a 1% chance of it working. Moreover, it would not even be painful with anesthetics.
7. Why aren’t you instituting a crash project to completely eliminate the need for gasoline? Of course, that would bankrupt your oil buddies, but look how much it would harm those states that don’t like us like? It would remove a major source of their power over us not to mention reducing their ability to build weapons of mass destruction.
8. Since your own efforts seem to be failing miserably, why aren’t you resigning so that someone more competent can complete the task?
9. Why aren’t you at least firing those who have been proven wrong and rehiring those who got it right? Get rid of all those hacks who were appointed solely because they were Republican campaign contributors, but haven’t been doing a “heckofajob.” Give them a Medal of Freedom, which is not longer worth anything anyway, and terminate them.
10. Why don’t you stop smirking? It may take plastic surgery to do it, but we simply cannot take you seriously as long as you look like a frat boy just back from a panty raid.
The bottom line is that we don’t mind following you if this is a struggle for civilization. We are civilized folks and want others to be civil even if we have to kill them to civilize them.
We don’t mind, well, we don’t mind too much, enduring sacrifices if what is at stake is really a new Dark Ages, but we are not stupid. Well, at least most of us are not stupid, at least those not currently appointed by you to run government agencies.
The point is we don’t blindly follow leaders anymore like your namesake, George Custer. At least, we don’t do so forever. So, if you are going to insist this is a struggle for civilization, logic says you too must act like it.
We allowed you to get away with the “Do as I say, not as I do” scheme back in the Vietnam era when you were hiding from combat while ponticating that others should die in your place. That was back when you were just the drunken frat boy living off your rich parent’s money though. That only works once. Now you are the President. The “Exampler” as well as the “Decider.” Consequently, act the part if you want us to believe you. Be the First Family to do the things that need to be done.
In other words, answer the questions and then we can discuss what to do about the struggle for civilization. Until you do, we see it as merely a struggle to keep you from wrecking the place until we can throw you and your friends out.
2007/03/21
“ 'S A DAMN SHAME WE REMAIN”
Or, Changing the Debate on Iraqi
Unless the shape of the debate changes soon, it looks like the earliest our troops will realistically be allowed to hope for getting out of the mistake known as Iraq is the day Bush is removed from office or whatever day the amoebas in Congress finally grow a spine. Unfortunately, the Democrats have allowed themselves to be foolishly boxed into a “debate” defending against the assertion that anything ending the fiasco is somehow not “supporting” the troops.
Bush and his NeoCons have once again conned the nation into a non sequitur. What the anti-Iraq quagmire activists need to do is change the question. How to do that? Are there any challenges or demands that can be made (besides the obviously useful impeachment alternative) that might assist? Actually there are several in which Bush’s own rhetoric can be successfully used against him. How about:
ALTERNATIVE 1: LET’S VOTE.
Yeah. I know. We thought we already did last November. But, apparently it was not explicit enough on the question of Iraq. If so, it would be pretty easy to organize a special election, a national plebiscite solely on the subject whether to (a) leave now or (b) stay until our soldiers run out of blood or our treasury runs out of money, whichever comes first. Consider it as a national No Confidence Vote which European nations have turned into a proud and useful tradition. Let’s ask Bush and Cheney to resign if they cannot persuade a majority of the voters that Western Civilization itself is riding on us staying in Iraq forever. If he truly has confidence in what he is telling us, ask him why not put it to a vote?
Of course, since we already know Bush is totally opposed to democracy here in the States and is too cowardly to really debate the subject, that will never happen. (In fact, it might even prove counterproductive given how Bush’s minions like the owner of the Diebold voting machines seem to magically achieve voting totals which defy logic and evidence when there is no paper trail to check against.) BUT, Bush does loudly and frequently claim he’s at least for spreading “democracy” in the Middle East. So, let’s let the Iraqis give us the purple finger as to whether they want us to remain.
Why should Bush consider agreeing? He can continue pouring our assets down that rat hole until the end of his term assuming he is not removed by impeachment. On the other hand, he seems to be starting to worry both about his “legacy” and has good cause to worry about post term investigations. Frankly, it’s a perfect solution for him. If the Iraqis vote to keep us as their guards, he wins the debate and can blunt criticism of him. If they vote for us to get out, he then has cover to pretend whatever later disaster happens is all the Iraqis’ fault, not his own massive bungling.
If Bush won’t consider an Iraqi vote or if the civil warring factions there would not allow it, how about demanding a UN General Assembly vote in which we agree not to exercise a veto and to abide by the result? Once again, Bush who surely knows he has already lost the war assuming he can read the reports from his own generals, can shrug his shoulders and say “Well, I would have won, but I wasn’t allowed to do so.” Legacy saved, at least in his own mind.
ALTERNATIVE TWO: MAKE IT ALL VOLUNTEER TROOPS.
Bush claims he “supports the troops” and touts the “all volunteer” army with which he likes to play toy general. While it is not true if almost everything learned about missing armor, extended tours, poor vet care, rotten salaries, and literal rotten food, etc. is accurate, nevertheless, let’s insist he make Iraq an “all volunteer” mission. It used to be a tradition that when you sent troops on suicide or dangerous missions, volunteers were called for. If Bush believes so much in the mission, he can truly “support the troops” by saying they don’t have to go to Iraq unless they feel the same way.
Normally, in a real war, that would not be a good idea, but most of our other wars have been fought for valid reasons in which there was a real and present danger from something other than tin pot dictators we had put in power ourselves or a covetous desire for resources like oil. Consequently, let’s give our boys and girls a choice as to whether they want to die in Iraq for Bush’s ego, particularly when they are being asked to do so at a salary one-fifth what the Bush and Cheney are paying Blackwater private mercenaries to do the same thing.
No doubt it will cost substantially more to bump soldier salaries sufficiently high enough to persuade them putting Iraq oil in Halliburton pockets is worth dying for. At the same time, wouldn’t a significant increase in enlisted man compensation finally show some genuine “support” for the troops instead for the empty words Bush has been so fond of mouthing?
Better yet, how about initiating a draft of all those who voted in favor of the Iraq war starting with Bush’s military age offspring? That way, we would not even have to raise salaries. They wanted the war, they get it.
Naturally, Bush will fight such a proposal, but in doing so it once again exposes him for the utter hypocrite he is and shifts the focus on which the issue is presently stuck.
ALTERNATIVE THREE: MAKE IT ALL VOLUNTEER FUNDING.
Don’t cut off the funds for the troops, but perhaps insist instead that they be paid for by those who want the war. Perhaps a line could be added to the income tax returns in which citizens and companies could specify how much they would voluntarily add to their tax burdens to fund the Iraq war. Bush could use those earmarked funds, but only those funds.
Oops, the big companies like Cheney’s Halliburton don’t pay much taxes. In fact, they are leaving for places like Dubai so they can pay even less. But, since the war is being really fought to supply them with oil revenue (plus a lot of easy war profiteering), they may have to be assessed some new taxes if the Republicans want to continue in their “Crusade” as Bush used to characterize it. Let them be asked to give back some of the billions they have stolen in graft, corruption, overcharging, insider trading and “bad accounting.”
If that does not supply enough money due to the public finally wising up or the corporations being too cheap to give back some of their obscene profits and obscene CEO obscene salaries, perhaps Bush can hold a telethon or use some of the campaign contribution bribery and lobbying funds he has stashed away. The bottom line is let those who want the war foot the bills for it. If they don’t, then use against them the same “unpatriotic traitor” mantra they call everyone else.
ALTERNATIVE FOUR: ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR OIL
Basically demand the Prez prove that this is not really all about Oil by eliminating its consumption for fuel in this country. Demand immediate genuine progress be accomplished by launching, say, a massive Manhattan Project or first Lunar Mission urgency to end dependency before his Presidency ends. Ask that at least as much be spent on a useful alternative energy goal as has been spent on Bush’s military adventurism. Perhaps a 100% tax on gasoline at the pump, a surtax on oil company profits, mandatory gas rationing as occurred in WWII, elimination of restrictions on wind, wave, solar and other non-oil construction such as the suburban zoning height restrictions preventing home wind generator towers plus a huge research and development project on fuel cells and other hopeful methods.
This only indirectly would be an impetus for getting the troops out, but it would finally require the rest of the country to share some of the burden and sacrifice. Bringing that sacrifice home would remind the heads in the sand public that something is going on for which they too have a responsibility. It broadens the debate.
ALTERNATIVE FIVE: DEMAND STANDARDS BE SET FOR WHEN WE KNOW WE HAVE FINALLY “WON” SO WE KNOW WHEN WE CAN FINALLY LEAVE.
For instance, have we "won" and can get out if the death toll is dropped to, say, 25% of what it was last year? How about when the electricity operation is on for at least 50% of the day at least six days a week? How about if the daily death toll and utility service availability is at least the same as the average for, say, Mexico, East Timor or Algeria? Those are not very high standards to achieve. How about when reporters can report from anywhere and only, say, 25 a year are killed attempting to do so.
If we cannot achieve even those very low standards, then we will never achieve higher ones and it is better to demand we get out now while we still have the shirt on our backs.
No standards - no continuing.
ALTERNATIVE SIX: DECLARE PEACE, NOT WAR.
Although Bush rejects international law, signed treaties, precedent, tradition, the words of his oath of office and most of the Constitution, Bush did seek a “war resolution” to allow him to use force in Iraq. Repeal that resolution or alternatively recognize that the Constitution requires Congress, and Congress alone, to declare war. Read it sometime.
If there is no legal authorization for the troops being in Iraq, then leaving them there would be an illegal activity for which Bush could be impeached.
As to cutting off the funds for the war, Bush attempts to characterize that as an attempt to harm the troops. In fact, it is the opposite. If Bush insists on leaving them there, then he and he alone is responsible for whatever happens next. In fact, by military law, troops are required to refuse to obey illegal orders which they would be if Bush ignores a demand for removal of the troops.
Cutting off the funds was necessary to finally end the war in Vietnam. Few now believe that troops were harmed as a result and that proved to really be the only way to bring them home. To continue the war would be an utter waste.
ALTERNATIVE SEVEN: MOVE THE WHITE HOUSE TO THE “GREEN ZONE” IN BAGHDAD.
Bush is always trying to show us how macho he is cutting brush, riding bikes, wearing flight suits. How about if he will not agree to any of the foregoing, double dog dare him to move his personal base of operations along with his VP, senior staff and Attorney General to Iraq. Ask him to show his own personal courage for once rather than the yellow streak he showed in the Vietnam War. He should be asked to show the troops he is behind them just a few miles away, not an entire hemisphere. Legacy-wise, Bush would be asked to put up or shut up.
If he inspires the troops like Custer did, great at least for him. He can go down in history as being proved right – far right. If he gets killed there, no big loss and perhaps the Smithsonian, which is too close to the White House when someone finally does try a nuke, might be saved.
Bush can be reminded that if God is truly on his side as Bush proclaims, surely He will protect Bush. If not, then Bush can be happy he gets to go to his eternal reward even sooner.
One thing is for certain. We can do without Bush and his crew here for the next two years.
And if he doesn’t want to discuss one of the alternatives above, we can always seek to truncate the tumor consuming the White House by reconsidering the great ALTERNATIVE EIGHT: IMPEACHMENT. Overtly rejecting all these other seven alternatives would prove Bush (once again) to be the Hypocrite-in-Chief and might be just the miracle growth tonic those in Congress need to either grow a backbone or conclude they will lose their cushy job next time around.
It is time to break out of the box if we are going to ever break out of Iraq.
2007/02/14
“ASKING FOR PROOF”
Challenging the Theory That We Must Stay in Iraq So Terrorism Won’t Come to America
Republican diehard Bush supporters contend that if we pull out of Iraq, the insurgents we’re fighting’ll follow us home and attack us here. The theory being, it is better to battle them “over there” than in the streets of Astoria or Portland. Just once though, wouldn’t it be nice if people making such assertions looked at history, facts or even logic before mouthing such simplitudes?
For instance, can those who constantly parrot the Bush position point to a single example of that ever happening to us before? It doesn’t seem to have occurred after any of our other wars in the last century or so. Where are the newspaper and textbook accounts of any demolitions, arsons, ambushes or anything else conducted by defeated Nazis or Ninjas anywhere in North America. After we smashed their entire civilizations, they certainly had reason to seek revenge or punishment, not to mention the technical knowhow to do so. Castro? North Koreans? They still don’t like us after half a lifetime, but they didn’t “follow us home.” Castro is only 90 miles away.
Might it make a difference if we are the ones defeated or who give up? Look at Lebanon in the 70s. When a Lebanese suicide truck bomber blew up the Marine barracks in Beirut, Regan hastily tucked his tail between his legs and slunk out of town. Clinton did much the same in Somalia after Blackhawk down. When was the last time you heard of a followup by either Lebanese or Somali Muslims on this continent afterwards?
Those were relatively isolated incidents. We left quickly after just one major adverse confrontation. Does it make a difference if we leave after a long nasty conflict? Well, the Vietnam War was certainly comparable to what is happening in Iraq, more so all the time. We could look to it to see what might happen if we pulled out after essentially acknowledging either defeat or at least that it is not worth the cost. Almost everyone will admit the Viet Cong were tenacious, fierce insurgents who fought using terror tactics for literally decades. Name one example of where the victorious insurgents in that conflict followed us home.
Does that mean it is not possible? Of course not. The point is that the Iraqi insurgents could do so right now without having to wait. Thanks to an Administration that acts on wishes, a remarkably incompetent Homeland Security agency and a cheapskate Congress, an almost porous border exists. Pregnant women can walk across the border almost at will. What makes anyone think that’s a perfect defense against a stealthy terrorist? Worse, maybe one in ten thousand cargo containers docking in our ports are inspected. Put a nuke in any of them and a terrorist could touch off a bomb a few hundred feet from Wall Street. Hell, there is probably at least a one in ten chance that an uninspected weapon could be flown in on a FedEx plane if asked to pick up a package. Consequently, the terrorists don’t even need to come here.
Why haven’t they attacked so far? Good question, but it does not seem to have anything to do with inability to get here. Perhaps part of the answer lies in the statistics on violence in Iraq. They seem to be killing more of each other than us. If we leave Iraq, is that likely to diminish so that they could come after us alone? Is there any evidence of that in the past? Usually in similar situations, they seem to spend a long time fighting for power among themselves, then concentrating control once received and rebuilding after the consolidation. It typically takes years.
And, what happens after the rebuilding that’s distracting their attention and energy is finally successful? We could again look to our enemies in prior conflicts, whether Cold War or Brush Fire War. Look at our bitter foe Vietnam. Communist Vietnam has been now granted favored nation trading partner status with state visits by none other than Bush himself.
Should we be sanguine about the possibility of future terror attacks here? Never! At the same time, the next time a bellicose Republican starts spouting off about at least this particular justification for staying as an occupying belligerent in Iraq indefinitely, ask for an iota of proof. If not, let’s bury this bit of nonsense. Otherwise, we might end up getting more of our people killed than we might save.
Republican diehard Bush supporters contend that if we pull out of Iraq, the insurgents we’re fighting’ll follow us home and attack us here. The theory being, it is better to battle them “over there” than in the streets of Astoria or Portland. Just once though, wouldn’t it be nice if people making such assertions looked at history, facts or even logic before mouthing such simplitudes?
For instance, can those who constantly parrot the Bush position point to a single example of that ever happening to us before? It doesn’t seem to have occurred after any of our other wars in the last century or so. Where are the newspaper and textbook accounts of any demolitions, arsons, ambushes or anything else conducted by defeated Nazis or Ninjas anywhere in North America. After we smashed their entire civilizations, they certainly had reason to seek revenge or punishment, not to mention the technical knowhow to do so. Castro? North Koreans? They still don’t like us after half a lifetime, but they didn’t “follow us home.” Castro is only 90 miles away.
Might it make a difference if we are the ones defeated or who give up? Look at Lebanon in the 70s. When a Lebanese suicide truck bomber blew up the Marine barracks in Beirut, Regan hastily tucked his tail between his legs and slunk out of town. Clinton did much the same in Somalia after Blackhawk down. When was the last time you heard of a followup by either Lebanese or Somali Muslims on this continent afterwards?
Those were relatively isolated incidents. We left quickly after just one major adverse confrontation. Does it make a difference if we leave after a long nasty conflict? Well, the Vietnam War was certainly comparable to what is happening in Iraq, more so all the time. We could look to it to see what might happen if we pulled out after essentially acknowledging either defeat or at least that it is not worth the cost. Almost everyone will admit the Viet Cong were tenacious, fierce insurgents who fought using terror tactics for literally decades. Name one example of where the victorious insurgents in that conflict followed us home.
Does that mean it is not possible? Of course not. The point is that the Iraqi insurgents could do so right now without having to wait. Thanks to an Administration that acts on wishes, a remarkably incompetent Homeland Security agency and a cheapskate Congress, an almost porous border exists. Pregnant women can walk across the border almost at will. What makes anyone think that’s a perfect defense against a stealthy terrorist? Worse, maybe one in ten thousand cargo containers docking in our ports are inspected. Put a nuke in any of them and a terrorist could touch off a bomb a few hundred feet from Wall Street. Hell, there is probably at least a one in ten chance that an uninspected weapon could be flown in on a FedEx plane if asked to pick up a package. Consequently, the terrorists don’t even need to come here.
Why haven’t they attacked so far? Good question, but it does not seem to have anything to do with inability to get here. Perhaps part of the answer lies in the statistics on violence in Iraq. They seem to be killing more of each other than us. If we leave Iraq, is that likely to diminish so that they could come after us alone? Is there any evidence of that in the past? Usually in similar situations, they seem to spend a long time fighting for power among themselves, then concentrating control once received and rebuilding after the consolidation. It typically takes years.
And, what happens after the rebuilding that’s distracting their attention and energy is finally successful? We could again look to our enemies in prior conflicts, whether Cold War or Brush Fire War. Look at our bitter foe Vietnam. Communist Vietnam has been now granted favored nation trading partner status with state visits by none other than Bush himself.
Should we be sanguine about the possibility of future terror attacks here? Never! At the same time, the next time a bellicose Republican starts spouting off about at least this particular justification for staying as an occupying belligerent in Iraq indefinitely, ask for an iota of proof. If not, let’s bury this bit of nonsense. Otherwise, we might end up getting more of our people killed than we might save.
2007/02/11
“A DECISION TREE FOR ANALYZING IRAQ POLICIES”
Or, Trimming the Bushes Obscuring What Could or Should Be Done about Iraq
Possibly the most, certainly one of the most, pressing and divisive questions facing our country today is whether we should stay in Iraq or leave. If you believe the former, start with numbered paragraph 1 below for a way to ultimately determine whether that is a wise decision. If you believe the latter, start with numbered paragraph 8.
1. The current policy being pursued by the President, in its essence, seems to be simply adding approximately 21,000 military personnel to the 135,000 or so already there and staying there for an indefinite period conducting training and counter “insurgency” activities. If you favor that idea or are at least willing to investigate it further, proceed to paragraph 2. Keep in mind that even if you initially trust the President or any other “decider” for that matter, that does not excuse you as a citizen from exercising judgment of the decision, particularly when it is a literally life and death result at stake.
2. Begin with determining what are the potential benefits from the current “surge” policy as it is commonly called. Is it a prevention of civil war between one or more of the three Iraq religious factions? That would be a good thing. Is it an end to or at least substantial reduction of insurgency activities? An end to suicide bombers, kidnaping, mortar attacks and other terrorist activities in Iraq? Elimination of terrorist threats in allied countries? In America? Capture of Osama bin Laden? An end or at least substantial reduction of influence in predominately Shiite Iraq by predominately Shiite Iran and predominately Shiite Syria or other countries? A stable and/or democratic government capable of defending itself and rebuilding Iraq? A stable and/or democratic Middle Eastern region? Cheap oil? A permanent base for military and other operations in the regions? Significantly improved admiration, respect and/or at least fear of the US in Iraq or elsewhere? Prevention of nuclear weapons development by antagonist countries? Assuming there are any genuine potential benefits from the course of action under investigation, proceed to paragraph 3.
3. More important than the mere possibility of benefits is the question of how likely is it that each of the alleged benefits or goals will actually be accomplished by such a policy? It does not matter that we desire something in the abstract. Examples would be a perpetual motion machine or permanent peace in the ethnically and religiously divided Middle East. They are nice concepts, but not likely in our lifetimes, if at all. You should conduct a hard look to determine such likelihood. For some reason, that seems to be particularly difficult for Americans. Our particular view of history is that we will always prevail regardless of what history has to say on the subject when closely examined. The fact that we are almost as likely to be eaten by a shark in Nebraska as win the big lottery does not seem to deter us from gambling. Nevertheless, it will not help if we continue acting on wishes, assumptions, hope, ideology, arrogance, pride, or misinformation. Review each of the supposed benefits as to the realistic probabilities they will happen when the policy being considered is carried out. Assuming you ultimately conclude based upon real evidence that all, or perhaps any, of those proposed benefits are relatively likely if we continue pursuing the current White House policy, then skip to paragraph 6. If you are no longer as sure, proceed to paragraph 4.
4. If 21,000 additional boots on the ground, many to be “embedded” with Iraqi forces, are deemed by you to be insufficient to accomplish the desired goals, is there anything else that might achieve them? 100,000 troops? 1,000,000? Of course, if you start thinking that way, you must also answer the question of whether we have that many spare troops, especially the actual combat ones as opposed to support troops who typically outnumber ground pounders ten to one? Remember, we only count less than a million and a half military on active duty in the entire world at the moment. It is any easy confirmation on the internet with a Google or other search. So, do we need a draft? Factor in how long it will take to train them. Will other counties or the UN willingly supply all that is necessary? Are they interested in the same results as we are? Do they want that oil for themselves? Would they like us taken down a peg or two? Are they courting some of the other players such as Iran? Okay, how about then bringing in more pure mercenaries hired by our mercenary companies like Blackwater instead? Be sure to consider the effect though if they are not governed by our morals, ethics, or laws. Same issue on timing too. Can we train the new Iraq troops to adequately do the job? If so, can we do so before the American voter runs out of patience, not to mention can such newly trained Iraqi soldiers stay loyal to a national government instead of sectarian groups? How will they be used? Will it matter if electricity, jobs, schools, and other infrastructure are not restored and remain secure? If the answer to any of the forgoing is no, how about splitting Iraq to separate the warring factions? Monetary bribes perhaps? To whom? Bigger rewards for bringing in villains? Given what we are already offering, do we have enough money in the Treasury? Are we likely to interest anyone in accepting even if offered? Would more diplomacy work? That does not seem to have been tried. How about returning to a semblance of neutrality regarding Israel and Palestine issues? Sacrificing Israel? Everything is on the table for the purpose of analyzing alternative routes as to whether they would have any chance at success. Would that buy Iraq friends? How about nuking Iran? Would that eliminate an enemy or just create new ones? How about permanent relocation or internment or maybe just outright genocide of one or more of the groups in Iraq? Offering the testicles of Bush and Cheney? Be creative. We are not discussing morality at this point, but mere feasibility. Morality and legality are a second level for elimination of any particular alternative. Go to paragraph 5 now.
5. If any likely new possibilities or alternate policies present themselves to you as potentially successful avenues for accomplishing the chosen goals you are articulating, then you can determine if they are permissible to be implemented. If they are still viable after consideration of applicable laws and still acceptable to you based on your morality and ethics, proceed to paragraph 6. If not, proceed to paragraph 8 (because at this point you have in essence concurred in a choice to leave rather than stay.)
6. Assuming any of the proposed benefits are genuinely likely, what are they worth? Values must be assigned. Assigning value will be tough. For instance, how much is a live trained solider worth versus a dead one? Be sure to count all the future earnings and children and happiness they could create if not killed or mangled in Iraq carrying out the President’s current policy. It is tough, but not impossible to assign dollar values to human suffering. Courts and juries do it all the time. For the moment, ignore the dead Iraqi citizens, even the women and children being constantly killed. That is a moral/legal question unless we are paying money to the relatives of the dead civilians as we do when it is a “friendly fire” situation. For the most part though, at the moment, we are only discussing direct costs to American citizens either as treasury expenditures or lost opportunity costs. The bottom line is you are trying to decide the potential costs to achieve the stated goals and whether we can afford it. In addition to the obvious increase in deaths and wounds to our soldiers and treasury dollars going to Iraq, what about the costs to the active duty military in terms of morale, recruiting and readiness to respond to other crisis? What about such costs to the National Guard and the Reserves, not to mention equipment replacement and re-training? What about the costs to our economy, social programs, oil energy independence, global warming? What about the costs to civil liberties elsewhere? Civil liberties here? Those are a bit more intangible, but still quantifiable to a certain extent in terms of dollars. Same for the adverse effect on our international credibility, prestige, trust and respect. Those affect whether or not other nations contribute to this and future causes and whether they agree to future proposed treaties such as NAFTA. Equally important, although again hard to put an exact dollar figure on, what will be the effect internally concerning credibility, prestige, trust and respect for American institutions such as the three branches of government and our two party system? What will it do to our national morale and stalemates? How about our willingness to remain involved in international affairs? Will corruption and its fallout increase? Will prices go up? An atmosphere of hypocrisy, lack of honor or morals, might tend to increase government spending losses and waste due to corruption for instance. Worse yet, are we increasing the number of those inclined to be terrorists? Will we further destabilize friendly or former friendly regimes in the area or elsewhere? Will moderation in tactics disappear? Will it make nuclear proliferation more likely or more likely for their use against us? Are the increased number of spawned terrorists likely to ultimately attack the US or just our offices and people abroad? What will be the costs of future 9/11s? How many can we afford? Ask the insurance industry. Ask the municipalities. Can we actually make our borders impregnable? How and at what expense? Again the effort should be to analyze all costs and consequences including the intangible ones. The analysis should be a sober one based on hard facts and figures to the extent possible, but add in some extra amounts as a contingency for the unknowns that usually are discovered too late and the unintended consequences that so often occur. Proceed to paragraph 7.
7. What would happen if we are precipitously kicked out of town and opposed to an orderly withdrawal? Review the history books for a starting point. This step is to insure “Plan Bs” exist and that they too are analyzed. For instance, do we want to leave behind a large stock pile of modern weapons in the hands of those who don’t like us as we did in Vietnam? Look what happened when we merely left Saddam’s ammo dumps unguarded and that was relatively low tech outdated stuff that could be used against us. What if our modern tank and smart bomb arsenals are seized or left behind? Now, proceed to paragraph 9.
8. If you believe leaving is the necessary or desired route, you must decide between a quick and a fast pullout. For each, you need to apply the same analysis as above regarding what are the potential benefits and their individual likelihood. The same for what are the respective costs and their respective likelihood. Presumably, pulling out earlier would result in less troop loss and less money spent than pulling out later. It is also presumed that pulling out would “embolden” the enemy and increase bombing here. These are all mere presumptions though for discussion purposes and more in depth determinations should be made to see if it actually does make a difference. Neither the dreaded “dominos falling” nor increased terrorist attacks occurred here after the fall of South Vietnam. The Viet Cong certainly had the terrorist know-how to do so, but the end of the war was the end of aggression toward us. They were apparently too busy in other things. Would that be true of Iraq? Is the mere sight of our uniforms in Iraq inflammatory? Would they bother to travel to this country to continue blowing themselves up out of pure revenge or would they tend to be more occupied with rebuilding in a best case scenario or destroying each other in a worse case scenario? From the casualty counts, it is sure looking like they like to blow each other up more than us, at least at the moment. Perhaps some investigation should be made into whether even the 9/11 attack was truly an attack on our “values” or merely to get us to “butt out” of an internal dispute in Saudi Arabia in which a rival faction wanted to diminish the ruling family’s protector. (Don’t forget the nationalities of Osama and most of the hijackers. Forgetting things like that can distort analysis.) We probably would have stayed in Saudi Arabia anyway, but the issue is the real motivation. After the same sort of analysis to determine first benefits of leaving and then costs, proceed to paragraph 9.
9. As always should be done, compare the costs to the achievable benefits. Be liberal on the side of costs and conservative on the side of potential benefits. The goal is to achieve a cost/benefit ratio greater than 1. If the value of the benefits does not exceed the costs, don’t do it. Try another route. If all the choices generate a negative ratio result, proceed, with a heavy sigh, to paragraph 10.
10. At one point in time, we had many options including to not invade Iraq at all. We are long past that point. Blame should be assigned and punishment enacted for any grossly incompetent or even criminal decisions that got us to where we are, BUT merely because the only decisions left are excruciatingly painful ones does not excuse us from making a new decision, albeit one literally a “Hobbsian Choice.” In any event, if the costs will exceed the potential benefits under every single alternative, then the last issue is comparing the various cost/benefit ratios to each other. If leaving is even marginally less a disaster than the disaster of staying, you are relegated to choosing the lesser of the two evils. Could have beens, would have beens, no longer have a place. Reality must trump desire.
The foregoing is what is known as a “decision tree,” albeit one with regretfully fewer and fewer branches available regarding Iraq. Utilization of decision trees is a common technique in business (and for many life choices as well whether recognized as such officially or not). The method is designed to maximize the return on the minimum investment or, in this case, to minimize the maximum losses, sometimes referred to as the MiniMax Principle.
What is not clear whether any official presently in the White House has bothered to employ it regarding the thorny problem of Iraq. If they won’t, you should. And, if you can’t get those in charge to adopt the least costly alternative, then you need to consider how to best truncate those in charge and bud in their place someone who will. That decision too is amenable to scaling the branches of yet another decision tree.
Possibly the most, certainly one of the most, pressing and divisive questions facing our country today is whether we should stay in Iraq or leave. If you believe the former, start with numbered paragraph 1 below for a way to ultimately determine whether that is a wise decision. If you believe the latter, start with numbered paragraph 8.
1. The current policy being pursued by the President, in its essence, seems to be simply adding approximately 21,000 military personnel to the 135,000 or so already there and staying there for an indefinite period conducting training and counter “insurgency” activities. If you favor that idea or are at least willing to investigate it further, proceed to paragraph 2. Keep in mind that even if you initially trust the President or any other “decider” for that matter, that does not excuse you as a citizen from exercising judgment of the decision, particularly when it is a literally life and death result at stake.
2. Begin with determining what are the potential benefits from the current “surge” policy as it is commonly called. Is it a prevention of civil war between one or more of the three Iraq religious factions? That would be a good thing. Is it an end to or at least substantial reduction of insurgency activities? An end to suicide bombers, kidnaping, mortar attacks and other terrorist activities in Iraq? Elimination of terrorist threats in allied countries? In America? Capture of Osama bin Laden? An end or at least substantial reduction of influence in predominately Shiite Iraq by predominately Shiite Iran and predominately Shiite Syria or other countries? A stable and/or democratic government capable of defending itself and rebuilding Iraq? A stable and/or democratic Middle Eastern region? Cheap oil? A permanent base for military and other operations in the regions? Significantly improved admiration, respect and/or at least fear of the US in Iraq or elsewhere? Prevention of nuclear weapons development by antagonist countries? Assuming there are any genuine potential benefits from the course of action under investigation, proceed to paragraph 3.
3. More important than the mere possibility of benefits is the question of how likely is it that each of the alleged benefits or goals will actually be accomplished by such a policy? It does not matter that we desire something in the abstract. Examples would be a perpetual motion machine or permanent peace in the ethnically and religiously divided Middle East. They are nice concepts, but not likely in our lifetimes, if at all. You should conduct a hard look to determine such likelihood. For some reason, that seems to be particularly difficult for Americans. Our particular view of history is that we will always prevail regardless of what history has to say on the subject when closely examined. The fact that we are almost as likely to be eaten by a shark in Nebraska as win the big lottery does not seem to deter us from gambling. Nevertheless, it will not help if we continue acting on wishes, assumptions, hope, ideology, arrogance, pride, or misinformation. Review each of the supposed benefits as to the realistic probabilities they will happen when the policy being considered is carried out. Assuming you ultimately conclude based upon real evidence that all, or perhaps any, of those proposed benefits are relatively likely if we continue pursuing the current White House policy, then skip to paragraph 6. If you are no longer as sure, proceed to paragraph 4.
4. If 21,000 additional boots on the ground, many to be “embedded” with Iraqi forces, are deemed by you to be insufficient to accomplish the desired goals, is there anything else that might achieve them? 100,000 troops? 1,000,000? Of course, if you start thinking that way, you must also answer the question of whether we have that many spare troops, especially the actual combat ones as opposed to support troops who typically outnumber ground pounders ten to one? Remember, we only count less than a million and a half military on active duty in the entire world at the moment. It is any easy confirmation on the internet with a Google or other search. So, do we need a draft? Factor in how long it will take to train them. Will other counties or the UN willingly supply all that is necessary? Are they interested in the same results as we are? Do they want that oil for themselves? Would they like us taken down a peg or two? Are they courting some of the other players such as Iran? Okay, how about then bringing in more pure mercenaries hired by our mercenary companies like Blackwater instead? Be sure to consider the effect though if they are not governed by our morals, ethics, or laws. Same issue on timing too. Can we train the new Iraq troops to adequately do the job? If so, can we do so before the American voter runs out of patience, not to mention can such newly trained Iraqi soldiers stay loyal to a national government instead of sectarian groups? How will they be used? Will it matter if electricity, jobs, schools, and other infrastructure are not restored and remain secure? If the answer to any of the forgoing is no, how about splitting Iraq to separate the warring factions? Monetary bribes perhaps? To whom? Bigger rewards for bringing in villains? Given what we are already offering, do we have enough money in the Treasury? Are we likely to interest anyone in accepting even if offered? Would more diplomacy work? That does not seem to have been tried. How about returning to a semblance of neutrality regarding Israel and Palestine issues? Sacrificing Israel? Everything is on the table for the purpose of analyzing alternative routes as to whether they would have any chance at success. Would that buy Iraq friends? How about nuking Iran? Would that eliminate an enemy or just create new ones? How about permanent relocation or internment or maybe just outright genocide of one or more of the groups in Iraq? Offering the testicles of Bush and Cheney? Be creative. We are not discussing morality at this point, but mere feasibility. Morality and legality are a second level for elimination of any particular alternative. Go to paragraph 5 now.
5. If any likely new possibilities or alternate policies present themselves to you as potentially successful avenues for accomplishing the chosen goals you are articulating, then you can determine if they are permissible to be implemented. If they are still viable after consideration of applicable laws and still acceptable to you based on your morality and ethics, proceed to paragraph 6. If not, proceed to paragraph 8 (because at this point you have in essence concurred in a choice to leave rather than stay.)
6. Assuming any of the proposed benefits are genuinely likely, what are they worth? Values must be assigned. Assigning value will be tough. For instance, how much is a live trained solider worth versus a dead one? Be sure to count all the future earnings and children and happiness they could create if not killed or mangled in Iraq carrying out the President’s current policy. It is tough, but not impossible to assign dollar values to human suffering. Courts and juries do it all the time. For the moment, ignore the dead Iraqi citizens, even the women and children being constantly killed. That is a moral/legal question unless we are paying money to the relatives of the dead civilians as we do when it is a “friendly fire” situation. For the most part though, at the moment, we are only discussing direct costs to American citizens either as treasury expenditures or lost opportunity costs. The bottom line is you are trying to decide the potential costs to achieve the stated goals and whether we can afford it. In addition to the obvious increase in deaths and wounds to our soldiers and treasury dollars going to Iraq, what about the costs to the active duty military in terms of morale, recruiting and readiness to respond to other crisis? What about such costs to the National Guard and the Reserves, not to mention equipment replacement and re-training? What about the costs to our economy, social programs, oil energy independence, global warming? What about the costs to civil liberties elsewhere? Civil liberties here? Those are a bit more intangible, but still quantifiable to a certain extent in terms of dollars. Same for the adverse effect on our international credibility, prestige, trust and respect. Those affect whether or not other nations contribute to this and future causes and whether they agree to future proposed treaties such as NAFTA. Equally important, although again hard to put an exact dollar figure on, what will be the effect internally concerning credibility, prestige, trust and respect for American institutions such as the three branches of government and our two party system? What will it do to our national morale and stalemates? How about our willingness to remain involved in international affairs? Will corruption and its fallout increase? Will prices go up? An atmosphere of hypocrisy, lack of honor or morals, might tend to increase government spending losses and waste due to corruption for instance. Worse yet, are we increasing the number of those inclined to be terrorists? Will we further destabilize friendly or former friendly regimes in the area or elsewhere? Will moderation in tactics disappear? Will it make nuclear proliferation more likely or more likely for their use against us? Are the increased number of spawned terrorists likely to ultimately attack the US or just our offices and people abroad? What will be the costs of future 9/11s? How many can we afford? Ask the insurance industry. Ask the municipalities. Can we actually make our borders impregnable? How and at what expense? Again the effort should be to analyze all costs and consequences including the intangible ones. The analysis should be a sober one based on hard facts and figures to the extent possible, but add in some extra amounts as a contingency for the unknowns that usually are discovered too late and the unintended consequences that so often occur. Proceed to paragraph 7.
7. What would happen if we are precipitously kicked out of town and opposed to an orderly withdrawal? Review the history books for a starting point. This step is to insure “Plan Bs” exist and that they too are analyzed. For instance, do we want to leave behind a large stock pile of modern weapons in the hands of those who don’t like us as we did in Vietnam? Look what happened when we merely left Saddam’s ammo dumps unguarded and that was relatively low tech outdated stuff that could be used against us. What if our modern tank and smart bomb arsenals are seized or left behind? Now, proceed to paragraph 9.
8. If you believe leaving is the necessary or desired route, you must decide between a quick and a fast pullout. For each, you need to apply the same analysis as above regarding what are the potential benefits and their individual likelihood. The same for what are the respective costs and their respective likelihood. Presumably, pulling out earlier would result in less troop loss and less money spent than pulling out later. It is also presumed that pulling out would “embolden” the enemy and increase bombing here. These are all mere presumptions though for discussion purposes and more in depth determinations should be made to see if it actually does make a difference. Neither the dreaded “dominos falling” nor increased terrorist attacks occurred here after the fall of South Vietnam. The Viet Cong certainly had the terrorist know-how to do so, but the end of the war was the end of aggression toward us. They were apparently too busy in other things. Would that be true of Iraq? Is the mere sight of our uniforms in Iraq inflammatory? Would they bother to travel to this country to continue blowing themselves up out of pure revenge or would they tend to be more occupied with rebuilding in a best case scenario or destroying each other in a worse case scenario? From the casualty counts, it is sure looking like they like to blow each other up more than us, at least at the moment. Perhaps some investigation should be made into whether even the 9/11 attack was truly an attack on our “values” or merely to get us to “butt out” of an internal dispute in Saudi Arabia in which a rival faction wanted to diminish the ruling family’s protector. (Don’t forget the nationalities of Osama and most of the hijackers. Forgetting things like that can distort analysis.) We probably would have stayed in Saudi Arabia anyway, but the issue is the real motivation. After the same sort of analysis to determine first benefits of leaving and then costs, proceed to paragraph 9.
9. As always should be done, compare the costs to the achievable benefits. Be liberal on the side of costs and conservative on the side of potential benefits. The goal is to achieve a cost/benefit ratio greater than 1. If the value of the benefits does not exceed the costs, don’t do it. Try another route. If all the choices generate a negative ratio result, proceed, with a heavy sigh, to paragraph 10.
10. At one point in time, we had many options including to not invade Iraq at all. We are long past that point. Blame should be assigned and punishment enacted for any grossly incompetent or even criminal decisions that got us to where we are, BUT merely because the only decisions left are excruciatingly painful ones does not excuse us from making a new decision, albeit one literally a “Hobbsian Choice.” In any event, if the costs will exceed the potential benefits under every single alternative, then the last issue is comparing the various cost/benefit ratios to each other. If leaving is even marginally less a disaster than the disaster of staying, you are relegated to choosing the lesser of the two evils. Could have beens, would have beens, no longer have a place. Reality must trump desire.
The foregoing is what is known as a “decision tree,” albeit one with regretfully fewer and fewer branches available regarding Iraq. Utilization of decision trees is a common technique in business (and for many life choices as well whether recognized as such officially or not). The method is designed to maximize the return on the minimum investment or, in this case, to minimize the maximum losses, sometimes referred to as the MiniMax Principle.
What is not clear whether any official presently in the White House has bothered to employ it regarding the thorny problem of Iraq. If they won’t, you should. And, if you can’t get those in charge to adopt the least costly alternative, then you need to consider how to best truncate those in charge and bud in their place someone who will. That decision too is amenable to scaling the branches of yet another decision tree.
2007/02/07
"PHOTO OPS"
Or, Bush Should Picture the Opportunities for Even Worse Disaster in Iraq
Prior to invading Iraq, apparently all Bush could visualize in his mind’s eye was a photo op like the iconic one of Marines planting the flag on Mt. Suribachi. To insure a prominent place in the history books, he staged his own with the pretentious flight suit speech aboard a carrier while backdropped by the infamous (and ultimately ironic) “Mission Accomplished” banner. One wonders if he regrets now at least that particular bit of over the top arrogance and delusion.
Unfortunately, Bush proved incapable of visualizing the other potent photo opportunities that would start surfacing from the botched attempt at subjugating a now increasingly hostile populace. Flag draped row upon row of coffins, shrouded infant bodies awaiting burial in shallow dirt graves, crumpled headless bodies, blood splattered and dust covered soldiers gripping shattered limbs in agony, choking dust and crumpled car parts littering the landscape in aftermath of roadside explosions, handsome young boys and girls in silent slide shows of the deceased on PBS news, grieving mothers camped outside Bush’s fortress in Crawford, Texas - all unending and multiplying daily. That’s what happens when you only plan for the initial conquering and not the subsequent pacifying. That’s what happens when you put party hacks in charge who wish instead of plan. There are consequences from incompetence including plenty of photographs that will make it seem even worse. Now days, with a camera in almost every cell phone and lots of outlets to circulate them, the spreading images are uncontrollable.
True, there were “feel good” photos taken of newly rebuilt schools, but they are not as newsworthy the third time the same school must be rebuilt, especially when the photographers are afraid to attend the ceremony fearing it a likely suicide bomber target. Yeah, there was the interesting picture of purple fingered voters who promptly proceeded to, democratically, vote for replacing the nasty Sunni minority with the equally nasty Shiite majority. The Sunnis then sought for a recount with mortar shot at mosques. None of those resulting shots, either digital or explosive, were ones Bush was hoping would appear in the news. Similarly, there were the traditional and innumerable photos of grinning US troops tossing gum and candy to the clutching fingers of local children trooping around. Invariably cute. Heart warming even. Now though, the receding image as the trucks roll on past is, as often as not, of the same kids with suddenly upraised middle fingers pointing at the camo covered backs of our men. In a way, the young Iraqi too are voting with their fingers and it’s all caught on camera.
Since Bush seems Hell bent on continuing without real hope of success at accomplishing any of his stated goals, let’s hope he doesn’t forget that one even more unsettling famous photo, the one showing hundreds of desperate people climbing a shaky rooftop ladder scrambling to be on the last helicopter out of Saigon. Since Bush did not plan for the “peace,” it’s unlikely he has planned for the possibility of defeat either. Secretary of State Rice admitted as much by stating they were not even considering a “Plan B” to the new“surge” initiative that is supposed to “win” for us.
Must we repeat every aspect of the fiasco we went through in Vietnam? Will we witness brand new photos of perilous rooftop rescues?
More importantly, in Vietnam, that precipitous exodus left a vast store of our military equipment in that civil war torn Southeast Asian country. Some contemporary estimates said it automatically made communist Vietnam the fourth best equipped military in the world. What will an even better equipped hostile Iraq be or do?
Has Bush thought about the consequences of being forced to suddenly abandon the vast inventory of sophisticated, “state of the art” night vision tanks and depleted uranium tipped ammunition for instance? You can’t move it all in a day. If that enormous arsenal dump in Iraq is ever left in the control of a country tilting toward Iran, Syria and/or Palestine and if it is used against Israel, wouldn’t that be an incredible irony? Imagine the resulting photo shot of a former US Abrahams tank emblazoned with a freshly painted Crescent and parked atop the rubble of the Israeli Knesset?
It is obvious that Bush does not care much for laws, but perhaps he should at least study up on the Law of Unintended Consequences before there is the last photo of Bush skulking or, worse yet (from his perspective at least), being hauled out of the White House.
Prior to invading Iraq, apparently all Bush could visualize in his mind’s eye was a photo op like the iconic one of Marines planting the flag on Mt. Suribachi. To insure a prominent place in the history books, he staged his own with the pretentious flight suit speech aboard a carrier while backdropped by the infamous (and ultimately ironic) “Mission Accomplished” banner. One wonders if he regrets now at least that particular bit of over the top arrogance and delusion.
Unfortunately, Bush proved incapable of visualizing the other potent photo opportunities that would start surfacing from the botched attempt at subjugating a now increasingly hostile populace. Flag draped row upon row of coffins, shrouded infant bodies awaiting burial in shallow dirt graves, crumpled headless bodies, blood splattered and dust covered soldiers gripping shattered limbs in agony, choking dust and crumpled car parts littering the landscape in aftermath of roadside explosions, handsome young boys and girls in silent slide shows of the deceased on PBS news, grieving mothers camped outside Bush’s fortress in Crawford, Texas - all unending and multiplying daily. That’s what happens when you only plan for the initial conquering and not the subsequent pacifying. That’s what happens when you put party hacks in charge who wish instead of plan. There are consequences from incompetence including plenty of photographs that will make it seem even worse. Now days, with a camera in almost every cell phone and lots of outlets to circulate them, the spreading images are uncontrollable.
True, there were “feel good” photos taken of newly rebuilt schools, but they are not as newsworthy the third time the same school must be rebuilt, especially when the photographers are afraid to attend the ceremony fearing it a likely suicide bomber target. Yeah, there was the interesting picture of purple fingered voters who promptly proceeded to, democratically, vote for replacing the nasty Sunni minority with the equally nasty Shiite majority. The Sunnis then sought for a recount with mortar shot at mosques. None of those resulting shots, either digital or explosive, were ones Bush was hoping would appear in the news. Similarly, there were the traditional and innumerable photos of grinning US troops tossing gum and candy to the clutching fingers of local children trooping around. Invariably cute. Heart warming even. Now though, the receding image as the trucks roll on past is, as often as not, of the same kids with suddenly upraised middle fingers pointing at the camo covered backs of our men. In a way, the young Iraqi too are voting with their fingers and it’s all caught on camera.
Since Bush seems Hell bent on continuing without real hope of success at accomplishing any of his stated goals, let’s hope he doesn’t forget that one even more unsettling famous photo, the one showing hundreds of desperate people climbing a shaky rooftop ladder scrambling to be on the last helicopter out of Saigon. Since Bush did not plan for the “peace,” it’s unlikely he has planned for the possibility of defeat either. Secretary of State Rice admitted as much by stating they were not even considering a “Plan B” to the new“surge” initiative that is supposed to “win” for us.
Must we repeat every aspect of the fiasco we went through in Vietnam? Will we witness brand new photos of perilous rooftop rescues?
More importantly, in Vietnam, that precipitous exodus left a vast store of our military equipment in that civil war torn Southeast Asian country. Some contemporary estimates said it automatically made communist Vietnam the fourth best equipped military in the world. What will an even better equipped hostile Iraq be or do?
Has Bush thought about the consequences of being forced to suddenly abandon the vast inventory of sophisticated, “state of the art” night vision tanks and depleted uranium tipped ammunition for instance? You can’t move it all in a day. If that enormous arsenal dump in Iraq is ever left in the control of a country tilting toward Iran, Syria and/or Palestine and if it is used against Israel, wouldn’t that be an incredible irony? Imagine the resulting photo shot of a former US Abrahams tank emblazoned with a freshly painted Crescent and parked atop the rubble of the Israeli Knesset?
It is obvious that Bush does not care much for laws, but perhaps he should at least study up on the Law of Unintended Consequences before there is the last photo of Bush skulking or, worse yet (from his perspective at least), being hauled out of the White House.
2007/01/16
“BINDING BUSH”
Or, You’re Gonna Have to Do More than Debate Non-binding Resolutions If Ya Really Want Us out of Iraq
Let’s first stop calling it the “Iraq War.” From now on, it ought to be known as “Bush’s War” and his alone. Re-label the whole abomination just like the Republicans morphed the phrase “Estate Taxes” into so-called “Death Taxes” even though only large estates were actually taxed anything. That’ll make it tougher for him to sell.
While we are at re-labeling, has anyone else noticed how much the White House's entire Iraq War promotion scam is like those Nigerian fraud schemes that constantly plague our e-mails, both as to the techniques used and the public's astonishing gullibility? No wonder there seems to be no way to stop either type of con game. So, let's start with not only calling it Bush's personal video game, but what it really is, a bloody mess promoted on fraudulent grounds so a tiny few people could make a lot of money.
That way, if the President wants to send more boots to Iraq as cannon fodder, we are now free to ask him why doesn’t he draft from that long list of incompetent political hacks he keeps nominating to head agencies like FEMA or become judges? They won’t do any good there, but at least when they got killed, it wouldn’t be the unmitigated tragedy it is every time our real soldiers are wasted.
Or, how about a new rule that Bush can’t send any more American kids to Iraq until at least his own children are drafted in the Army and join the contingent? Embarrass the heck out of him in a way the press might report.
Or, how about we offer a compromise to Bush? We tell him that he can have his “surge” in troops, more even if his generals are willing to openly state they need it and it would be worth while. BUT, in return, the President must agree that if he cannot finally show “mission actually accomplished” in, say, six to nine months, then he and Cheney publicly admit they were dead wrong and resign so that someone competent gets a chance. A “put up or shut up” policy in other words. The press might like that.
Better yet, instead of asking him, how about telling him to end the War. Keep in mind, Congress, and Congress alone, has the power to declare War. The Executive Branch doesn’t. It’s quite clearly specified in the US Constitution, not that many people in Washington seem to have read anything in the Constitution. Granted the President has a significant amount of operational control over certain, although not all, of the military issues. BUT, suppose Congress chooses to formally declare Peace instead of War? Suppose Congress rescinded its ill advised resolution initially authorizing the President to use force in Iraq? Suppose it declared that further use of force by the US Military personnel in Iraq except in self defense would be illegal and that anyone issuing orders for offensive use of force would be committing a High Crime or Misdemeanor authorizing indictment or impeachment as appropriate.
Try it Congress. Please. The anti-war folks in the deliberative body, especially ones in the Senate, are already looking like idiots with their deliberating forever over “non-binding resolutions.” The Bush diehard loyalists have managed to make them look like laughing stocks who can’t even get meaningless words voted on.
If nothing else, trying some of the above ploys might tie the President up so much with lawyers trying to sort out the legalities that he becomes too busy to engage in further mischief with other countries such as Iran or Syria. This almost certainly would be a better route than simply trying to cut off funding for Bush’s current and planned Middle East “Crusades.” That conceivably might jeopardize the troops already there. Obviously, the President cares nothing about them, but the rest of us do.
If Congress wants to cut off funding for anything, how about cutting off the White House’s money for speech writers, lawyers, heat, water, booze, waiters, football channels, plumbers, toilet paper and the like. He’s not granted those in the Constitution. That sort of cutting would do more good and harm few. And, it wouldn’t be a meaningless gesture. Let him finally experience some personal deprivations like our military does overseas. After all, he declared this was supposedly a “Struggle for Civilization” itself. Let him show it by struggling through without air conditioning.
Besides, it would be a terrific PR bombshell, especially since the White House wants to pretend that “non-essentials” like health care, veterans benefits, protection of our food sources, and education should be trimmed from the domestic budget to pay for his war. Think how much fun it would be to hoist him on his own gold plated petard. The supposed “conservatives” would not even be allowed to complain since we are saving a few bucks in the process.
Bush seems to think he’s got Congress boxed in. If so, it’s time to start thinking outside the box.
Okay, some of those suggestions are somewhat silly. At least though they do not on their face sound as silly as trying to tell the American solid majority against the war that “non-binding resolutions” will somehow help.
If you don’t like any of those ideas, then it's time to demand Congress finally file a bill of impeachment so that investigations can begin using subpoena power to determine whether, as suspected, high crimes and misdemeanors have occurred in office. The end result of that process can be very binding. As traumatizing as the process is, the Founding Fathers believed in its efficacy and enshrined it in the Constitution for good reason. It is a tool we have been granted to cleanse the political system. Let’s use it.
The one thing certain is that whether it’s 20,000 troops or 200,000 or 2,000,000, Bush’ll still screw it up. For instance, the only ally among the Iraqi civil war factions Bush still had was the Kurds. So, why did he deliberately enrage them by a surprise raid on the Iranian consulate in Kurd territory arresting six diplomats they supposedly had invited? It nearly resulted in some American troops almost getting shot by Kurds at a road block and did result in a promise to shot Americans if it happened again. Apparently, the decision was attributable to Bush personally. Is there any tactical, strategic or operational decision that Bush is not capable of bollixing?
Similarly, when questioned about the botched vigilante-like hangings in Iraq, Bush sheepishly admitted “They could have handled things better.” That’s my candidate for understatement of the 21st Century and the kindest possible epitaph for the Bush Administration.
The bottom line is we need to stop him now. The so-called non-binding resolutions, which seems to be the only thing the opposition has come up with so far make the party look like a disorganized pack ineffectual weaklings. If the current office holders are not capable of doing anything useful, then perhaps they should resign and let other, more focused, newcomers have a chance.
Let’s first stop calling it the “Iraq War.” From now on, it ought to be known as “Bush’s War” and his alone. Re-label the whole abomination just like the Republicans morphed the phrase “Estate Taxes” into so-called “Death Taxes” even though only large estates were actually taxed anything. That’ll make it tougher for him to sell.
While we are at re-labeling, has anyone else noticed how much the White House's entire Iraq War promotion scam is like those Nigerian fraud schemes that constantly plague our e-mails, both as to the techniques used and the public's astonishing gullibility? No wonder there seems to be no way to stop either type of con game. So, let's start with not only calling it Bush's personal video game, but what it really is, a bloody mess promoted on fraudulent grounds so a tiny few people could make a lot of money.
That way, if the President wants to send more boots to Iraq as cannon fodder, we are now free to ask him why doesn’t he draft from that long list of incompetent political hacks he keeps nominating to head agencies like FEMA or become judges? They won’t do any good there, but at least when they got killed, it wouldn’t be the unmitigated tragedy it is every time our real soldiers are wasted.
Or, how about a new rule that Bush can’t send any more American kids to Iraq until at least his own children are drafted in the Army and join the contingent? Embarrass the heck out of him in a way the press might report.
Or, how about we offer a compromise to Bush? We tell him that he can have his “surge” in troops, more even if his generals are willing to openly state they need it and it would be worth while. BUT, in return, the President must agree that if he cannot finally show “mission actually accomplished” in, say, six to nine months, then he and Cheney publicly admit they were dead wrong and resign so that someone competent gets a chance. A “put up or shut up” policy in other words. The press might like that.
Better yet, instead of asking him, how about telling him to end the War. Keep in mind, Congress, and Congress alone, has the power to declare War. The Executive Branch doesn’t. It’s quite clearly specified in the US Constitution, not that many people in Washington seem to have read anything in the Constitution. Granted the President has a significant amount of operational control over certain, although not all, of the military issues. BUT, suppose Congress chooses to formally declare Peace instead of War? Suppose Congress rescinded its ill advised resolution initially authorizing the President to use force in Iraq? Suppose it declared that further use of force by the US Military personnel in Iraq except in self defense would be illegal and that anyone issuing orders for offensive use of force would be committing a High Crime or Misdemeanor authorizing indictment or impeachment as appropriate.
Try it Congress. Please. The anti-war folks in the deliberative body, especially ones in the Senate, are already looking like idiots with their deliberating forever over “non-binding resolutions.” The Bush diehard loyalists have managed to make them look like laughing stocks who can’t even get meaningless words voted on.
If nothing else, trying some of the above ploys might tie the President up so much with lawyers trying to sort out the legalities that he becomes too busy to engage in further mischief with other countries such as Iran or Syria. This almost certainly would be a better route than simply trying to cut off funding for Bush’s current and planned Middle East “Crusades.” That conceivably might jeopardize the troops already there. Obviously, the President cares nothing about them, but the rest of us do.
If Congress wants to cut off funding for anything, how about cutting off the White House’s money for speech writers, lawyers, heat, water, booze, waiters, football channels, plumbers, toilet paper and the like. He’s not granted those in the Constitution. That sort of cutting would do more good and harm few. And, it wouldn’t be a meaningless gesture. Let him finally experience some personal deprivations like our military does overseas. After all, he declared this was supposedly a “Struggle for Civilization” itself. Let him show it by struggling through without air conditioning.
Besides, it would be a terrific PR bombshell, especially since the White House wants to pretend that “non-essentials” like health care, veterans benefits, protection of our food sources, and education should be trimmed from the domestic budget to pay for his war. Think how much fun it would be to hoist him on his own gold plated petard. The supposed “conservatives” would not even be allowed to complain since we are saving a few bucks in the process.
Bush seems to think he’s got Congress boxed in. If so, it’s time to start thinking outside the box.
Okay, some of those suggestions are somewhat silly. At least though they do not on their face sound as silly as trying to tell the American solid majority against the war that “non-binding resolutions” will somehow help.
If you don’t like any of those ideas, then it's time to demand Congress finally file a bill of impeachment so that investigations can begin using subpoena power to determine whether, as suspected, high crimes and misdemeanors have occurred in office. The end result of that process can be very binding. As traumatizing as the process is, the Founding Fathers believed in its efficacy and enshrined it in the Constitution for good reason. It is a tool we have been granted to cleanse the political system. Let’s use it.
The one thing certain is that whether it’s 20,000 troops or 200,000 or 2,000,000, Bush’ll still screw it up. For instance, the only ally among the Iraqi civil war factions Bush still had was the Kurds. So, why did he deliberately enrage them by a surprise raid on the Iranian consulate in Kurd territory arresting six diplomats they supposedly had invited? It nearly resulted in some American troops almost getting shot by Kurds at a road block and did result in a promise to shot Americans if it happened again. Apparently, the decision was attributable to Bush personally. Is there any tactical, strategic or operational decision that Bush is not capable of bollixing?
Similarly, when questioned about the botched vigilante-like hangings in Iraq, Bush sheepishly admitted “They could have handled things better.” That’s my candidate for understatement of the 21st Century and the kindest possible epitaph for the Bush Administration.
The bottom line is we need to stop him now. The so-called non-binding resolutions, which seems to be the only thing the opposition has come up with so far make the party look like a disorganized pack ineffectual weaklings. If the current office holders are not capable of doing anything useful, then perhaps they should resign and let other, more focused, newcomers have a chance.
2007/01/15
“BIN LADEN DESIRES - BUSH ACHIEVEMENTS”
Or, Are we sure Bin Laden hasn’t been hiding in the West Wing?
What Osama Wished | What George Wrought |
Damn and demonize the US in the eyes of its allies, supporters and apologists. | Unilaterally invade sovereign countries on whim, ego and neocon ideology routinely ignoring the advice and wishes of almost all formerly friendly nations as well as experts diplomats . Use the military option first and allow diplomacy only when military efforts do not work or we are losing. Attempt to suppress terrorists using warfare tactics instead of police tactics which usually results in creation of brand new enemies out of the relatives of innocent civilian casualties caused by, say, stand-off bombing to kill as opposed to policeman-like surround, isolate and capture. Use incompetent arrogant cronies and hacks who are primarily interested in lining their pockets and cannot even speak the language, let alone understand the local customs, religions and history. Take sides in Middle East and other conflicts without fully understanding there might be two sides worth considering before acting. Then, act precipitously with little planning at all and no planning for when things go wrong. Be proven hypocrites consistently and keep real intentions secret. |
Demoralize and destitute the US military. | Initiate so-called “stop loss” policies to prevent soldiers from leaving as promised at the end of their enlistments. Send them back to ill defined combat every year and send them ill equipped to do jobs for which they were ill trained if at all. Do so in insufficient numbers to accomplish the task. Ignore advice of the experienced military officers. Ignore other potential threats elsewhere in the world. Down size our military and take away their ability to deal with potential foes who might actually have technological sophistication. Spend lots for unproven big buck weapon systems while simultaneously impoverishing enlisted personnel and their families. Ignore the plight of the wounded and discharged veterans. Abandon the Geneva Convention protections. |
Devalue and dilute the US economy. | Eviscerate fair trade in favor of “free” trade favoring only large international companies concerned about only their profits. Eviscerate all potential opposition in sight, especially unions, reporters and any attempts at controls on management and fraud. Govern primarily by corruption, campaign bribes, and pork barrel politics. Create monopolies. Send jobs and manufacturing overseas. Allow revenue to escape offshore untaxed. Refuse to investigate government contractor fraud and embezzlement. Subsidize companies that do not need it, especially oil companies enjoying record profits. Write into laws whatever large corporations desire. Indenture our grandchildren to the Chinese by creating massive government debt, massive waste and fraud, massive budget deficits and massive trade deficits. Encourage massive consumer debt and immunize creditors for abuses. Abolish or diminish funding for research and development, especially for the hard sciences. Create massive salary gaps between workers and CEOs. Wipe out pension funds and worker benefits. Discourage savings. Ignore viable alternative energy sources and rely solely on increasing expensive, increasingly scarce foreign oil from countries that hate us. Keep intentions secret. |
Devastate and damage the US homeland. | Refuse to pay for levee, train track, bridge and other infrastructure repair and maintenance. Refuse to effective emergency communication and coordination. Appoint incompetent arrogant cronies and hacks to FEMA and similar agencies. Ignore science and scientists. Pollute the air, land, water and food sources. Over fish, over graze and over log. Eviscerate regulations designed to protect same and eliminate regulators and/or their budgets. Leave ports and cargo unscreened and unprotected. Strip funding for protecting genuine national monuments against security threats. Ignore warnings. Concentrate targets for ease of destruction such as no electro magnetic pulse protection for all our civilian financial and other critical data. |
Divide and disillusion the US population. | Continue unabated “class warfare” by transferring large amounts of money from the lower and middle classes to the Uber rich. Accuse anyone of pointing it out as indulging in class warfare. Demonize any opposition by calling them traitors and unpatriotic. Demonize minorities, especially any of Middle Eastern origin. Ignore all advice and research. Consolidate media and means of communication solely in a few supporters. Declare everything secret, especially mistakes. Harass and stonewall reporters and investigators. Refuse oversight by other branches of government. Install cronies and hacks as judges. Indulge in gerrymandering, voting machine fraud and knowingly false attack ads. Cripple health care. Concentrate on “wedge” issues like gay marriage to distract attention to the problems. Pretend to be doing anything about hard drug smuggling. |
Debunk and dissipate the US moral superiority. | Claim torture and rendition is allowed by the Constitution. Claim there are no other equal branches of government during “war” and unilaterally declare eternal war. Abolish most of the Bill of Rights even for American citizens. Presume guilt. Profile particular minorities. Spy on everyone without warrant. Invade all privacies. Imprison without trial or legal counsel. Lie about everything even when caught and attack the press. Never admit mistakes or change course in light of new evidence. Create an atmosphere of fear and hopelessness. |
Denounce democracy and dominate the religion of others. | Have the stupidity to announce in Muslim territory that the War in the Middle East is a “Crusade.” Refuse to allow American military and diplomatic personnel of Middle Eastern backgrounds or with gay inclinations to play any key roles in interpretation and decision making. Install “puppets” in power in occupied countries. Leave friendly dictators and drug running warlords in power. Denounce results of fairly conducted elections in Palestine, Venezuela, Peru and elsewhere when they put hostile parties in power. Attempt to destabilize or replace by force if necessary any democratically elected governments when they disagree with current US desires. Support our own fundamentalists’ agenda to the exclusion or diminution of other religions. Support Jerry Falwell and similar cronies, hacks and hypocrites. Act the eternal hypocrite. |
Conclusion: If you want to find where Osama has been hiding since 9/11, perhaps you should search the West Wing of the White House first.
2007/01/06
“CAN’T ANYONE IN CHARGE COUNT?”
Or, Why Sending 20,000 More Troops Is Just a Drop in a Bucket. . .of Blood
The President is currently insisting after almost four years, 3000 dead troops, seven times that or more injured or maimed and a couple trillion dollars (counting equipment replacements, future medical costs and wasted infrastructure rebuilding) that we can still have “victory” or “mission accomplished” in Iraq by simply adding another 20,000 or so to the approximately 135,000 US military already there. No wonder the investors lost money in all the companies Bush ran before fleeing to politics. He failed accounting.
In the first place, when I was in the military, the ratio out of all the military to those at the sharp end of the stick, in other words the “ground pounders” who go out and personally kicked in doors of suspected enemy, was only about one in ten. The rest were clerk-typists, truck drivers, instructors, and the like. I am not disparaging them because those jobs need to be done as well, but we need to focus on whether 20,000 uniformed bodies, even 20,000 front line combat veterans who have already earned combat infantry badges, makes the slightest sense.
Let’s assume, just for the sake of argument, that the giant, self propelled, bureaucracy known as the US Military has managed to cut that combat troop to support troop ratio in half by farming out potato peeling or counting those in high risk MOSs (military occupation specialties) such as military policemen and combat engineers. That would still mean only about 10,000 additional armed door kickers are available to do the job.
Let’s also assume that none of those get sick or are on leave and that they are diligently out there beyond the perimeter kicking in doors twelve hours a day seven days a week. That means that at any given moment, only about 5,000 are out and about at any one time. After all, they have to sleep and eat some portion of each day. That is about the number that attend a decent, but not championship, basketball game.
Now, 5,000 looks like a lot crammed closely together in a stadium. But, disburse them over a country the size of California and they become lost. That works out to about one pair of new boots on the ground for every 33 square miles of Iraq or 277 troops per province.
Let’s assume however that the 5,000 are not scatted geographically. Logically, most would be concentrated where the people are, in the cities. Let’s also assume that not a single one is put in the Kurdish areas which still like us to a certain extent. Since there are (or were) 26,074,906 people in Iraq, not counting the new terrorists migrating there from elsewhere, and since up to about 20% of those are Kurds, that means each proposed new trooper on patrol only has to suppress about 4,000+ Iraqi. Even Custer faced better odds than that. You couldn’t carry enough bullets per person to defend against that if they started mobbing.
Actually, to be fair, each new troop would not have to face 4,000 hostiles. Since there are already about 135,000 military in Iraq (not all of which are door kickers of course, but most can shoot in self defense), that would lower the odds. Still, very roughly, it is currently only one personal in US uniform per every 167 Iraqis. Adding another 20,000 targets for the Iraqis to shoot at doesn’t help much.
According to public opinion polls about 60% of Iraqis favor killing Americans in their country. Because that includes the Kurds, the percentage is presumably higher yet among the Shi'ite Muslims (who represent 60% of the population) and especially among the non-Kurd Sunni (who represent much of the balance and lost all their power once Saddam was gone).
The figure apparently rises to eight or nine out of ten Iraqis who want us to leave, but let’s ignore the ignoring of democratic opinion and concentrate just on the six out of ten who openly want our troops dead. Bush proposes to increase the number of imbedded US advisors within Iraq army units. Oh good, surround our boys with armed Iraqis, six out of ten who wouldn’t mind if a bullet went astray in the heat of battle toward those same unpopular US advisors/trainers. In Nam, unpopular offices got “fragged.” Will they be “Iraqed” in this new configuration?
Twenty thousand new troops, even quadruple that number, hardly seems adequate given the magnitude of the task. Would a million troops in Iraq be enough to bring “stability” and “democracy” to that country, especially given the previous disastrous policies we have been pursuing? That would reduce the occupying army ratio to suppressed citizenry down to a more manageable one to twenty or so.
It would be insanity of course to contemplate such a “surge” in troop numbers, not to mention fiscal suicide. According to on-line encyclopedias, as of 2004, there were only 1,450,689 active duty military personnel from all services including the Coast Guard. About ten percent of the grand total is already in Iraq. The National Guard and Reserves are already stretched to the breaking point. To even add 20,000 more means many soldiers (and indirectly their families) will have to risk third and four tours in a combat zone, something Bush himself was not willing to risk even once.
Bush has been granted an unprecedented carte blanche for two thirds of his Presidency to use whatever he wanted in whatever way he wanted supervised by whomever he wanted to pursue whatever ends he wanted. Everyone except Bush has known for years however that the existing number of troops is not enough to accomplish any legitimate objection (even assuming there was one to begin with).
It’s time for some rigorous cost/benefit analysis. The question that must be asked now is whether it is even possible to add enough troops to accomplish anything. If not, then why the hell are we doing it? I'm no accountant, but it doesn’t seem to add up.
The President is currently insisting after almost four years, 3000 dead troops, seven times that or more injured or maimed and a couple trillion dollars (counting equipment replacements, future medical costs and wasted infrastructure rebuilding) that we can still have “victory” or “mission accomplished” in Iraq by simply adding another 20,000 or so to the approximately 135,000 US military already there. No wonder the investors lost money in all the companies Bush ran before fleeing to politics. He failed accounting.
In the first place, when I was in the military, the ratio out of all the military to those at the sharp end of the stick, in other words the “ground pounders” who go out and personally kicked in doors of suspected enemy, was only about one in ten. The rest were clerk-typists, truck drivers, instructors, and the like. I am not disparaging them because those jobs need to be done as well, but we need to focus on whether 20,000 uniformed bodies, even 20,000 front line combat veterans who have already earned combat infantry badges, makes the slightest sense.
Let’s assume, just for the sake of argument, that the giant, self propelled, bureaucracy known as the US Military has managed to cut that combat troop to support troop ratio in half by farming out potato peeling or counting those in high risk MOSs (military occupation specialties) such as military policemen and combat engineers. That would still mean only about 10,000 additional armed door kickers are available to do the job.
Let’s also assume that none of those get sick or are on leave and that they are diligently out there beyond the perimeter kicking in doors twelve hours a day seven days a week. That means that at any given moment, only about 5,000 are out and about at any one time. After all, they have to sleep and eat some portion of each day. That is about the number that attend a decent, but not championship, basketball game.
Now, 5,000 looks like a lot crammed closely together in a stadium. But, disburse them over a country the size of California and they become lost. That works out to about one pair of new boots on the ground for every 33 square miles of Iraq or 277 troops per province.
Let’s assume however that the 5,000 are not scatted geographically. Logically, most would be concentrated where the people are, in the cities. Let’s also assume that not a single one is put in the Kurdish areas which still like us to a certain extent. Since there are (or were) 26,074,906 people in Iraq, not counting the new terrorists migrating there from elsewhere, and since up to about 20% of those are Kurds, that means each proposed new trooper on patrol only has to suppress about 4,000+ Iraqi. Even Custer faced better odds than that. You couldn’t carry enough bullets per person to defend against that if they started mobbing.
Actually, to be fair, each new troop would not have to face 4,000 hostiles. Since there are already about 135,000 military in Iraq (not all of which are door kickers of course, but most can shoot in self defense), that would lower the odds. Still, very roughly, it is currently only one personal in US uniform per every 167 Iraqis. Adding another 20,000 targets for the Iraqis to shoot at doesn’t help much.
According to public opinion polls about 60% of Iraqis favor killing Americans in their country. Because that includes the Kurds, the percentage is presumably higher yet among the Shi'ite Muslims (who represent 60% of the population) and especially among the non-Kurd Sunni (who represent much of the balance and lost all their power once Saddam was gone).
The figure apparently rises to eight or nine out of ten Iraqis who want us to leave, but let’s ignore the ignoring of democratic opinion and concentrate just on the six out of ten who openly want our troops dead. Bush proposes to increase the number of imbedded US advisors within Iraq army units. Oh good, surround our boys with armed Iraqis, six out of ten who wouldn’t mind if a bullet went astray in the heat of battle toward those same unpopular US advisors/trainers. In Nam, unpopular offices got “fragged.” Will they be “Iraqed” in this new configuration?
Twenty thousand new troops, even quadruple that number, hardly seems adequate given the magnitude of the task. Would a million troops in Iraq be enough to bring “stability” and “democracy” to that country, especially given the previous disastrous policies we have been pursuing? That would reduce the occupying army ratio to suppressed citizenry down to a more manageable one to twenty or so.
It would be insanity of course to contemplate such a “surge” in troop numbers, not to mention fiscal suicide. According to on-line encyclopedias, as of 2004, there were only 1,450,689 active duty military personnel from all services including the Coast Guard. About ten percent of the grand total is already in Iraq. The National Guard and Reserves are already stretched to the breaking point. To even add 20,000 more means many soldiers (and indirectly their families) will have to risk third and four tours in a combat zone, something Bush himself was not willing to risk even once.
Bush has been granted an unprecedented carte blanche for two thirds of his Presidency to use whatever he wanted in whatever way he wanted supervised by whomever he wanted to pursue whatever ends he wanted. Everyone except Bush has known for years however that the existing number of troops is not enough to accomplish any legitimate objection (even assuming there was one to begin with).
It’s time for some rigorous cost/benefit analysis. The question that must be asked now is whether it is even possible to add enough troops to accomplish anything. If not, then why the hell are we doing it? I'm no accountant, but it doesn’t seem to add up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)