NEWS: Bush Installs Military Puppet for Iraq

POLITICS: Bush Installs Military Puppet for Iraq

The idea that all of the problems currently plaguing Iraq can be solved with a simple, "temporary" troop escalation must be appealing to George W. Bush. After all, he's been the champion of easy, one-size-fits-all solutions to all of the world's problems since he's been in office. Even when they don't work. So the idea that adding another twenty or thirty thousand troops to an already disastrous situation will magically fix everything isn't unexpected, even if it is unfortunate.

What's even more unfortunate is that a president who promised America that he would pay attention to his advisors just canned General George W. Casey, the head of military operations in Iraq because he was "more interested in withdrawal then victory." That is, he had no interest in the idiotic "troop surge" that conservative pundits have decided will be Bush's saving grace in Iraq. But what does he know, he's only a general, right?

Apparently it hasn't taken long to find a new Bush loyalist to fill his slot, however, as Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus was just named the new commander. And guess what? He thinks the troop surge is just a great idea. Go figure.

So more troops it is. Forget the fact that the Congress is firmly against it, and even most Republican senators seem to think it's a bad idea. That could be dismissed as mere political grandstanding against a hilariously unpopular president but for the fact that the criticisms of this particular bit of strategy are coming from the military as well, who have traditionally supported Bush's decisions.

So best of luck General Petraeus. Sounds like you're going to need it.

So much is being said about the troop surge and how everyone is against it but Bush and the new commanders he's appointed.

I don't really don't care anymore. I'm going regardless. My focus is on continuting my medical training so that I can do some good over there. Not just for my battle buddies but for the civilians who get caught up in the firefights and become the victims in the bombings.

Being so far from the states and with all of my unit's workload, I lose track of the news too often. My question; does Congress plan to do anything about it? To me, being out of the loop until only recently, all anyone seems to do lately is argue points to death and bitch about it.

Until some American patriot assassinates Bush, bitching is all anyone seems able to do. From what I can see, congress hasn't done a thing so far and there's no reason to expect them to start. But then, I'm not much closer to 'home' than you are.

I keep planning to go back to America and see the sights before someone finally blows it all up. Smeg knows it's a long time coming. These days, however, it just doesn't seem worth it. Hell, if I show up back in the motherland after twenty years, I might get drafted or something.

Your motives are pretty much the only ones that are worth a damn as far as I'm concerned.

Congress has limited options here. Their main option that I've heard thrown around is to cut off funding. But if they do that, they're really going to piss off all those people with those "Support our Troops" bumper stickers. More reasonable people realize, however, that Congress can cut off operational funds to Iraq operations without cutting off pay and benefits to military members. The thinking behind this move is that no President would leave American troops in harms-way with no funds to operate. Also no point for all the military contractors to be in Iraq if there's no money to make. Will this Congress do take this route? I think they might, but they've got a tricky tight-rope to walk with that. Now-a-days, the biggest mistake you can make politically is to appear to "Not-Support the Troops" (even though you may be saving their lives in the process). Plus Bush is like no American President before, and we live in the age of Fox News and big media.

The Vietnam War was ended this way. Bush will do anything to prevent him as going down in history as the President who started Vietnam II.

Going to be an interesting year 2007 me thinks. (Too bad we can't just get out now and have a boring year for once).

Juan Cole thinks it's a good idea and he's pretty smart when it comes to the middle east.

Um... excuse me, but you could connect patriotism and political murder for me?

Congess - or at least the new one - has been in session for 3 days now, of which the largest part was the swearing in ceremonies and getting the leadership in place. So, why don't we give them, oh I don't know, a week maybe? to fix everything Bush and the Republicans have spent the last 12 years fucking up.

And, It must have been a while since you have been here and living on a Island has maybe distorted your perspective, but someone could wipe NYC off the map and it would account for less than 1 percent of thepopulation and and even smaller percentage of the land mass, so, I am thinking it unlikely that someone - anyone - could "blow it all up."

Do you have an illness that causes you to engage in unmitigated hypebole or have you had training?

In my opinion, this is going to kill John McCain's chances in the next election. He's been the biggest proponent of this escalation plan, and I'm thinking that it's going to be a colossal disaster.

I don't see anywhere where he calls it a good idea. He seems to be saying that he wishes the people who are in charge now were in charge 3 years ago, and that if anyone can pull this off, they can. I don't think he's endorsing this plan at all.

I can see it now, " Hey! Pvt. Snuffy hand me another clip, they keep firing!" Pvt Snuffy reaches into the box preloaded with magazines, "Hey Sgt, we just ran out!" They listen to the rounds being fighted at the house they just started using as a forward operating base and in unison say, "FUCK."

I'm nervous now

I read recently he thinks this won't even be an issue in 2008. (Probably like Bush thought Iraq would be a comma in the War on Terror though).

Anyways, good. John McCain's quick slide to the right with his new buddies the Neo-Cons scares me. I never quite agreed with McCain's politics, but he used to be a voice of sane in a bat-shit-insane Republican world.

That is a definite possibility with Bush in office (of course, you ALWAYS have to consider the comical insane possibilities with the Bush Administration).

Just now?

Precisely. Gen. Petraeus is indeed an counter insugency expert and did a good job in his sector when he was there. Sadly, he seems to be under the illusion that we can now go back and do a counter insurgency effort, after three years of fucking up any chance whatsoever of winning "hearts and minds."

Bush is acting exactly as Hitler did in ww II. He refused the advise of his generals and made up his own losing stategy, untill there was nothing left to fight with.
What's worse is that this is far from being the only thing that makes me think of Hitler when I think of Bush.

Gasoline meet Fire. I am sure they will be happy together.


ps. can we please get the fuck out of Iraq this year thanks.

As soon as we start another pointless war with Iran.

*shakes head* why.... the fuck.... did people vote for this guy..........

Bush has been pulling shit that goes against an America I could be proud of since the original questionable election, noone's stopped him in seven years; assassination is far quicker and cleaner than open revolt, which is more likely to invite payback on America for playing the bully of playground Earth. Ergo, I think a bullet in monkeyboy's brainpan is the best thing for America.

Didn't know it took so long for reshuffled congress to get into first gear though. Ignorant of most political processes. My bad. I won't rant about politicians in general here, except to say I put them in the same box as lawyers, which probably sums it up nicely.

And, I was pretty much raised over here. While I could never rattle off the fifty states like a true red-blooded American school drone, I remain aware of the proportions of the planet's various continents. And their location, which seems to be a problem for some of America's population. Mistook Australia for the Middle East, as I recall. Or was it France? Been a while since I saw that video... regardless, I never underestimate the destructive capabilities of our species.

No training. Lunatic since '93.

(And you forgot the r in hyperbole. Probably just a typo, but I thought it might be important, considering the American accent and all.)

Edited to add: Just remembered. They said America should attack France next because it poopoo'd Desert Storm 2, Attack of the Non-Existent WMDs.

Dubya is under the influence again...

so..... before he leaves office he's gonna exterminate the jews?

Wow. I don't know even know where to start with this post, and it's not even worth the time to type it out. But you may want to lay off your gross generalizations and stereotypes of Americans. It makes you sound like you have no idea what you're talking about. But here's an idea. You're in the UK. Watch BBC News. They cover a lot of American politics. In fact, it's a better news source than our major media outlets.

Also, the type of thinking that justifies murder/assinationation invites more political calamity, the type that Bush has already unleashed upon the world. Sounds like you may have more in common with Bush than you realize. Sorry if that sounds like a personal attack, but when you post inane rambling posts in a political thread, expect to get called out on it. You're not going to solve a problem like over-zealous neo-conservatism ideals by killing one person. I sure a lot of people would like to see Bush dead (I sure wouldn't be sad), but violence like that would likely spur more support to the neo-cons side, and in turn, more attacks on all our civil liberties, American or not.

Also, most of the gun-happy types are on Bush's side.

Puppets are fun for all!

Right. Recall how Bush et al spun a terrorist attack into six years of neocon masturbation fantasy, and that Bush isn't terribly popular with, well, pretty much any given group right now. He's the lamest of the lame ducks, and while he can do a fuckload of damage in the next two years, he's got to play politics at home for the first time in his presidency.

Gunning his ass down won't help a thing. His replacement would be every bit the bastard you say Bush is, and could get elected up to twice more to boot. Unless the assassin's Jeb or Rummy, the neocons'd do their level best to spin the kill as an attack on America instead of Bush, thus risking another wave of blind voting support for the administration.

The guy should be impeached, and (oh, please, God) tried for high treason, not simply put down.

Such a novel view, too.

Mmhmm. And nobody in the UK's ever failed geography.

Pedantic and pathetic.

'They' who? Sorry, but if you're going to bitch someone out about a typo, maybe you should qualify your reflexive pronouns - unless, of course, the continents finally spoke up about something.

Hmmm, I have mixed feelings about the appointment of Petraeus as commander of operations in Iraq. On the one hand, he commanded the 101st Airborne in Mosul shortly after the fall of Baghdad, and that division was able to secure the city to the point where things almost got back to normal. On the other hand, the 101st Airborne doesn't exactly have a spotless record when it came to conducting operations. Still, at the very least, he'll bring an educated man's perspective to the job; dude has a PhD in International Relations. Hopefully, he'll be better able to understand the required interplay betweeen the civil and military efforts to secure stability in Iraq.

Sheesh, noone can see the funny. Guess I'll shut up before I'm accused of driving everyone off topic. End of line.