Now that a few days have passed it is my contention that the latest "PR" phrase from the White House is more political BS. When Bush announced the "surge" strategy in early 2007, immediately and ever since military commentators have said that the "surge" strategy couldn't continue past Spring 2008 due to limitations on American troops. While these announcements have continued from early 2007 to the present the administration never commented upon them. Following testimony from Petraeus and Crocker Bush announced his "Return on Success" proposal. He is now converting his PR crap about "victory"-- to a new PR phrase--"return on success" to explain what will be a requisite draw down of troops mandated by limits on the size of the US military. Had he desired to keep the troops in Iraq or determined that the success of the "surge" was so good as to continue the process--his alternatives would have been: 1. Extend the tours of existing troops 2. Call up more reserves or national guard for duty in Iraq 3. Reestablish the draft. None of these alternatives is politically palliable and would have increased verbal and active antagonism to this war. So Bush did the following; 1. declared some kind of "success" 2. continued the "Bush" war effort in Iraq with as many troops as the Pentagon can handle Its all Political PR bullshit. On the day of his speech, while he rhapsodized about successes in Anbar, the most critical Tribal leader to establish an alliance with the US was killed. Within days members of Sadr's Shiite party quit the Iraqi government. Bush continues to ignore real issues and continues to misinform the American public. The war continues. It is an enormous costly mess. The Washington Post published the pictures of 135 American soldiers who died as a result of the Iraq war between July 6 and August 30. I counted 58 of them having died as a result of makeshift bombs, IED's etc. I wish there was an easy answer to this. But there isn't in my view. The quagmire that Cheney predicted in 1994 (had the US invaded Iraq in 1991) has occurred. The middle east is more volatile than ever. An end to battling in Iraq is nowhere in sight after 4.5 years after entering Iraq; the Bush administration original predictions of a $50 billion cost has ballooned to at least $450 billion at this time with hundreds of billions of more dollars being spent. As Lindsey Graham pointed out the next year might well see the following: 60-70-80 deaths of American soldiers per month plus a minimum of $9 billion/month spent in Iraq. Is this making America safer? I would suspect that Congress is no closer to forcing Bush to make changes now than at any other time during this disaster. I guess I would suggest that with a realistic vision of 700-1,000 American soldiers that will probably die in Iraq over the next year (assuming current trends)- a minimum additional expenditure of over $100 billion of borrowed money--the least that American soldiers and the American public is owed is some sense of honesty.
I bet there was much backslapping and congratulations for the PR man that came up with that phrase "Return on Success." It has got to be "PR" phrase of the year. It's perfect because it means that they will never return, at least not completely.
Earl, don't know if you saw my thread with the Al Jazeera English videos, but it further shows the difference between what we are told, what the military is being asked to do, and what is actually occurring. Great post btw. It's not only about Bush anymore though. It's about the lack of spine in Congress, the runaway authority of the Executive branch, and the general malaise of the public when it comes to this war.
I had never seen an al jazeerah piece before. I tend to be skeptical. After all Al jazeerah is Osama's personal source for unveiling tapes to the world. And I am fearful of Islamic fundamentalist dangers that I do believe needs to be eliminated for world wide safety. Nevertheless the piece was interesting. And it articulated elements that are most assuredly truthful within Iraq. The sunni's and shiites distrust and hate one another. The government is shiite dominated and clearly has not stepped up to protect or negotiate some sharing elements with the sunni's and clearly must see arming sunni tribes as being dangerous. I certainly believe that part of the tapes. Even as the "surge" has gone on, within Baghdad there appears to be continued ethnic cleansing within neighborhoods. They are becoming all shiite, all sunni, or they are dangerous as hell and in a destructive process of being "cleansed" As long as Iraq is one big armed camp with all sides having enormous access to weaponry and all hating one another, any reductions in violence are simply temporary and the whole thing will continue to manifest what McCain described as the whackamole phenomena with utter violence occurring where ever the Americans are missing. Of interest the area where peace has "flourished" since the invasion is the Kurdish area. there have been virtually no killings, no american dead soldiers over the last 4.5 years and in fact it is rebuilding. This area basically was freed from Saddam during the period before 2003 when a no-fly zone essentially kept Saddam out of the Kurdish area. Since Saddam was overthrown the area is rebuilding and generating investment. There is reportedly some bombing going on in the eastern part of that area now from Iran. The area is susceptable to attack from Turkey, Syria, Iran and the North as existing nations reportedly do not want a Kurdish state. If there has been a current section of "success" that is where it has occurred but the Bush administration never mentions it. NEVER. The reasoning behind that is to not piss off our Turkish allies. The entire Bush policy is a series of lies on top of bungling and poor follow-up. These are issues that former members of the administration have detailed, and one candidate, McCain keeps repeating. I guess I lean to some sort of partitioning in the vein that Biden keeps repeating. I suspect it would require massive amts of involvement from the neighboring nations. For instance, with regard to the Kurdish section, if it were to gain nation-like autonomy without involvement from the neighboring nations--they would probably attack it. So they have to be involved in this type of delicate/dangerous negotiations. This is something the Bush administration has been unwilling to address as they totally have tried to isolate Iran....and in fact may be targeting them for subsequent attack. Frankly, I wish Bush, Cheney, and Larry Craig had been found having group sex in a bathroom in February of 2001. They all would have been impeached. New people would have been in office. 9/11 would still have occurred. We still would have attacked Afghanistan. I just can't imagine any other administration fooking up everything as much as Bush.
On the contrary, they are an independent news group, that brings us the middle eastern coverage we can't get from the domestic MSM or government. It's good to be skeptical of everything. That's what a critical thinker does. But take some time to read up on Al Jazeera. You might find it enlightening. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera and Al Jazeera English of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_English