Friday, September 24, 2004

Political Reasons

Why hasn't Iraq been a resounding success? Political Reasons.
Before the war, we passed up a chance to take out terrorist mastermind Abu Musab Zarqawi — for political reasons. We invaded with too few troops — for political reasons. We lowballed the cost of the war — for political reasons. We ignored the UN and then turned around and pleaded for their help — for political reasons. Then we installed Iyad Allawi as president behind the UN's back — for political reasons.

And just recently we've learned that the Marines were yo-yoed in and out of Fallujah — for political reasons. The president has bizarrely dismissed his own intelligence agencies' analysis of Iraq as "guessing" — for political reasons. He's ignored the advice of his own generals about troop requirements for the upcoming elections — for political reasons. And assaults on Baathist enclaves have been postponed until December — for fairly obvious political reasons.

And Thursday's press conference was just scary. It's no longer clear if George Bush is merely a cynical, calculating politician — which would be bad enough — or if he actually believes all the happy talk about Iraq that his speechwriters produce for him. Increasingly, though, it seems like the latter: he genuinely doesn't have a clue about what's going on. What's more, his staff is keeping him in a sort of Nixonian bubble, afraid to tell him the truth and afraid to take any positive action for fear that it might affect the election.


Dustin said...

So you are for us launching suprise attacks on other countries then? I prefer the long debate over attacking countries that we now have to launching suprise attack/invasions.
notice no link for the invading with too few troops maybe cuz that one isn't based in reality.
I won't even waste words on the UN topic.
actually the Iraq's installed Allawi and we tried to make them think about it more if you recall.
As far as Fallujah goes that was a bad situation that we have learned from and won't replay.
Yes the intelligence agency was guessing, remember these are the same poeple that guessed that there were WMD in Iraq.
HAHA his general actually said "I think we will need more troops than we currently have," then But, he said, Pentagon officials believe the extra needed troops will be Iraqis or international forces. which is right we don't want to put an american on every street corner.
If by political reasons you mean more likely to succeed yes you are right, american troops won't do a good job of it and gather as much strength as the iraq's can is a good idea.
What positive action like full withdrawl... that will leave Iraq in a great situation, or maybe we should start bombing citys to the ground? My favorite is give them Jimmy Carter... maybe after a year of his blather they will surrender to just get rid of him.

Kendall Miller said...

If you read the contents of the first link, you would see that the reason Bush passed up the chance to attack Zarqawi was because it would do violence to the case the administration was fabricating to go after Saddam. If they took out Zarqawi they couldn't get enough traction on the "Saddam harboring al-Qaida" canard.

The right thing would have been devise a strategy to get Zarqawi as an minor extension of the Afghan effort. Of course that might have entailed some sort of cooperation with Saddam. And Saddam would have made hay out of it, I'm sure.