Posted on 01/11/2005 10:35:12 PM PST by churchillbuff
Last Thursday, word spread across Washington that U.S. trade rep Robert Zoellick would become Condi Rice's No. 2 at State.
This was followed by word that State's super-hawk, John Bolton, whom neoconservatives had touted for No. 2, would be leaving "for the private sector."
In a Friday Washington Post piece, "Wolf at the Door," Al Kamen reported the "buzz" that Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz had gone to see the president to tell him Wolfowitz would be leaving Defense. Wolfowitz hastily denied the report.
Friday's Washington Times carried a report that neocon Stephen Cambone, Rumsfeld's intelligence chief, "is thinking about private-sector employment."
The neoconservative hour may be coming to an end in the Bush era. Reason: The cakewalk war they plotted long before 9-11, on which their dreams of Middle East empire and reputations hang, has gone awry.
A year ago, Gen. John Abizaid said he faced 5,000 insurgents. He has now raised that to 20,000, though U.S. forces have killed and captured thousands of enemy in the last year. Iraqi intelligence chief Gen. Abdullah al-Shahwani now claims enemy fighters may number 30,000.
Call them Baathists, Sadaamites, jihadis, insurgents ... they have shown a disposition to fight – despite their inferiority in armor and weapons – that our Iraqi allies have not. And they appear to have an ample supply of men willing to give their lives in suicide bombings.
While the Iraqi army and police have fought often and suffered much, they have yet to show the same aggressiveness as the insurgents. Rarely does one read of our Iraqi allies initiating an attack. In Mosul, 80 percent of the Iraqi police deserted or defected under fire. America may not be losing this war, but we are not winning it, with three times as many enemy attacks every day now as a year ago.
Elections are now three weeks away. But Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz, U.S. ground commander, says four provinces – including Baghdad – are still unsafe for voting. And Rumsfeld is sending retired Gen. Gary Luck to Iraq to conduct an "open-ended review" of U.S. war policy.
Dissent in the U.S. establishment is growing louder. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to George H.W. Bush, fears the elections, by giving the Shia majority dominance of Iraqi politics, could lead to "incipient civil war." Scowcroft thinks America's best bet may be to turn Iraq over to the United Nations or NATO, whose presence might be less detested and inflammatory than our own.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, seems even more pessimistic: "I do not think we can stay in Iraq in the fashion we are now in. ... If it cannot be changed drastically, it should be terminated." Brzezinski estimates it would take 500,000 troops, $500 billion and resumption of the draft to pacify Iraq.
Indeed, if there are 30,000 enemy fighters in Iraq, the United States, with 150,000 troops in country, lacks the forces to defeat them. By the old measure of guerrilla war, a defender needs a 10-to-one advantage.
If the insurgents can put 10,000 more fighters into the field, we would then need 400,000 troops to defeat them. It is difficult to believe President Bush intends any such commitment.
Thus, all now depends on the Iraqis – for it is, after all, their country and future. But, while the Shia and Kurds may be willing to fight for a government that empowers the Shia and gives Kurds the autonomy they have long sought, why should Sunnis fight for a regime that dispossesses them of the position and power they have held since Ottoman days?
And so, reality intrudes. Where once, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and Bush marched in lockstep with the neocons, U.S. national interests and Bush political interests seem now to diverge from the neocon agenda of more troops in Iraq and expanding the war to Syria or Iran. Rumsfeld appears to have recognized this truth and begun to act on it. Hence, the Weekly Standard calls for his firing.
President Bush now approaches the crossroads LBJ reached in December 1967. Then, Gen. William Westmoreland came home to tell LBJ he needed 200,000 more troops, in addition to the 500,000 already committed. A war-weary LBJ said no. Came then the Tet Offensive, and the presidency of Lyndon Johnson was broken.
Bush is nearing his Tet moment. After the Jan. 30 elections, he will have three options. Persevere in a no-win war with 150,000 U.S. troops bleeding indefinitely until America turns on him, his policy and his party. Send in tens of thousands of fresh U.S. troops to crush the insurgency as we undertake a years-long program of training Iraqis to defend their own democracy. Third, find an honorable exit, and leave Iraq to the Iraqis.
The success or failure of the Bush presidency will likely hang on his decision. For which, he can thank the neoconservatives.L
It is not rocket science. We conquered Iraq (in effect) too quickly. Saddam's "crack troops" of 50,000 Republican Guard disappeared. Saddam released thousands of rapists, murderers and other low-life.
Conclusion, we did not kill enough of the enemy.
Solution. Kill more of the enemy. Change the "Rules of Engagement" to "Find the enemy, Kill the enemy!" Seal off the key cities and mow thru the streets searching the enemy out. If the streets are narrow, mow down buildings and make thoroughfares.
Let the people know that unless they support the government their life will be even worse than it is with the threat of the enemy. More indescriminate bombing. More 24 hour Rock & Roll or Rap Music.
Beatles "I want to hold your hand" 24/7 to let them know what torture is!
These are but initial suggestions....
Leave the Shiite majority to fight it out with the Sunnis in the south.
I find it interesting how Buchanan cites Snowcroft's criticism yet neglects to mention that Snowcroft was advising the Kerry campaign, ticked off that W hadn't bowed to his 'wisdom' during the first four years. Selective journalism by Buchanan puts him in the same league as Dan Rather...take what he says with a grain of salt.
If I want WOT advice from this moron I'll ask for it.
The administration is expected to ask Congress in the coming weeks for tens of billions of dollars more for operations in Iraq, bringing expenditures there over the past nearly three years to well over $200 billion at a time when the fiscal deficit is at a historic high, and the dollar's value is plunging at a nearly unprecedented rate.
Please cite the sentences in the article that are inaccurate. Are you saying that US troops have control over the key areas in Iraq that Buchanan (along with all other reports I've read) say we don't control - - - including areas around Bagdhad, and even the road to the central airport? Please cite specific factual assertions in the article that are inaccurate - - and give me links to information that proves they're inaccurate.
Nope. Buchanan's major beef with the Iraq War is that it was purportedly launched on Israel's behalf against the Arabs thanks to the advocacy of neocons (Buchanan's code word for GOP Jews) within the Bush Administration. No matter what happens anywhere in the Middle East, Buchanan blames it on Israel and neocons (never Arabs). He is a modern day Father Charles Coughlin.
You can mind-read Buchanan if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the Iraq war is a disaster, and there's nothing in the Buchanan column that I posted here - in terms of the disastrous facts that it recites about what's going on in Iraq -- that can be honestly disputed. It's the fact that the war is a disaster - - something that more and more in the administration are coming to acknowledge - - that we need to be concentrating on.
Diasater? Things here in Balad have gotten much quieter in the last few months. I travel around a bit and most areas I go have qujieted considerably since November. I think Buchanan is full of BS.
No. It is your opinion. Not a fact. But thanks for pitching the spiel of the DUmmies and CAIR apologists.
There are large areas of Iraq that are peaceful. Patricia should listen to those who are actually over there about the progress that is being made, instead of simply what the MSM report. And yes, anyone who says that IRan is not a threat to the US and should be allowed to keep its nuclear program is a moron.
the Iraq war is a disaster
So was WW II but in the end we won.
Their presence there would be less detested and inflammatory because the muslim terrorists would have their way with them.
Neocons are convenient constructs of a left needing boogy men.
“Mumble . . . neocons. Mumble mumble . . . empire. Mumble mumble mumble . . . neocons.”
Free Republic's own Neville Chamberlain speaks again. I'm so very grateful you weren't around during WWII.
You've been given links over and over to the 9/11 Commission and Senate Intelligence Reports which state Saddam's military was training Al Qaeda. You don't care.
One Iraqi national met with Al Qaeda at a pre 9/11 planning meeting. You don't care.
Iraq was the biggest sponsor of terrorism, Islamic terrorism in particular. You don't care.
Your namesake is spinning in his grave.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.