Replies

I know that the consensus is that "words mean nothing", but look at the timing.

Bush is supposed to be a weak sister. The entire Iranian strategy hinges on maintaining control of Syria. What if Bush has happened upon a strategy of winning in Iraq by dealing with Syria and resolving Iraq and Lebanon in one fell swoop. Anbar's insurgents get many of their supplies through the Syrian rat line.

Everyone is assuming that Bush will do nothing. What if everyone is wrong? What if Bush has made the fundamental decision to blow off the Dems and win?

What has he got to lose by winning? What President ever lost a legacy by letting the troops win their war?

This is as decisive a smackdown of Baker-Hamilton, and the Democrats, as could be expected from Bush. That's why I think it's important. It's a blantant call for regime change.

Be Seeing You, Chris

I believe Bush's thinking is in the right place, but the invasion of Iraq took a lot of run up and the aftermath is not pretty. IMHO Syria should be aggressively confroted, and would fold. Iran is a stickier wicket, and I can see why Bush is taking a slow pressure wait and see approach.

My more impetuous approach is that after Iran and Syria, there is not an open state sponsor of terror in that region. Pakistan has a problem area, but the government is playing ball with us. I think regime change in Iran and Syria would set the terrorists back big time. But it would be messy as well.

I've been hoping beyond hope the President's been playing the opposition, sacrificing Rumsfield and Rove and using Baker and Hamilton's surrender monkey report as a way to forestall Democrat moves to withhold war funding while escalating troop levels high enough to finally, completely pacify Baghdad and Anbar province. Once a modicum of Iraqi stability is achieved, we can then move to check Iranian and Syrian ambitions via big stick diplomacy where the threat of military and/or economic action against them is creditable and immediate. It is they who fuel the insurgency, with money, with arms, with training. Take away their support, and the insurgency dries up.

Either I'm right, or this is part of the same Nixonian 'peace with honor' nonsense that killed millions in Vietnam and Cambodia.

I believe in this President and I can't believe he would walk away from this without a wholehearted, full-bore attempt at victory.