Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Uses "Strategery" Against Iraq, the U.N. and the Democrats
Imal's Vanity Press | January 10, 2003 | Imal

Posted on 01/10/2003 2:31:13 PM PST by Imal

This is my first, and possibly last, vanity post. I have held back from starting a thread on this article for months, and have posted various aspects of my "strategery" theory in different posts on different threads, but am dying to discuss it in its own thread, because I think it is important enough a theory to stand on its own. In fact, this article is mostly boilerplated from this post, which evolved out of a discussion about the American hero Captain Michael Scott Speicher, may God bless his name.

Granted, my theories about George W. Bush are speculative, and time may prove me wrong (we will know soon enough). But my thoughts arise from many months of study, observation and contemplation, and, so far, the passage of time only seems to confirm my hunches about the man and his methods. And you should know, my first impressions of George W. Bush were by no means flattering. Those impressions have been tempered by numerous events since his ascendancy to the presidency. But make no mistake: I am not a Bush groupie by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, I think We the People need to make sure he doesn't accumulate too much presidential power, but that's another topic for a different thread.

In my opinion, the upcoming war in Iraq is an excellent and illustrative vignette that encapsulates the understated brilliance of the man we call "Dubya".

In this chapter of the Bush presidency, I believe he is using Iraq to accomplish several strategic goals in one stroke. I believe his cabinet and advisors are fully on board with him, because success in Iraq will be a masterful stroke of military and diplomatic cleverness.

I am fairly convinced that the Bush administration is in possession of some very hard evidence that Iraq not only has weapons of mass destruction and has been positioning them for use, but also has provable ties to active terrorist organizations, probably but not necessarily including Al Qaeda. The ties may even involve safe harboring of many terrorists in Iraq, which would partially explain why the U.S. has been quietly surrounding Iraq with troops and security agreements (such as with Jordan) for more than a year.

Iraq may very well be Afghanistan II, with the toppling of a hostile regime and terrorist hunt scenario. Except in this case, the stakes are raised, because Saddam is much craftier than Mullah Omar, and the Iraqi military has much greater resources than the Taliban (remember them?) ever dreamed of.

I think it is extremely unlikely that Bush will invade Iraq without the hard evidence he needs to put egg on the face of the U.N. and the Democrats, both of whom he despises and both of whom will look like idiots once the truth comes out.

Why hold back the evidence, rather than using it to build a groundswell of domestic and international support? I think there are two main reasons, as well as several lesser ones:

Reason 1: Military and intelligence security. Saddam knows we know about his weapons and evil intentions. However, he doesn't know exactly what or how much we know. If he did know, he would quietly take steps to both eliminate the evidence (or move it out of sight) and eliminate those assets that revealed it. He could have an entire weapons program's staff and their families tortured and slaughtered without batting an eye, and has a reputation for exactly that. As Sun Tzu and every other great military leader has pointed out again and again, deception is the greatest weapon of war.

Reason 2: Politics. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was an obvious and egregious enough act to build support for a coalition to drive Saddam out. Revelations of nasty weapons, terrorist ties and war plans are not as dramatic, and, even in the wake of 9-11, make for a harder sell to a skeptical domestic and international constituency. Naysayers who would oppose war no matter what (including the now heavily Liberal and Marxist Democratic Party, which used to be much more hawkish) have been expending their energy fighting a straw man crafted by the vague and unsupported claims made so far by the Bush administration. I find it extremely unlikely that Bush is lying about Iraq, but I notice that he has not been at all forthcoming about details. This is apparently deliberate. Those foolish enough to jump on the bandwagon against him without any real basis to do so will be utterly discredited when he lays his cards on the table. Cries of "foul" about being kept in the dark will be trumped by the legitimate need for operational security, and the naysayers will be neutralized politically. This, of course, applies to the Democrats, but especially to the U.N., the relevance of which Bush is openly challenging.

There are many other good reasons why Bush should wait until the eleventh hour before tipping his hand, including the generally mercurial nature of the American public, but I think the two reasons above are the big ones.

Consider that after Iraq is conquered, a government benevolent to the U.S. will be installed, oil will be sold in abundance to pay off Iraqi debts and rebuild the country (castrating OPEC -- and we're working on Venezuela, btw -- and, of course, the U.S. economy will flourish with all this cheap oil coming in = Bush + Republicans win again in 2004), a security agreement with the U.S. will be implemented that allows us to use Iraq as a huge, excellently positioned military base (no more begging the Saudis for permission, etc.), and puts U.S. forces in a much stronger position to pursue and eliminate both terrorist organizations and the regimes that support them, and invading Iraq is a no-brainer.

I could be wrong, but everything about the way the Bush administration is acting supports my suspicions to the tee. Everyone who has underestimated the shrewdness and wisdom of George W. Bush in the past has come to regret it. He's extremely clever, and, in my opinion, a modern Abraham Lincoln, who was also underestimated by his opponents and used it to stunning advantage.

I like to call his leadership style "strategery".


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: bush; iraq; saddam; strategery; terrorism; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-54 next last
"Strategery", anyone?
1 posted on 01/10/2003 2:31:13 PM PST by Imal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

DONATE TODAY!!!.
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD


2 posted on 01/10/2003 2:36:33 PM PST by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: GoodOleBoy321
You may be completely right, but I think you're wrong.

We'll both know who is right soon enough.

4 posted on 01/10/2003 2:43:22 PM PST by Imal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GoodOleBoy321
You sound like a Boozer yourself....if few beers makes
anyone untrustworthy then the nation has been in big
trouble since prohibition..you sir..are a $%%^#@ idiot.
Stick that where the sun don't shine. Jake the great.
5 posted on 01/10/2003 2:45:41 PM PST by sanjacjake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Imal
Good post and well said. With you all the way on this....Prez Bush will be honored by history.
6 posted on 01/10/2003 2:48:54 PM PST by FreeCanuckistan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoodOleBoy321
>>Why haven't the inspectors found anything?
A Because there isn't anything to find.

Because they ignore military facilities, urban hospitals, residences, palaces, underground bunkers.
7 posted on 01/10/2003 2:49:01 PM PST by swarthyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GoodOleBoy321
Well some people trusted an adulterous serial-rapist....didn't they?

In fact...they still do.

8 posted on 01/10/2003 2:54:17 PM PST by FreeCanuckistan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sanjacjake; GoodOleBoy321
I hope my presumptuous post doesn't become a magnet for trolls or ad hominem attacks. Let's discuss the merits, or lack thereof, of my thesis.

GoodOleBoy321: I am a devoted fan of Occam's Razor, and use it instinctively. Bear in mind that it is only as accurate as the information at hand. Applied against false or incomplete data, it is quite fallible. Its true value is in deconstructing elaborate and unsubstantiated theories. Perhaps my "strategery theory" is just such a ponderous contraption, but recent events seem to bear it out.

sanjacjake: Disagreement, in whatever form it may take, is not grounds for launching personal insults. Please address your criticisms to the posts, not the posters. ;^)

9 posted on 01/10/2003 2:54:46 PM PST by Imal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Imal
Good Vanity BUMP

10 posted on 01/10/2003 2:57:16 PM PST by Mike Darancette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Imal
Your speculations could be accurate. I hope that they are. But I have my doubts that things are tied up so neatly. Bush could be way above average as a strategerist and still there will be lapses and dropped balls. I hope we have solid evidence of Sadaam's weapons violations, but we might not. If it were a tremendous bluff on Bush's part, proceeding on the logic that says Sadaam is hiding things without the data to nail it, I'd perhaps admire him even more than if he had "proof positive" in his back pocket.
11 posted on 01/10/2003 2:58:47 PM PST by Stirner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoodOleBoy321
Occams Razor is a two edged sword....as one who knows....spokeshave the blade
12 posted on 01/10/2003 2:59:35 PM PST by spokeshave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GoodOleBoy321
Occam's Razor says the simplest answer is most likley.
That does not apply to politics in wartime, only random behavior of mindless matter.

If you think it does, I'll bet you still think Bill Gates is going to send you money for sending out all those e-mails.

Simple asnwers don't apply to people who are attempting to be deceptive. "18. All warfare is based on deception." - SunTzu, The Art of War.

Dubya's actions are not random.

Just because you don't understand them, doesn't mean they are random.

13 posted on 01/10/2003 3:00:30 PM PST by Only1choice____Freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Imal
Nice read - don't make it your last vanity post!
14 posted on 01/10/2003 3:01:27 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoodOleBoy321; Admin Moderator
Never trust what a DU troll posts..
15 posted on 01/10/2003 3:03:48 PM PST by Dog (Having fun spamming every thread??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Imal
I am fairly convinced that the Bush administration is in possession of some very hard evidence that Iraq not only has weapons of mass destruction . . .

I heard Tony Snow on Hannity this afternoon. He said that indeed Bush DOES have proof positive of a "smoking gun", and will use it at the appropriate time. He said that much is being held back to protect those providing the information, because as soon as it is made known, they are as good as dead.

There was a tone in his voice that made me believe he trusts his source of information.

Very thoughtful vanity, BTW. Thanks.

16 posted on 01/10/2003 3:12:29 PM PST by mombonn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Imal
After reading lately from different sources that there's a possibility Hussein would be talked into exile in Algeria along with his sons, I began to realize that if this happens, Dubya would accomplish what neither his father nor Billie Jeff could, will do it perhaps without sacrificing one American life, and in essence will stick it to the whole left wing of this country in the process. That's not to say it'll happen, probably won't, but it could. Underestimating the team in the Whitehouse or Dubya isn't wise.
17 posted on 01/10/2003 3:13:45 PM PST by SoDak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Imal
I completely agree with you. So far, I have seen two very obvious instances of "strategery". One - He claims he's going to form a coallition to force Iraq to disarm. The Dem's cry foul saying he needs to go to the UN... it's a political move, why can't it wait until after the election, etc etc etc. The Dem's take position AGAINST military involvement. The Dem's figure the best way to make it a non-election issue is to get it over with and pass thier bill. They do... begrudgingly. He quickly changes topics to Homeland Security and runs the election on that. Cha-ching.

Now Bush say's he'll go to the UN... touche'. He calls for the UN to pass a new Resolution calling for consequences if Iraq doesn't abide. The UN must pass "something" now to address the news. The US quietly tells the UN that if they propose a Resolution without the consequences clause, the US will veto it. Smart move. The UN passes the resolution 19-0 and the country wonders how the Dem's could vote against it, but it passed the UN, the very body they called on Bush to get support from, 19-0. Smart move number two.

Even before 911, I remember realizing that Bush was beating the Dem's at their own game. Every week... EVERY SINGLE WEEK, Bush was in the news again saying he's going to do this or propose this or whatever... he changed the subject literally every few days. THe Dem's can't catch up. They can't get their Talking Points memos out fast enough before it's yesterday's news. They can't combat the issue because there's a new issue to talk about. It was great!

I give a lot of credit to Rove. Now there's been two hyped up exposes' of the Bush White House. Anyone and everyone is saying that this man loves to be underrated. I and have to say... anyone in power who is not only content with being underrated by the vast majority, but also using it to his advantage, has to have a whole lot of confidence.

I commend this guy. I do think he'll go down as one of the better Presidencies of the modern era.
18 posted on 01/10/2003 3:15:11 PM PST by Drewman626
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog; Imal

He blowed up REAL good!

(Nice post, Imal).

19 posted on 01/10/2003 3:15:24 PM PST by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dighton
Notched me up another one!

Troll hunting the next contact sport....:-)

20 posted on 01/10/2003 3:19:05 PM PST by Dog (Hi, Ho, it's off to work I go.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-54 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson