[Winstonm]

I hope I am wrong about this but see no other viable reasoning. Here are the numbers to paint, or the dots to connect.

1) Bush escalates armed forces in Iaq.
2) Bush sends a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf
3) Bush sends patriot missiles to our middle eastern allies
4) U.S. F-16 fighters are repositioned to Turkey
5) Brittish news reports Israel planning low-yield nuclear attack on Iran

Taking these in order:

Bush ignores all contrary advice and orders a troop build up in Iraq, while saying the Iraqi government must do more, also aware that Congress and the U.S. population would not support an Iran invasion; the U.S. now has two aircraft carriers stationed in the region, certainly not what you need to fight what is essentially a civil war in Iraq; Iraq certainly doesn't need Patriot missiles, so the only logical assumption is an expected missile attack against an ally - Israel, perhaps?; F-16s now to the North and carriers to the South, again not something needed for the Iraq battles with militias and insurgents; and Israel reportedly planning an attack against Iran's nuclear complex.

When you add 2+2, it seems the only logical conclusion is that the U.S. is positioning itself to support Israel's attack on Iran.

Is there any other rationale that makes sense?

[Al_U_Card]

Surely you mean....irrationale...

[hrothgar]

I've seen three different claims regarding Bush's surge strategy. For the record, I haven't seen any real support for the plan that Bush laid out on Wednesday evening. For example: the AEI report that Kaplan released stated that a successful surge would require 50,000 troops deployed for a minimum of 18 months. Kaplan was careful to state that a half assed deployment wouldn't help.

1. A number of people have suggested that the surge is simply a mechanism for Bush to cover his ass. If the Democrats back the surge they'll give Bush political cover for the remainder of his term in office. The surge will serve as a band aid and (hopefully) ensure that the whole mess blows up on someone else's watch. If the Democrats don't back the surge Bush will claim that the Democrats stabbed the country in the back.

2. More recently, I've seen some claims that the surge is designed to support a coup to overthrow Maliki. Several folks have noted that the Bush administration seems to be making a series of logically inconsistent statements

(a) The United States can not tolerate a failed Iraqi state
( The United States will withdraw its troops unless the Iraqi government stabilizes the country
© The Maliki government is incapable of stablizing the country

If the Bush administration can be taken at its word, the logical conclusion is that the US might be planning some sort of coup and is moving in additional forces for this purpose.

3. There are a lot of claims that the US is preparing to move against Iran. The additional troops that the US is surging into Iraq is insufficient to launch substantial ground attacks against Iran, but might be necessary to help quell the violence that would occur after such an attack. (Anyone who doesn't believe that the Iranians would respond with significant proxy violence in Iraq is on dope)

[Winstonm]

Quote

The additional troops that the US is surging into Iraq is insufficient to launch substantial ground attacks against Iran, but might be necessary to help quell the violence that would occur after such an attack. (Anyone who doesn't believe that the Iranians would respond with significant proxy violence in Iraq is on dope)

This is the reason I would suspect direct Israeli action and not U.S. The U.S. presence would be to surpress retributional attacks by Syria and Iran.

[Al_U_Card]

I heard that they were going back to time tested methods. They will re-animate Saddam saying that his execution was premature and that he didn't have time for an appeal and back him in a takeover of Iraq.

[Winstonm]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 13 2007, 11:50 PM, said:

I heard that they were going back to time tested methods.  They will re-animate Saddam saying that his execution was premature and that he didn't have time for an appeal and back him in a takeover of Iraq.

Then they can get Saddam to invade Iran again - brilliant, as it worked so well last time.

[Al_U_Card]

What is up W's (or Cheney's) sleeve? What rabbit will they pull out of their hat to further inveigle the populace? Foreign policy usually only concerns the politicos, the think tanks and the liberal intellectuals. Popular sentiment goes with the economy and international prestige (standard of living). The US has been experiencing unprecedented prosperity for quite some time now. Everyone is fat (really fat) and sassy and are being overcome by the inertia in their lives caused by information overload. Why worry about political goings-on when I can watch TV or surf the net and pass my time pleasantly. This head in the sand tendency will undoubtedly come to an end soon.

Something is rotten in the state of the union and when will they take out the garbage?

[pbleighton]

I'm not sure what Bush and Co are up to, but it may not be particularly Machiavellian. I think the surge is simply a reaction to the the waning of public support for the war. There are a number of metrics which are available to measure support for the war:
1. Approval of Bush's handling of the war - this is where disapproval is highest - I believe in excess of 70%
2. Was the war a mistake - not as high, but over 60%
3. Should we leave, and when - depends on how you ask the question. This is actually the key number, as it is the one which drives Congressional support down. This one erodes less quickly than the others, but, as the election showed, is going down. When the percentage of voters who want us to be out in 6 months (meaning you have given up on ANY good solution, as I have) reaches 50%, Congress will get us out.

The staus quo was moving that number towards 50%. The surge is IMO just a last, desperate measure to create some improvement, or at least the illusion of movement. I don't think Bush sees this as leading to an exit, though I'm sure there are some in his administration who see it this way.

I do think it will lead to a quicker exit. Polls show the surge is unpopular by 2-1, with (in one poll) 53-37 wanting Congress to cut off funds for the surge (they won't, funds have been appropriated already for FY07, and Bush still has more than enough support in Congress to prevent the override of a veto).

But look ahead to September/October, when funding for FY08 comes up. Assume the surge fails to live up to its promise. Public support will drop even further than it otherwise would have. Many Congressional Republicans and conservative Democrats may well be terrified enough to vote to force us to leave Iraq. There may be light at the end of the tunnel for us.

Unfortunately, this is not so for the Iraqis. They will have their civil war, which has already started, but which will get worse when we leave, whenever we leave. When the fighting dies down, we should be willing and able to help them pick up the pieces, but that may not be for a long time. I hope the war doesn't spread too much into the region, but I'm not optimistic.

Peter

[mike777]

As others have said, the logic seems to be if we quickly pull out we will just have to go back in and the mess will be worse for the US.

Yet there seems to be no reporting or debate on this logic. The media seem to be doing their usual terrible job of basic reporting and the American public may just be too war weary to care that much and demand a debate.

To be fair the issue seems to come down to two things:
1) Hey quick war lets go for it and stop the bad guys?
2) Hey war is terrible can't we all just get along and love each other?

[Winstonm]

The escalation of troops into Iraq may well be explained as a response to poor public support or a last ditch effort to save a poor situation, but neither explains well the movement of another aircraft carrier into the region or the patriot missiles increases or the repositioning of the F-16s to Turkey.

What is the purpose unless increased hostilities region-wide are expected?

[Al_U_Card]

Refresh my memory.....Vietnam....the US pulls out and......almost nothing....no bloodbath....a re-installation of the NV regime and within a few years peace and order and now Vietnam is getting on the SE asian bandwagon of prosperity. The surrounding regions? OMG, no armaghedon either. Of course there was no oil in Vietnam...

[Winstonm]

I cannot grasp the reason Iran would be backing and aiding the Sunni when Malaki and the new ruling party in Iraq is Shiite and Iran is a Shiite nation. The claim is that more and more Iranian-made bomb material is being used by the insurgents. But why would Shiite Iran be trying to destabilize a newly Shiite Iraq? It made more sense to me when Saddam was in power, as Iraq was then in Sunni's hands, and Iran might then view them as an enemy.

On the other hand Syria is 70% Sunni, so it would be more logical for Syria to be supporting the Sunni insurgents in Iraq.

[mike777]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 14 2007, 11:18 AM, said:

Refresh my memory.....Vietnam....the US pulls out and......almost nothing....no bloodbath....a re-installation of the NV regime and within a few years peace and order and now Vietnam is getting on the SE asian bandwagon of prosperity.  The surrounding regions?  OMG, no armaghedon either.  Of course there was no oil in Vietnam...

This comment really worries me. In fact in scares the hell out of me. But I scare easy.

Millions died after we pulled out of Vietnam. See Killing Fields movie. The whole region blew up like a series of Dominos

In fact millions more fled Vietnam. See "boat people"..sigh.....millions more were reeducated in facist form.

USSR was encouraged to invade Afganistan later seeing that the USA was an impotent dying giant just waiting for China/USSR to take over the new Hegemony.

Of course none of this says this will happen in Iraq or if it does we should not do nothing again but stick our head in the sand or live in a state of denial.

[macaw]

There was most definitely oil in Vietnam 400,000 barrels per day in 2005. CAA World Fact Book.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Jan 14 2007, 10:09 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Jan 14 2007, 11:18 AM, said:

Refresh my memory.....Vietnam....the US pulls out and......almost nothing....no bloodbath....a re-installation of the NV regime and within a few years peace and order and now Vietnam is getting on the SE asian bandwagon of prosperity.  The surrounding regions?  OMG, no armaghedon either.  Of course there was no oil in Vietnam...

This comment really worries me. In fact in scares the hell out of me. But I scare easy.

Millions died after we pulled out of Vietnam. See Killing Fields movie. The whole region blew up like a series of Dominos

In fact millions more fled Vietnam. See "boat people"..sigh.....millions more were reeducated in facist form.

Playing "What If" is never very satisfying. Face it... None of us can say with certainty what would have happened if things had gone differently in Vietnam.

Case in point: Mike seems to believe that the US withdrawl from Vietnam was somehow related to the Khymer Rouge's extermination programs in neighboring Cambodia. I'm somewhat skeptical of this claim. (As I learned things, the Khymer Rouge were driven from power when they were invaded by Communist Vietnam). Regardless, we'll never know what would happened had the US decided to continue fighting in South-East Asia for another 10 to 20 years.

As for Iraq...

My own expectation is that things are going to get VERY ugly if/when the US pulls out. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a death-toll we'll in excess of a hundred thousand people. Hell, for all I know we might see half a million or even a million dead. Its going to be a god-awful disaster. However, I don't see any way to stop this from happening. If people want to kill one another they're going to find a way. Unfortunately, we let things spiral out of control. How does the old rhyme go?

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.

This whole "surge" strategy might delay things from blowing up, however, it will probably guaruntee a bigger explosion when we finally do withdraw.

[Winstonm]

What is it that Bush tells his advisors: Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up.

[Al_U_Card]

Now wait a sec. The US is arranging for "economic" considerations (ie oil $$$) once the puppet regime is left in place. What happens to a regime that is subject to onerous conditions in order to exist? (Weimar republic anyone?) It suffers ignominious defeat at the hands of its own supporters.

The US has made a blatant grab and continues to do so. The mil-ind complex continues to shape and control US foreign policy and actions. Resistance is futile. Debate, apparently, even more so....

[jtfanclub]

Winstonm, on Jan 13 2007, 06:44 PM, said:

1) Bush escalates armed forces in Iaq.
2) Bush sends a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf
3) Bush sends patriot missiles to our middle eastern allies
4) U.S. F-16 fighters are repositioned to Turkey
5) Brittish news reports Israel planning low-yield nuclear attack on Iran

Taking these in order:

Bush ignores all contrary advice and orders a troop build up in Iraq, while saying the Iraqi government must do more, also aware that Congress and the U.S. population would not support an Iran invasion; the U.S. now has two aircraft carriers stationed in the region, certainly not what you need to fight what is essentially a civil war in Iraq; Iraq certainly doesn't need Patriot missiles, so the only logical assumption is an expected missile attack against an ally - Israel, perhaps?; F-16s now to the North and carriers to the South, again not something needed for the Iraq battles with militias and insurgents; and Israel reportedly planning an attack against Iran's nuclear complex.

When you add 2+2, it seems the only logical conclusion is that the U.S. is positioning itself to support Israel's attack on Iran.

Is there any other rationale that makes sense?

The general belief seems to be that Bush & Co. are doing a 'play nice or I'll sic my dog on you' ploy with Iran. At this point, we've already lost Iraq, and all of 1-5 are simply bargaining chips to try to convince Iran to play nice both with nukes and in Iraq.

I don't understand this troop surge stuff. We have what, 130,000 troops in Iraq and almost equal number in the general theater (including Rammstein)? 21,000 isn't a surge, it's an overlap in the troop rotation. If we do need a troop surge and 21,000 is as much as we can get, that's really pathetic. As John Stewart pointed out earlier, we had that many troops in the country just a year ago. How is this a surge?

[mike777]

If Iraq is lost we need to get our troops home now. I do not see why Iran cannot have nukes and sell them to whoever they want. It is their nukes.
If NK, Pakistan, India, China and Russian can why not me?

[luke warm]

mike777, on Jan 16 2007, 04:21 PM, said:

~~ I do not see why Iran cannot have nukes and sell them to whoever they want. It is their nukes.
If NK, Pakistan, India, China and Russian can why not me?

hear hear (or here here)