Progress in Iraq and Rumsfelds Impeccable Logic

Remove all ads!

One day after the US hit the magical 1.000 in Iraq I heared (that is, read) Rumsfeld making a statement explaining to the world the nature of the war the US in Iraq fight today, and how we have to look at it ... to understand (like he claims to have).

Look, he said, all the latest violence and bombings and killings are proof of the progress the US are making! the Amercian success in Iraq has prompted a "backlash," he explained. Those desperate bad guys have been causing so much mayhem lately because the US have been doing so well! So the very kinds of things I'd have thought of as major danger signs (death and destruction, more and more Iraqis hating us) they're mileposts on Bush's unstoppable march to victory!

What a relief.

The worse things are, the better they are - it's so darned logical, I wish I'd been able to reason it out for myself. So I'm trying to use what I've learned - use some of that first-class Rumsfeld logic - to look into the future.

But then it came to me - for instance: If more attacks in Iraq mean that the bad guys are getting more desperate, then wouldn't fewer attacks mean that the bad guys are getting less desperate? Logically speaking, I mean. So if things ever quieted down over there, wouldn't that mean we're doing . . . worse?

Not that I'd expect Don Rumsfeld to say that - not in so many words, anyway. I'm sure he'd try to explain that fewer attacks mean we're winning. Just like more attacks mean we're winning. And a consistent level of attacks? I'll bet that would mean we're winning, too . . .

Yesterday I read an article about the feelings of US Marines in Iraq, that made me recall a few questions I remember I raised before the invasion - like the mere idea that the US, after bombing the hell out of Iraq for a decade plus something resulting in the death of a not insignificant number of Iraqis, the idea that the US might not be all that welcome in Iraq after that.

No kidding?

[ September 21, 2004, 11:42: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

The scary part is how many people other than his boss will actually believe that twaddle.

 

*cough* give it a rest *cough*

I think SP needs the new round of games to come out so we can get a more productive hobby than bashing the Bush administration. I favor Bush AND I'm an American, but I don't have the engergy to perpetuate the hatred I feel here towards America.

 

Mat, you're confusing contempt for Bush and his administration with a perceived hatred for America; methinks your own pro-Bush position is clouding your perceptions here.

Just to make it perfectly clear - anti-Bush and anti-America are two very different things. The first leads to topics like this; the second might potentially lead to things like September 11.

 

Mat,

By your logic, I hate America. Don't even go there. There's a difference between criticism and bashing. Calling it America hatred is just childish. The anger and resentment isnn't directed towards America as a whole - just our current leadership. Like it or not, they've earned it.

I don't have to like Bush to love my country. People in your party would do well to remember that.

ps - If negative international feelings toward America really bother you that much, get used to 4 more years of it if your guy gets elected. I pray that he doesn't, for all our sakes.

Back on topic: Donald Rumsfeld is a smug, arrogant prick. Nothing he says anymore suprises me. He's a disgrace to his office, period.

Nuff said.

 

Mat - Even Bush has finally admitted mistakes in how this war has been handled. And they are his mistakes. The question is: Where do we go from here? Iraq may be slipping into civil war. And we will be in the middle. How about a North and South Iraq - does that sound familiar?

America is bigger than one man. It's great to have so much loyalty to Bush, a guy you obviously have so much faith in. But there comes a time when the greater good of the country has to be considered. There comes a time when personality and ideology have to be put aside and accomplishment has to be considered to be more important.

The situation in Iraq is getting worse. The other day downtown Baghdad was bombed by mortar fire for five hours, and American soldiers could not figure out where the shells were coming from. And that's supposed to be a secured zone.

If you love this country, condsider the consequences of four more years of this gross incompetence. Enough damage has been done to this country already. The battle cry "Saddam is gone," can only take us so far. Now we have to "pay up" with our blood and treasure.

Can Kerry do much better? He seems to be making Iraq the central issue in this election. And he seems to have formulated some kind of plan. Although you are skeptical, I would ask you to consider what he has to say with an open mind. The upcoming debates will be a good forum to see if Kerry has the right stuff or not. To be honest, I'm not sure he does, but I've seen enough of the alternative to know that Bush II has not been competent enough, nor does he have the credibility to continure to run this nation.

Edit : Since we are playing a partisan game by bringing the likes of Andrew Sullivan into the debate, allow me to balance the rhetoric with one from the other side. This is from Eric Alterman's site:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1305360,00.html


This one is from Pat Buchanan's site (someone who DOES NOT support Kerry:

http://www.theamericancause.org/patbloodierthanwar.htm

[ September 21, 2004, 18:26: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

And I'm childish???

This thread isn't the only basis for my feeling of American hatred here at SP, it seems to be a common topic. You may try to seperate a loathing for Bush against a loathing for America, but like it or not for this term (and I hope the next) Bush set America's policy. So hating his stance on the war and his actions is in essence a hatred for this country.

I just don't understand the amount of engery spent on this obsession against America, Bush, whatever. Searching constantly for any hint that he might make a mistake. I think you all want him out of office so you can get some sleep and fresh air!

And I'll admit that my opinion as stated here is not well supported or completely accurate. I'm just tired of this hammering on our president.

 

So if I hate nazis, do I hate Germany? If I believe that Stalin was an insane son of bitch, do I hate Russians?

 

Some of us happen to believe that the success, and the survival of the principles on which this nation was founded are worth defending.

 

Rumsfeld is not the President, first of all. And my comments of him are directed toward his personality and how he treats people, particularly those who challenge him. Like it or not, his very position means that anything he says is a direct reflection of his policy and intentions. And when he says things like:

"At some point the Iraqis will get tired of getting killed and we’ll have enough of the Iraqi security forces that they can take over responsibility for governing that country and we’ll be able to pare down the coalition security forces in the country."

"I don't know. Isn't that clear? You don't understand English?" ... telling a German reporter he was unaware of a new White House Iraq policy group.

"Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase `immediate threat.' I didn't. The president didn't. And, uh, it's become kind of folklore that that's--that's what's happened."

Like I said...arrogant prick. The utter failure of his policy and implementation are a seperate issue altogether. George Bush at least seems like a pleasant, nice guy, even though I think he's an ineffectual, incompetant boob.

Also, as to your feelings of America hatred at SP - first of all, as you may have noticed, SP is a very international crowd. Us yanks probably make up around 10-15%, at most. 50% of America thinks Bush is a joke, if you believe most polls and the approval ratings. I can't think of a single nation on earth who has a favorable impression of the Bush administration right now, over and above the standard-issue resentment that would come from us just being the most powerful country in the world. So if you think of SP as a relative sample of world opinion, is it really a surprise that pro-Bush voices are so scarce here? Furthermore...doesn't that tell you something?

So - again - the resentment is directed towards the American government, not America. And again, IMO, confusing the two is childish, or at the very least disingenuous. My thinking Vladamir Pootin is a corrupt jerk doesn't mean I hold any ill will towards your average Russian.

As for the hammering of the President - Bill Clinton was hammered just as badly, if not worse, than Bush has been. The difference is most of the criticisms of Bush have to do with his harmful policies, and are therefore valid and fair game. Most of the criticisms of Clinton had to do with his personal life. To date, I don't recall Bush being accused by Democratic leadership (Senators, house speakers, etc) of selling drugs in the White House, murdering his friends or raping his secretaries. So forgive me if I find it just a little ironic when conservatives complain about people picking on their guy all the time, especially when the criticisms turn out to be true more often than not, and Republican leadership do and say worse on a regular basis.

 

What they do seems quite rational to me and has been expected by some. And with rational, I don't want to imply that I condone it, I just think it makes miltary and political sense. Just like the Mongol tactic of razing cities made rational sense. A short time before the invasion of Iraq started, I've read an article in a newspaper from Germany written by a American, some think-tank member, probably, poltical scientist, If I remember correctly. The titel of the articel was "the fighting man and the cleaning woman". The Americans in this case are the fighting man. The Europeans, Japanese, Canadians and Australians are the cleaning women. The Americans went to war without the cleaning woman. That's their achiles heel now and whoever in Iraq has its own plans, knows that very well.

The Americans lack 3 important things. And they lacked it from the beginning of that invasion. They have no money. They have no troops. And they can't expect too much sympathy from the locals. Knowing that, a lot of the attacks from the beginning were aimed at very important organisations and people. Like De Mello from the UN or member of caritative organisations. All foreigners less likely to be in Iraq weakens the Americans immensly, as those are knowledgable, expirienced people. And I don't say the Americans of none of those, but just not in the needed number. And killing all those Iraqi's percieved as collaborateurs hit the Americans very hard. Those Iraqis are the ones the< depend on. They desperately need manpower to establish security. Without them, things don't look good. And this surely will result in a lot of anger of the average Iraqi-citizen. The only question is, at whom they anger will turn. I think it's likely, that the anger will turn against the Americans, in the sense that it will be exploited by those, who have their own plans and goals for a future Iraq, or Kurdistan, or whatever.

And then, Europeans have a big stake in things turning out well. A prolonged instably and dangerous situation there may cause waves and waves and waves of refugees. And the "asylum-seeker"-problem has spawend a lot of tension in nearly every European country. That's a very complicated issue.

 

I pretty much agree with Iago, and there's more to it.

As for Rumsfeld talk I'm actually undecided if it is actually spin or what he believes. If it is spin he would actually be better than I think. Then he would be a cynical liar, like Kissinger, bad enough. But I'm not so sure, not in this groupthink-driven administration the US happen to have - my worst case scenario is that he, like Bush and Cheney, actually believes what he tells.

What originally made me post this thread was the "backlash argument", not that much more. The whole "backlash argument" is particularly moronic - you cannot justify your actions as right, or successful - because they cause resistance. Like: Clinton was right and successful - because the right hated him ??! . . . definitely.

And as for the "feel unwelcome part" - that shouldn't come as a surprise eeither - just have a look at all the polls made on Iraqi opinion since the US arrived. Well, I did and so I do not wonder. What always strikes me with considerable disbelief is the inability of some people to understand that even honest good intentions may be unwelcome. Good intentions like saving and liberating Iraq - without taking into account factors like the people, culture or reality there.

And as for Bush, and CAVE!, here comes the bashing Bush Jr. made so many mistakes in Iraq, with his first error being to attack at all in first place. I very much think that he made the threat of terror to the US much graver because he provided Bin Laden and his likeminded friends with the best PR US taxpayer money could buy - who else would have been able to spend 87 billion to inflame deep rage in vast parts of the muslim world?

To today say that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, because the Iraqis fight their unwelcome liberators with subversive tactics, means subscribing a delusional phantasy. The mess in Iraq is selfmade, Bushmade, to a 100%. It isn't because Bin Laden plotted so that Iraqis today fire at Americans.
It is not only that Bush started that stupid war in first place - he made a stupid idea worse by putting the whole affair into the hands of incompetent people - people who ignored post-war planning going on in all the other agencies, didn't listen to anyone not singing their tune, who dissolved the Iraqi army, and did all these silly things to plug in their pet-Iraqi Ahmed Chalabi. Like their master, they don't show any signs of learning from their mistakes.

Bush repeatedly showed, and that's a very nice way to say it, very poor judgement.

Anyone here who honestly thinks that had the US restricted themselves, even more in the utter absence of an Iraqi threat, to hunting and chasing Bin Laden and Al Quaeda - that then the US would be as isolated as they are today??!

Now Bush sure has his virtues, like having faith and a vision and being determined. But then, Hitler and Stalin sure had faith in something and a vision and were determined too - what tells me that virtues are hardly a quality in itself.
And Bush unfortunately happens to get either bad advice or to have all the the stupid ideas himself. More, I don't think he fully understands what he has gotten himself into. But that now is only to satisfy those who expected me to bash Bush (I'll spare you starting on Cheney, too ) I don't like to do that actually, I'd be quite happy if I could honestly praise Bush.

 

Taking a vow of silence on this one. ... But let me add that I take strong exception to the moderator's opinion of me and of my posts. I see nothing "sickening" in my opinion, and the violent backlash towards my opinion only tells me that I probably hit upon a nerve.

[ September 22, 2004, 20:12: Message edited by: Mathetais ]