WOT--NOT! What Rot
The White House Deputy Press Secretary recently told reporters, "the President's delivering a message showing the philosophical choices that voters have to make this November, especially as it comes to the economy and War on Terror (WOT)."
While I'm proud that the President understands that there are philosophical implications to the WOT and economy, they are not in the way he imagines. He thinks the voters must choose between Republican and Democratic leadership; but that is no choice at all, as there is little difference between the parties at this point.
The choice is actually between the two endeavors. If one addresses the economy in a realistic manner, then the WOT must be eliminated, as it pertains to Iraq. Vice versa. The WOT as it is currently being implemented (i.e., subjugation and occupation of two countries) is more effective in killing the U.S. economy than it is in protecting Americans.
The welfare and economic interests of everyday Americans outweigh concern for the democratization of Iraq. Would the Iraqis aid America if we needed economic assistance? A rhetorical question, I know.
While I'm proud that the President understands that there are philosophical implications to the WOT and economy, they are not in the way he imagines. He thinks the voters must choose between Republican and Democratic leadership; but that is no choice at all, as there is little difference between the parties at this point.
The choice is actually between the two endeavors. If one addresses the economy in a realistic manner, then the WOT must be eliminated, as it pertains to Iraq. Vice versa. The WOT as it is currently being implemented (i.e., subjugation and occupation of two countries) is more effective in killing the U.S. economy than it is in protecting Americans.
The welfare and economic interests of everyday Americans outweigh concern for the democratization of Iraq. Would the Iraqis aid America if we needed economic assistance? A rhetorical question, I know.
posted by rangeragainstwar at 4:52 PM
2 Comments:
New reader via Demvet.
Slightly ot (tried to attach this yesterday to your 10/3 posting on the NIE but something went haywire.)
What do we know about the WOT?
1. We should never have invaded Iraq for a whole host of reasons -- moral, geopolitical, etc., etc.
2. As a result of invading Iraq, we are now losing two wars -- Afghanistan and Iraq -- for the same reason: not enough boots on the ground in either location.
3. As a result of invading Iraq, the Army (almost certainly) and the USMC (probably) are close to broken if not already there. We will soon have the hollowed - out Army that existed Back in the Day post - RVN.
4. Our continuing presence in Iraq lasts only so long as the various Iraqi factions believe it is in their interest that we be there. If/when they decide that it is time for us to leave, they have the capability to band together and push us out, in a manner which would make the retreat from the Chosin Reservoir look like a walk in the park.
5. "Leaving Iraq now" is military - ese for: 1) leaving in good order and 2) having enough force protection so that the last battalion in - country doesn't have to fight its way out. This is probably a six to nine month exercise.
Therefore:
1. Within the next 90 to 180 days somewhere around 60,000 of regular Army/USMC light infantry/airmobile/SF forces are redeployed from Iraq to the Afghan - Paki border. Their mission: 1) put OBL's head on a pike and 2) stabilize Afghanistan.
2. The remaining forces in Iraq -- all Reserve and NG units, plus regular Army/USMC armor/armored cav/light recon forces -- are redeployed to Kuwait in the east and temporary basing in Jordan in the west. Their mission: 1) rotate in-country on regular basis to continue training Iraqi security forces; 2) act as a QRF if/when the Bandini well and truly hits the air supply and 3) get as much of the equipment out as they can and destroy what they can't.
3. When the rotation dates for the Reserve and NG units hit, they are brought home and not replaced. Same with the regular units -- when their dates hit, they are sent either to their home posts or to wherever they are needed.
4. The goal would be to get back to the equivalent of two brigades or so in Kuwait (about what was there before this fiasco began) in about a year.
fbg46,
Thank you for your letter and your participation here.
I'm with you until your "Therefore". First, I do not believe killing OBL will not solve our long-term terrorism problem, although it may make us feel good for a day or two.
Can't endorse the concept of putting anyone's head on a pike. As it is, we've played too fast and loose with treatment of dead adversaries in these campaigns. Putting pictures of dead bodies on newsmagazines is a contradiction of America's humanity.
I don't care about Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan or Kuwait. All I care about is my country and my military apparatus.
I don't believe training Iraqi security forces is the answer either. See my post "Meet the New Boss" on this. I believe the Iraqi's have had enough of authoritarian police forces and armies. Police are supposed to protect and not threaten citizens, and armies should be for defense from external threats, not your own citizens. How is the new police force any different from Saddam's?
We agree about the need to get the hell out of there ASAP. Your retrograde policy sounds reasonable, if we implement it. Unfortunately, no one in the National Command Authority can come up w/ anything more unique than "stay the course," or "cut and run". I admire your innovative thinking.
In closing, we might want to try regional diplomacy in conjunction with military action. I've suggested the diplomatic solution of allowing the country to Balkanize to its ethnic contours. Even Balkanization may lead to further instability with Turkey and Iran, but something has to be done to address the current problems.
I agree also in that my biggest fear is a Little Bighorn scenario--our military being cut off in the region.
Post a Comment
<< Home