Friday, January 12, 2007

What's the point?

So, let me get this straight. The White House commisions an extensive report into what should be done about the mess in Iraq. After months of exhaustive work, eagerly awaited by everyone, the Baker Hamilton report is delivered. It's principle conclusion is that in order to stabilise Iraq, the US needs to build bridges and mend fences with the Arab/Islamic world, in order to, in particular, involve Iran and Syria in supporting the new Iraqi government.

In response to this, Bush threatens Iran and Syria with military attack, and then authorises the storming of an Iranian consulate in Iraq.

It's mind-boggling.

What's the betting that the Democrats and that waste-of-oxygen Blair fall into line behind the plan?

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

You'd lose your bet. Senior Democrats, including top Dem. foreign policy bod Joe Biden, are already lining up to denounce the latest Bush plan. (And so are some leading Republicans, including Sen. Hagel.) Andre

dumneazu said...

I'm in the US right now, and most of the opinion I am hearing about ?Bush's latest strategy are extremely negative. And I am talking about older, conservative Americans here, not radicalized intellectuals. Many feel that Bush is insane and that the war is now obviously about his personal vendetta against Iraq, regardless of the cost in lives - Iraqi and US military - which is mentioned in the media quite often, to my great surprise.

Andy H said...

I'll believe their words when I see their actions Andre. They'll end up making some political calculation as to how it is better to let Bush screw up so dramatically that no Republican will ever get elected again, and go along with the plan, but make it seem like they've been railroaded into accepting it. And the hundreds of thousands of more people who will die are just collateral damage in the two parties' election campaign for 2008.

Tad cynical, I know, but I fear not far from the truth.

Romer!can said...

There are definite overtones of Vietnam playing out here, as was often predicted by those of us opposed to the Iraq war prior to its' beginning.

Once the invasion was launched by a lying administration, we could hem and haw about how it should have never started, but the great majority turned to Plan B: hope the military would win quickly, hope a new government could be stabilized quickly, then go home.

In the meanwhile, the whole affair has gone from a fool's errand and into the tragic quagmire it was feared to become. The liars were also completely unstudied in their approach and handling of the war.

The dead bodies mount higher and higher, with false purpose and no gain.

How do you get out without losing? Or, at this stage, how do you make the crash as soft as possible?

The hapless Iraqi government has failed to pull itself up by the bootstraps in time. The loss of the last election and threat of losing the next one has the administration setting Iraqi leaders up for the blame with an effective kiss(inger) of death, so Bush technically appears to not lose his own war.

Of course, it was his war. Not America's war; enough people believed the lies long enough to let happen. Now, it's time to pass the buck and pin the blame on the peacenik strawman.

But don't let all of the various editorializing bother you. In REAL news, Becks and Posh are moving to L.A. to help spread Scientology!

AlieMalie said...

the dems aren't falling in line behind him, in fact, they're passing condemnations of his plan. and he keeps giving the finger to the rest of country and world telling us he refuses to change his mind.