Major change expected in Iraq strategy

Open-ended commitment to war could change.


I Will Not Withdraw Even If Laura And Barney Are The Only Ones Supporting Me.’ Barney is his dog.

- State of Denial, B. Woodward.

Well I guess Bush may soon only have his wife Laura & Barney supporting his Iraq policy after all. I’m going to hold all the neo-con’s and every supporter of this failed Iraq policy accountable from now till I’m no longer on Earth!

It’s looking like we may take back the House & maybe the Senate. That’s going to be h*ll to pay!!!

WOW your still up you old coot!

Didn’t like my idea of consolidating al these politcal post to one thread eh? :(

Oh well you can lead a horse…or uh…old goat, to water…

In good cheer Mike!

keep shinin’

jerm :cool:


Bush has got bogged down in Iraq through a lack of understanding of the complex relationships between Sunnis, Shi’ites and Kurds. Those relationships were kept in check by the iron hand of a brutal dictator. With freedom has come the ability to express the old tribal tensions.
What is happening now, regardless of how Mr Bush and Co describe it, is civil war.
However, the US is there! As a matter of opinion, what would be your exit strategy?


His usual strategy is to bitch and blame thru masterful use of “cut and paste”…with no real opinions on what should be done…Which of course is just my opinion :laugh:

Ian - you are exactly right! Of course, some of us knew this before the war started.


with no real opinions on what should be done…

That’s a fair question - what to do now? I don’t think there is any clear path at the moment because the whole thing is screwed up. Of course, I didn’t know what to go to war with Iraq in the first place because I thought the outcome might be what it is. Given the information I have, which hopefully is less than Bush, I would say that Iraq should be 1) 2 or 3 states, or 2) we should install another strong-arm like Saddam (but our strong-arm), or 3) we should start bringing troops out quickly & let the whole thing fall into chaos. Seriously, there’s no good answer at this point IMO.

Well, it’s tough to come up with a solution to this intractable unsolvable problem, when you are one of the people who always knew that the unnecc. invasion would cause an intractable, unsolvable problem. Let those who created this awful mess decide how to fix it.

But here’s a starting point. EG Vietnam, the internal political situation couldn’t even start to resolve itself until the external agents (irritants) departed from the scene. Just like Vietnam, it will have to get worse before it gets better, but there is zero that the US can do to avoid that now. The longer we stay, the longer we delay any eventual solution.

re: this whole knee-jerk no-thought comeback from Iraq-war-supporters - ‘if we leave it will be a bloodbath’. Define bloodbath. Does it not resemble today ?

kymarcus - I agree with you to some extent, but I do see a difference between Vietnam & Iraq. If we just pull out, we don’t know what will happen in Iraq but most likely an Islamic state will form under the guidance/support of Iran. The question is: will this create a more dangerous situation for Americans? Just like in Vietnam, we thought that would happen also, but eventually the communist threat diminshed & we won the Cold War (of course, it took many years). The question is: if we just pull out, will we eventually win the war against terrorism? It’s hard to say. Of course, the neo-cons will say no. Who knows now - it’s a big mess.


2) we should install another strong-arm like Saddam (but our strong-arm)

Well, history has shown that never works, although, usually the US tries to do this by covert means.

1. I say we pull out.
2. Treat all those who served as heroes.
3. Give all the money made on the war (the countless billions from war profiteering) split evenly among all those who served.
4. Spent a small percentage of the amount of money spent on the war in developing clean energy sources (solar, wind, hydro…etc)
5. Become a new technological power from the investment in clean technologies.
6. Give the technology to those countries that are our allys.
7. Stop using all foreign oil suppliers and bankrupt the middle east governments and terrorist groups.
8. Lead the world in clean, terror free energy.

But in the short term, we need to start taking our troops out of the country and allow the 300,000 Iraqi troops to take over control of the country. We need to get the UN involved so that the UN “peace keepers” will continue to train and back up the Iraqi forces that we have already trained.

oh yeah, one more thing…

9. Once all the troops are home, George Bush should have to bend over in front of them so that they can each (if they choose) take turns kicking him in the a$$.

3 states is the best option - look at the history of Iraq - it was an artificial creation in the first place - and people have been migrating back to their ethnic centers anyway.

Notice that political pressure works even with Bush - he has had to bend to the will of the people, who want our course there changed. Sure, he’s bending because a bunch of republicans are going down in flames thsi election, but he’s bending nonetheless. A small victory for democracy.


he has had to bend to the will of the people

Is that not the way it has always worked? We don’t like whats going on… we make our displeasure known at the polls. Things change… a little…

Quote (Diogenes @ Oct. 21 2006,21:41)
[QUOTE] he has had to bend to the will of the peopleQUOTE]

Is that not the way it has always worked? We don't like whats going on... we make our displeasure known at the polls. Things change... a little...



You gotta larff.
Wasn't it Uncle Joe who said,
"Those who cast their votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything"

Didn't Saddam have nearly 100% at his last "election"



I don’t necessarily mean the voting polls. The public opinion polls are mighty powerful… that’s what Dub and gang are caving in to…


“Caving” - I like the sound of that.

In any case, it shows that the system is not entirely broken, yet. Now watch how W tries to put his spin on it - it’s not a change in policy, just a change in strategy. Yeah, right.



We don’t like whats going on… we make our displeasure known at the polls. Things change… a little…

That’s assumes people know what’s really going on. Free, independent press!

I’m watchin’ the presses press conference right now.

He’s said repeatedly that we are fighting a war of ideologies.

So, shouldn’t we be sending some professors over there with books?

At least a few people with experties in that field?

Keep shinin’

jerm :cool:


He’s said repeatedly that we are fighting a war of ideologies.

Ideology, now that is a wonderful justification for 600,000 corpses.

So does anyone here understand Bush’s new Iraq policy? :laugh:

From the Detroit Free Press:


The Bush White House is known for staying on message, but its message on Iraq has grown a little murky…

“Stay the course” is no longer operative. “Timetables” are bad, but “benchmarks” are OK – as long as they don’t include deadlines. Our goals are “unchanging,” but our tactics are “flexible.” And we’re “winning,” unless we leave too soon, and there’s "tough fighting ahead. We should not expect a simple solution."

Bush’s semantic tap dance highlights one of his toughest election-year challenges: how to show war-weary voters that he is confident and resolute, without giving the impression he is unrealistic and inflexible…



The text of President Bush’s news conference yesterday ran to nearly 10,000 words, but what may have been more significant were the things he did not say.

The president talked repeatedly about “benchmarks” for progress in Iraq, using that word 13 times. But he did not discuss the consequences of the Iraqi government missing those targets. Such a question, he said, was "hypothetical."

Come on right-wingers, please explain this new strategy to me because I DO NOT GET IT.

Our SuperCarriers are in the Gulf now playing war games (provocative) near Iran.

3 guesses what the plan is.