An Administration's Epic Collapse

[ABushismaDay]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 43,00.html

The first three months of the new Democratic Congress have been neither terrible nor transcendent. A Pew poll had it about right: a substantial majority of the public remains happy the Democrats won in 2006, but neither Nancy Pelosi nor Harry Reid has dominated the public consciousness as Newt Gingrich did when the Republicans came to power in 1995. There is a reason for that. A much bigger story is unfolding: the epic collapse of the Bush Administration.

The three big Bush stories of 2007--the decision to "surge" in Iraq, the scandalous treatment of wounded veterans at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys for tawdry political reasons--precisely illuminate the three qualities that make this Administration one of the worst in American history: arrogance (the surge), incompetence (Walter Reed) and cynicism (the U.S. Attorneys).

Iraq comes first, as always. From the start, it has been obvious that personal motives have skewed the President's judgment about the war. Saddam tried to kill his dad; his dad didn't try hard enough to kill Saddam. There was payback to be had. But never was Bush's adolescent petulance more obvious than in his decision to ignore the Baker-Hamilton report and move in the exact opposite direction: adding troops and employing counterinsurgency tactics inappropriate to the situation on the ground. "There was no way he was going to accept [its findings] once the press began to portray the report as Daddy's friends coming to the rescue," a member of the Baker-Hamilton commission told me. As with Bush's invasion of Iraq, the decision to surge was made unilaterally, without adequate respect for history or military doctrine. Iraq was invaded with insufficient troops and planning; the surge was attempted with too few troops (especially non-Kurdish, Arabic-speaking Iraqis), a purposely misleading time line ("progress" by September) and, most important, the absence of a reliable Iraqi government.

General David Petraeus has repeatedly said, "A military solution to Iraq is not possible." Translation: This thing fails unless there is a political deal among the Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds. There is no such deal on the horizon, largely because of the President's aversion to talking to people he doesn't like. And while some Baghdad neighborhoods may be more peaceful--temporarily--as a result of the increased U.S. military presence, the story two years from now is likely to resemble the recent headlines from Tall 'Afar: dueling Sunni and Shi'ite massacres have destroyed order in a city famously pacified by counterinsurgency tactics in 2005. Bush's indifference to reality in Iraq is not an isolated case. It is the modus operandi of his Administration. The indifference of his Environmental Protection Agency to the dangers of carbon dioxide emissions was rejected by the Supreme Court on April 2.

On April 3, the President again accused Democrats of being "more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than providing our troops what they need." Such demagoguery is particularly outrageous given the Administration's inability to provide our troops "what they need" at the nation's premier hospital for veterans. The mold and decrepitude at Walter Reed are likely to be only the beginning of the tragedy, the latest example of incompetence in this Administration. "This is yet another aspect of war planning that wasn't done properly," says Paul Rieckhoff of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. "The entire VA hospital system is unprepared for the casualties of Iraq, especially the psychiatric casualties. A lot of vets are saying, 'This is our Katrina moment.' And they're right: this Administration governs badly because it doesn't care very much about governing."

Compared with Iraq and Walter Reed, the firing of the U.S. Attorneys is a relatively minor matter. It is true that U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, but they are political appointees of a special sort. They are partisans, obviously, but must appear to be above politics--not working to influence elections, for example--if public faith in the impartiality of the justice system is to be maintained. Once again Karl Rove's operation has corrupted a policy area--like national security--that should be off-limits to political operators.

When Bush came to office--installed by the Supreme Court after receiving fewer votes than Al Gore--I speculated that the new President would have to govern in a bipartisan manner to be successful. He chose the opposite path, and his hyper-partisanship has proved to be a travesty of governance and a comprehensive failure. I've tried to be respectful of the man and the office, but the three defining sins of the Bush Administration--arrogance, incompetence, cynicism--are congenital: they're part of his personality. They're not likely to change. And it is increasingly difficult to imagine yet another two years of slow bleed with a leader so clearly unfit to lead.

[Dr. NO]

Palosi is gettin herself in trouble with head of foriegn states and her people here. Plus with a slim majority they can't do very much. newt had a bigger majority in both houses and a real plan.

he also had Bill in the Whitehouse, and seems Bill signed most of that plan into law.

[XtremeJibber2001]

I think it's very premature to say the surge is the wrong call or that it has failed.

[BigKahuna13]

I think it's very premature to say the surge is the wrong call or that it has failed.

If the general who's running the show is saying stuff like "there is no military solution" that's a good indication that the surge is probably a bad idea.

[XtremeJibber2001]

I think it's very premature to say the surge is the wrong call or that it has failed.

If the general who's running the show is saying stuff like "there is no military solution" that's a good indication that the surge is probably a bad idea.

He said that "any student of history recognizes there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency in Iraq."

"Military action is necessary to help improve security. . .but it is not sufficient," Petraeus said. "A political resolution of various differences. . .of various senses that people do not have a stake in the successes of Iraq and so forth that is crucial. That is what will determine, in the long run, the success of this effort.

U.S. officials, including Petraeus' predecessor Gen. George W. Casey Jr., have long expressed the opinion that no military solution to the Iraq crisis was possible without a political agreement among all the ethnic and religious factions including some Sunni insurgents.

However, previous overtures to the insurgents all faltered, apparently because of political opposition within Baghdad or Washington to some of the conditions.

I think what Petraeus is saying is that political agreements need to be made in order for the military to hold up their end of the deal. From the above, it doesn't sound like he's saying it's impossible, but more political agreements need to be met.

Right now, it's primarily sectarian violence and the military can't do anything to fix that problem ... without some sort of deal on the table for the different sects.

[BadDog]

I think it's very premature to say the surge is the wrong call or that it has failed.

What in history, military strategy, or gaming theory would lead you to think that it might in any way be the right call or that it has any reasonable chance of success?

What kind of odds would you give for a monetary wager?

[XtremeJibber2001]

I think it's very premature to say the surge is the wrong call or that it has failed.

What in history, military strategy, or gaming theory would lead you to think that it might in any way be the right call or that it has any reasonable chance of success?

What kind of odds would you give for a monetary wager?

I read a lot of military books and I love the history behind them, but I can't give a solid example. It shouldn't matter anyway seeing as this battle is unique compared to battles we've fought in the past.

I know in WWII the "surge" of US troops is what collapsed the Nazi regime ... sure, it's not the same scale, but it worked. Of course, someone is bound to chime in and slap me by saying "The Americans had nothing to do with the collapse of the Nazis"...

[BadDog]

It shouldn't matter anyway seeing as this battle is unique compared to battles we've fought in the past.

In what way?

I would argue the size of the "surge" does matter -- it defines whether you are trying to just prolong a war or win it. For a simplistic but useful model, try setting up a Risk board.

[XtremeJibber2001]

It shouldn't matter anyway seeing as this battle is unique compared to battles we've fought in the past.

In what way?

I would argue the size of the "surge" does matter -- it defines whether you are trying to just prolong a war or win it. For a simplistic but useful model, try setting up a Risk board.

Perhaps I need to restate my point-of-view on the matter.

- It's too early to brush off this surge as ineffective
- A surge is the solution to the insurgency, but I think a larger surge would be more beneficial.
- Despite the size of a troop surge, the cultural clashes we're seeing in Iraq can only be solved via political means.
- I don't see any logical reason why our President and/or Military would risk additional lives "just because".

Make more sense now?

[CAPBOY]

- It's too early to brush off this surge as ineffective

But what would it effect?

[XtremeJibber2001]

- It's too early to brush off this surge as ineffective

But what would it effect?

Safety?
Human Lives?
Iraq's Government?
IED's?
Suicide Bombes?

I could go on.

[CAPBOY]

- It's too early to brush off this surge as ineffective

But what would it effect?

Safety?
Human Lives?
Iraq's Government?
IED's?
Suicide Bombes?

I could go on.

Si you think that throwing a couple thoseand bodies, back up to maybe say, the level that they were at when the shock and awe began, would effect the outcome of his thing? Comeone. We don't have half of the stamina of these raducal kooks. Look at yourself, you call yourself conservative, until it comes to your doobs. We have not 1 8th of the principals and convictions of these guys htat wil strap bombs to themselves. How can out soldiers be effective whane we have radical thinkers like you as our political types?

[XtremeJibber2001]

Si you think that throwing a couple thoseand bodies, back up to maybe say, the level that they were at when the shock and awe began, would effect the outcome of his thing? Comeone. We don't have half of the stamina of these raducal kooks. Look at yourself, you call yourself conservative, until it comes to your doobs. We have not 1 8th of the principals and convictions of these guys htat wil strap bombs to themselves. How can out soldiers be effective whane we have radical thinkers like you as our political types?

Your initial post was a failed attempt to poke fun at me for not using what you view as the appropriate word, "affective". Now that I've explained myself and you clearly see I've used the word properly, now you actually want to have an intelligent conversation.

I believe if you review my initial post, I didn't say this surge "would be" effective, nor did I make the claim that "it will be" effective. I said it's too early to dismiss the surge as ineffective and I also think a large surge (i.e. 100K troops) would be much more beneficial to solving the problem at hand.

Leaving Iraq, as bad as I'd like to, just ain't going to cut it. We went over there with the intent in making things better, but we've made them worse. It's our job and duty to correct the problem and if we don't, we risk further injuring ourselves down the road.

You're right in the sense we don't have the stamina, but that's because the US population (ignorant as they may be) has given up their support of this war. Many still support our troops, but you don't see very much of that anymore, do you? I think it would greatly help our troops, this country, and deminish the insurgents "stamina" if our Country was again united as we were after 9/11. Unfortunately, congress (both Republicans and Democrats) have used this war as a political talking point and I feel quite frankly don't give a damn about the war as long as they're elected. They're spending hours debating "non-binding" horsesh1t and making on-line gambling illegal, instead of tackling the real issues.

I don't call myself conservative, I may have, but that was a very poor decision on my part considering the composition of the Conservative/Republican party. IMHO, this Conservative/Republican party looks like a bunch of Democrats. Spending is huge, gov't size has increased, debt has increased more then 10 fold, we've introduced more bureaucracy like DHS and FEMA, more layers of trash. Instead of fixing the problems pre-9/11, we've just kept the problems in place and added another layer of crap. Heck, a good example is 9/11, the same problems existed on 9/11 that existed in 1993 during the first bombing. Why? Because politicians just threw money at the problem instead of really sitting down and trying to fix the big problem. It cost close to 1,000 people their lives and it was directly attributed to NYC's negligence. Oh, and I almost forgot, the same problems still exist today despite those that gave their lives that day. Hm, don't see Hillary or GWB trying to fix that problem, do we? Why?

I'm radical? You're kidding, right? Surely you were drinking before making a post at 11pm with more misspellings then Dr. No.

I'm registered independent. The two main political parties don't support much of my views in the least. Personally, Conservatives should be Pro-Doobs and Pro-Choice, after all, they are the party of "small gov't", aren't they?

Our soldiers can be more effective if Political Correctness is given a back seat, if US citizens and other people around the World support our cause, if public servants unite against the war on terror rather then play hot potato with the war, and if we cut the sh*t and throw everything we've got at this war.

No one thought there would be an end to Nazi Germany or Communist Russia, but our resolve and hard work on the political and military fronts allowed us to prevail. It's been a little over 4 years and there aren't many people who think we can succeed. Imagine how different the World would be today if we didn't have people with strong backbones like JFK and Reagan? Would the Wall still be up? Would we have had a nuclear bomb dropped on our shores?

Very few countries have joined us in the past in stopping terror and I don't think it will be any different in the future. However, more often then not, we've been on the right side of history.

Perhaps this time you will respond with something intelligent and explain how my views are "radical" and why the surge "will never work" and how you think "we can succeed" in the war against Islamic radicals?

[KMartman]

Lets see what history says in 20 years about G.W's time in office..

I think you'll see a much different middle east in 20 years...

Only time will tell though.

M

[millerm277]

I think you'll see a much different middle east in 20 years...

Actually, I bet you will see the same damn thing. Israelis and Palestinians still fighting, and foreign powers meddling in other parts of the middle east making problems worse.....unless, the oil is exhausted, in which case, the middle east will be like africa....totally screwed up, without anyone caring about it, unless it gets REALLY bad.