Unbelieveable

[Diogenes]

Isn't it supposed to be:

1. Conquer Iraq
2. Install Democracy
3. ?
4. PROFIT!

Nah, that's just left wing propaganda. You really shouldn't be spreading it, because it damages the country when lies are promulgated.

<sigh>
It's an internet meme. You start with two insane steps, and have a third, unknown step, and the 4th step is PROFIT!

The joke is that the two steps are mildly insane and only slightly related, and the 3rd step is impossible.

Sorry, I'm so accustomed to dealing with people who think profit is a dirty word that whenever I hear the word (especially in the context of the Iraq War) I normally assume the worst.

I guess it's my turn to miss when someone is making a joke.

[Diogenes]

We could have done it five years earlier while spending less and saving several thousand lives.

This also has knock-on effects to our strategic situation today. If the U.S. had spent a few hundred billion dollars less on the war in Iraq, along with the last few years' worth of interest servicing payments on that borrowed money, it would now have been in a better position to deal with the financial crisis that started in 2008. Still not in a great position, still running a huge deficit, but not as bad.

Or, that money could still have been spent, but on much more extensive reconstruction employing Iraqis and creating a robust middle class there (and therefore greater stability).

Also, a surge into Afghanistan would have become possible years earlier. That may well have stabilized the situation there far better than the delayed return of strategic focus to Afghanistan that only happened over the last year.

Then, of course, there is the possibility that various elections would have gone rather differently... not just in the U.S., but possibly also in allies like Spain and Holland where controversy over military commitments in Iraq or Afghanistan have had a major impact.

In terms of grand strategy a drawn-out, expensive conflict in Iraq was one of the worst things that could happen.

Edit: Just to make sure I'm not sounding too defeatist, I will say that there is still hope that the Bush admin's grand strategy will work: if Iraq continues to improve it can become a prosperous democratic state in the middle east which will undermine extremism throughout the region. However, the "fat lady" hasn't sung yet. I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.

Now we just need polywell to work out in order to create cheap energy in North America and draw manufacturing jobs back from overseas, open new industrial possibilities, and cause massive creation of new wealth and a surge in the economy that will allow most of the debt to be easily paid off... keeping my fingers crossed on that one too

From your response I gather that you more or less see the Bush grand strategy the way I do. We are also in agreement as to where he flubbed it up, and what some of the consequences were. Good to know. The fact that other people can see the same thing means that there is credibility to the theory.

[Diogenes]

Diogenes - Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 4:24 pm

That is my take of the Grand Strategy as well.

Cool! That means i'm NOT crazy! Woo Hoo!


Is anyone here familiar with the Nibelungen ring saga? My first thought on perceiving what Bush was trying to do was to think of how Wotan was trying to cheat Fafner out of the ring, but couldn't take it himself because he had given his word. Wotan set in motion a series of events calculated to achieve his desire, but events which he could deny all responsibility for, and therefore be able to claim he hadn't broken his word.

Oh what a tangled web we weave...

[Diogenes]

Or, that money could still have been spent, but on much more extensive reconstruction employing Iraqis and creating a robust middle class there (and therefore greater stability).

Instead it was wasted on attracting jihadis to Iraq and then killing them.

In that regard, it was beneficial, but it certainly doesn't appear as if that aspect of it was planned with malice aforethought, rather it was the serendipitous outcome of a series of blunders.

[Diogenes]

Okay... I may be going out on a limb here, since you folks have put far more thought and analysis into the subject than I have - but what responsibility does the Department of State have in all this mess? Seems to me from what I was observing at the time that their Foriegn Office types were charged with advising Bush on who to trust, who to appoint, who was capable of what - and a lot of them were long-term folks who saw Bush as both an interloper AND not a Democrat, so anything they could do to trip him up was fair game.

"Yeah, let's advise that darn cowboy on how to run Iraq - and then just go "Hey, not our fault!" when it all goes down the crapper! It's a twofer - we look good and he looks like shit!"

And let's be honest, here - even under Obama they've pulled some darn silly crap. Remember Hillary's 'reset' button and the screwed up translation? I'm sure Lavrov was QUITE amused at the joke by the State Department translators.

There's something deeply wrong in State, no matter what the administration.

Not just State, but the CIA as well. It's full of northeastern liberal ivy league educated DEMOCRATS, and that is what's wrong with it. The CIA was intentionally manipulating their reports to reflect what the bureaucrats in the CIA WANTED it to say, rather than the truth. The Fact that Valerie Plame could send her Extremist liberal husband on ANY kind of mission at CIA expense is indicative of a seriously askew mindset in the ranks of that organization. I personally think the man should have been charged with conducting foreign policy against the interests of the United States and contrary to the Legitimate authority of the Executive branch of government.

The same mindset occurs at the State department. The Fact of the matter is, those type of people who gravitate towards careers in government are in fact the Left-wing minded people. Most conservative minded people go into business, and only seek influence in government for the purpose of self defense.

The solution is the same. Make the government smaller so it can't keep these assholes on the payroll. Perhaps if they try to get REAL jobs, they might learn why their ideas are so foolish. In any case, the problem is ubiquitous in the Federal Bureaucracy, and in lesser governments as well.

[WizWom]

As far as what we are doing in Iraq:

When you conquer a place, you are responsible for it. It's as simple as that.

[JLawson]

Not just State, but the CIA as well. It's full of northeastern liberal ivy league educated DEMOCRATS, and that is what's wrong with it. The CIA was intentionally manipulating their reports to reflect what the bureaucrats in the CIA WANTED it to say, rather than the truth. The Fact that Valerie Plame could send her Extremist liberal husband on ANY kind of mission at CIA expense is indicative of a seriously askew mindset in the ranks of that organization. I personally think the man should have been charged with conducting foreign policy against the interests of the United States and contrary to the Legitimate authority of the Executive branch of government.

The same mindset occurs at the State department. The Fact of the matter is, those type of people who gravitate towards careers in government are in fact the Left-wing minded people. Most conservative minded people go into business, and only seek influence in government for the purpose of self defense.

The solution is the same. Make the government smaller so it can't keep these assholes on the payroll. Perhaps if they try to get REAL jobs, they might learn why their ideas are so foolish. In any case, the problem is ubiquitous in the Federal Bureaucracy, and in lesser governments as well.

Heard on the news this afternoon that a State Department employee had been convicted of passing secret info to Cuba.

A retired State Department intelligence analyst was sentenced to life in prison and his wife got more than six years on Friday for spying for Cuba for nearly 30 years in a screenplay-ready tale of romance and espionage.

Walter Kendall Myers, 73, and Gwendolyn Steingraber Myers, 72, agreed to forfeit $1.7 million in cash and property, including all of Kendall Myers's federal salary over the years. He did not have to give up 38-foot sailboat he once said they might use in retirement to sail to the communist country.

"If someone despises the American government to the extent that appears to be the case, you can pack your bags and leave," U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said, "and it doesn't seem to me you continue to bear the benefits this country manages to provide and seek to undermine it."

It was a grim ending to the Myerses' idealistic embrace of the Cuban revolution, with one slight comfort. Handing down punishment for Walter Myers's guilty plea in November to conspiracy to commit espionage and two counts of wire fraud, Walton endorsed the couple's request to be incarcerated near each other with easier access to their siblings, children and grandchildren.

The judge's sentence for Gwen Myers fell halfway between the 72 months to 90 months she had agreed to in her deal with prosecutors, for gathering and transmitting national defense information. Her lawyers cited her age, failing health -- including a heart attack since her June 2009 arrest -- and secondary role in the scheme. The couple, wearing blue jumpsuits over long-sleeved white shirts, held hands while the sentence was read.

"We did not act out of anger toward the United States or from any thought of anti-Americanism," Myers said in at 10-minute statement in seeking leniency for his wife. "We did not intend to hurt any individual American. Our only objective was to help the Cuban people defend their revolution. We only hoped to forestall conflict" between the countries.

The sentencing continues Washington's summer of serial spy intrigues. Barely a week after the United States and Russia completed the exchange of 14 agents allegedly planted in each other's country in a diplomatic maneuver reminiscent of the Cold War, the Washington couple's sentencing cast a reminder of unresolved tensions across the 90-mile-wide Straits of Florida.

US Analyst spying for Cuba

30 years. But he did it for the best of reasons.

Makes you wonder just how deep the rot is, and what other messes they've gotten us into.

[MSimon]

Or, that money could still have been spent, but on much more extensive reconstruction employing Iraqis and creating a robust middle class there (and therefore greater stability).

Instead it was wasted on attracting jihadis to Iraq and then killing them.

In that regard, it was beneficial, but it certainly doesn't appear as if that aspect of it was planned with malice aforethought, rather it was the serendipitous outcome of a series of blunders.

It takes real genius to turn blunders to advantage.

[Diogenes]

Instead it was wasted on attracting jihadis to Iraq and then killing them.

In that regard, it was beneficial, but it certainly doesn't appear as if that aspect of it was planned with malice aforethought, rather it was the serendipitous outcome of a series of blunders.

It takes real genius to turn blunders to advantage.

A smarter genius wouldn't make the blunders in the first place. He would turn his advantage to GREATER advantage!

[Diogenes]

US Analyst spying for Cuba

30 years. But he did it for the best of reasons.

Makes you wonder just how deep the rot is, and what other messes they've gotten us into.

Joe McCarthy was RIGHT ! (Meaning correct.)

[MSimon]

Or maybe it was a consequence of Feith's failure to plan. Feith insists that they had numerous plans for post-Saddam Iraq, to cover every contingency. The only one they didn't plan for was the case where all of Iraq's government related agencies collapsed and ceased to function upon Saddam's removal.

And none of those overseeing Feith saw the oversight? I'd call that a management failure.

Or maybe they didn't plan for that because there is very little hope of taking immediate action where there is instantly no government. Obviously bringing in 400,000 administrators from the US was out of the question.

i.e. not a situation you plan for. One you deal with. Which is to say - hand it over to the local commanders and let them patch it as best as they can.

And of course we won (for now) despite our ineptness. That is the case for all wars. The jihadis had a pretty good plan too. And many in America were convinced in 2007 that they had won. By fall 2008 they were packing it in.

[MSimon]

In that regard, it was beneficial, but it certainly doesn't appear as if that aspect of it was planned with malice aforethought, rather it was the serendipitous outcome of a series of blunders.

It takes real genius to turn blunders to advantage.

A smarter genius wouldn't make the blunders in the first place. He would turn his advantage to GREATER advantage! :)

Ah. Another believer in the perfectibility of a man. Let alone all men.

You work with the talent you do have not the talent you wish you had.

[CaptainBeowulf]

Instead it was wasted on attracting jihadis to Iraq and then killing them.

I can see your point, however, the mismanagement in Iraq probably also facilitated the recruiting of a lot of additional people to the Jihadi cause which wouldn't otherwise have happened. You could argue that it's good that those people were eliminated as well, however, I suspect that many of them, had they continued to be employed by something like the Iraqi army, would have eventually matured into acceptable people who could have contributed usefully to Iraqi society.

The campaign in Afghanistan was always going to attract the hardcore jihadis anyway - they're the ones you want. Why have unnecessary bloodshed?

You work with the talent you do have not the talent you wish you had.

This is, generally speaking, true - and it's the reason that we manage to "muddle through" despite mismanagement. Fortunately, the situation in Iraq was at least temporarily retrieved - and hopefully permanently retrieved.

And of course we won (for now) despite our ineptness. That is the case for all wars

Some might suggest it's a pattern: the U.S. (Union) Army got badly bruised at the beginning of the Civil War, and also had a bit of trouble before the learning curve took off in WWII (ie. Kasserine Pass).

[MSimon]

Why have unnecessary bloodshed?

It killed (if you will pardon the expression) any support residual or otherwise for the jihadis.

As to unnecessary bloodshed - that was a jihadi specialty. It is what lost them the war and ANY chance of a comeback in Iraq for 20 to 40 years.

[CaptainBeowulf]

Actually, I think that raises a good point: their mismanagement of their strategic aims was worse than anything done by people on our side.