Reactions to Troop Surge speeches, etc.
Bush started his speech last night warning about those forces who are threatening to topple the Iraqi government. Anyone else see the irony?
One of Bush's main rationalizations for staying in Iraq is that local leaders in Al-Anbar(sp?) province have started cooperating with US forces against Al Qaeda forces who alienated the tribal leaders because of vicious acts against local residents. If the situation was the same as now, except that either Saddam Hussein or forces from Iran or Russia or wherever were in our place in Iraq, would the tribal leaders be cooperating with them? In other words, does the cooperation have anything to do with our presence other than the fact that US forces just HAPPEN to be military forces present there?
The recommendation of General Patraeus(sp?) accepted & advocated by Bush is to reduce troops in Iraq back to pre-surge levels by next summer. So troop levels about 9 months from now will be the same as troop levels about 9 months ago. Is this really considered progress?
Bush cited progress by saying essentially that people in Iraq no longer (or less so) fear violent death by beheading, etc. Yet later in the speech he talked about the cooperative tribal leader who was killed yesterday.
Finally, in a response Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee drew a distinction between Iraq & Vietnam the following way: Iraq is a theological war; Vietnam was a geographical or geo-political war. But the reason the US went into Vietnam- and certainly the reason we stayed- was because of a war of ideologies: western democracy vs. communism. To the (large!) extent that a "theological" war is equivalent to an ideological war, then Iraq is still similar to Vietnam. From (several) things I've seen recently, Huckabee seems to be a very nice, upbeat, and- unlike Bush- articulate guy, but statements like this have been negating such positives IMHO.
*sigh* Wake me up when September ends.
One of Bush's main rationalizations for staying in Iraq is that local leaders in Al-Anbar(sp?) province have started cooperating with US forces against Al Qaeda forces who alienated the tribal leaders because of vicious acts against local residents. If the situation was the same as now, except that either Saddam Hussein or forces from Iran or Russia or wherever were in our place in Iraq, would the tribal leaders be cooperating with them? In other words, does the cooperation have anything to do with our presence other than the fact that US forces just HAPPEN to be military forces present there?
The recommendation of General Patraeus(sp?) accepted & advocated by Bush is to reduce troops in Iraq back to pre-surge levels by next summer. So troop levels about 9 months from now will be the same as troop levels about 9 months ago. Is this really considered progress?
Bush cited progress by saying essentially that people in Iraq no longer (or less so) fear violent death by beheading, etc. Yet later in the speech he talked about the cooperative tribal leader who was killed yesterday.
Finally, in a response Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee drew a distinction between Iraq & Vietnam the following way: Iraq is a theological war; Vietnam was a geographical or geo-political war. But the reason the US went into Vietnam- and certainly the reason we stayed- was because of a war of ideologies: western democracy vs. communism. To the (large!) extent that a "theological" war is equivalent to an ideological war, then Iraq is still similar to Vietnam. From (several) things I've seen recently, Huckabee seems to be a very nice, upbeat, and- unlike Bush- articulate guy, but statements like this have been negating such positives IMHO.
*sigh* Wake me up when September ends.