If he's gonna' talk like that, don't let him out in public
Saturday, January 27, 2007 at 5:16PM ARTICLE: Defending Iraq War, Defiant Cheney Cites 'Enormous Successes', By Peter Baker, Washington Post, January 25, 2007; Page A01
ARTICLE: Bush Plans New Focus On Afghan Recovery: Extra $7 Billion Would Go to Security, Roads, By Michael Abramowitz, Washington Post, January 25, 2007; Page A01
Cheney's disconnect comes off as scary weird. He shouldn't be allowed in public if he's going to go all brittle like that. He'll end up being a bigger danger to Petraeus than Maliki if he keeps it up.
Meanwhile, the $7B announcement on Afghanistan is encouraging.
In retrospect, history will wonder aloud why America didn't put in the huge effort on Afghanistan and temporize on Iraq (something I addressed in a column a way back). Now, we're backfilling on both Afghanistan and Iraq and contemplating war on Iran (my weekend column that Scripps will post and distro tomorrow).
In defense of Bush (very cynically): no matter how bad Iraq goes, his Big Bang is actually extended further and better by worse outcome than by opposite (Iraq as dream case), because Iraq-dream-case dismissed regionally as American pilot study and not indicative. Plus, in that case we'd probably just be pursuing the same ramp-up on Iran, with the same "brave" effort from Saudis ("you spill blood, we'll make more profit by pumping harder and doing our bit to reduce Iran's revenue"). If that was path, we'd likely have just blundered into unsustainable invasion of Iran (can't handle 20m in Iraq when things go bad, so 70m in Iran... hard to be optimistic).
Of course, with this path (Iraq sucks), we're mostly blowing smoke on Iran. But we're more likely to get--however scary--further and faster on conflating conflicts (unless pushed too much to fight Israel's desired war with Iran, because then the global blowback on us overwhelms any localized dynamics we may wish for)
in that the Saudis are forced to fish or cut bait on the Sunni Triangle.
But here's why I think the Iran-war-sales-job is so real: not just Tel Aviv but also Riyadh pushing the package (both the blood and the treasure).
Think Bush won't do it? Rewatch the Cheney interview with Wolf and remember that he's the adult in the room when that gut decision gets made.
Scary enough when the president has no cares about legacy. Now we contemplate matching that dynamic to Cheney's own disdain.
And under the right conditions?
We will see impeachment proceedings.
Don't believe? Then you need to check out Biden's long soliloquy yesterday on the Senate's options, cause those gears are turning.
Reader Comments (13)
I'm disturbed, though, by the large number of Republicans who are starting to patronize the Copperhead Cafe. Even the President's public (and I hope it's only public) eating of humble pie is more than a little upsetting as we've become accustomed to actual leadership (what comes of not being concerned for legacy) rather than poll watching.
I'm glad Peyton Manning didn't give up at halftime and can't quite grasp why we seem so willing to do so, bing only 4 years into an 8 year minimum conflict, a 12 year minimum training commitment, and a 20 year minimum poitical process.
Can't for the life of me figure out why, if it's so d**nably important to duck out of Iraq, why it's not equally important to do likewise here, or Bosnia/Kosovo, or S. Korea.
As for impeachment, between two Democrat precedents, Jacksonian one man with courage being a majority and the Clintonian proof that impeachment means nothing, I give it a big "who cares," in the event.
thank you for your service.
with all due respect, while i may agree with your assessment of how long success would/will take, NO ONE, signed up for 4 years, not to mention 20. we NEVER could have gotten buy-in on four years and we certainly didn't plan for four years.
or am i wrong?
It can't be done faster. There are no shortcuts. Or at any rate, it's never been done faster and shortcuts that work have not yet been found.
No one signed up for the 15 we've put into Bosnia/Kosovo either, and yet....
Who bought in, in advance, to 57 years and counting in Korea? And they say that they will be ready to take over their own defense entirely by 2012. 62 years. Bravo.
80 years in the Philippines? Who predicted that?
Or perhaps we'd rather Iraq be our new Haiti, where we just pop in for a reigeme change or a "stop shooting each other" session every 3 to 5 years because we never finished the initial investment.
Or even better, after 30 years of slaughter, destitution and despotism, then they can be like Vietnam (maybe) and start taking tentative steps toward connectivity.
All I'm saying is that when I go try to check out his Guard records, my explanation of why they're not available better include 5 free lap dances.
Good luck over there. I was a troop on the ground with the 101st in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
I understand your point bout the shortsightedness of people regarding these wars. I think people would be ok with a longer duration (like Kosovo and Bosnia) if it looked like the people in charge knew what they were doing. I firmly believe Bremmer messed up any chance we had when he was put in charge of CPA, but that’s a bigger issue.
As far as Iran is concerned, right now the Iranian people love us. Watch Ted Koppel’s documentary when he went over there. The kids there have all but given up the mullahs message. The only thing that could change their thinking now would be if we’re stupid enough to bomb them. Look at it this way: If you’re a Soldier then you’ve spent plenty of time complaining about your unit, bosses, etc to other guys IN YOUR UNIT. But what happens when a guy from another BN, BDE, or even Division starts trashing your group? You circle the wagons. Only YOU can bad-mouth YOUR unit. It’s the same with the Iranians. They’ll be with us as long as we don’t screw it up. Just give it time.
And before you worry about Ahmedinijad selling nukes to Al-Quida or Hezbollah, remember Pakistan has a FAR more likely chance of letting that happen, and we’re not talking about bombing them.
Again, good luck and stay safe.
Thank you RTO Trainer for your service and your thoughts. Via con Dios.
As for your list of other long commitments, the US has drawn down to 100 soldiers there.
"No One" GI-wise or "no one" politically?
In the case of the latter, no one should be surprised at multi-tours and extensions. It's the freakin' Army for crying out loud. Nothing goes right and everything takes longer than it should. That tours of duty are only months and not years long is a late 20th-century development.
In the case of the latter, GW said on 9/20/01: "Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. "
While there can be a debate about if we signed on for four years or not, I don't believe any corporate entity signed on for 1 trillion or so.
I think corporate and the military/industrial complex figured Iraq as a huge cash cow, much in the way TPMB says use it or lose it.
If there is any movement to end this war it will come from the Corporations that are starting to believe OBL promise of killing the US by making it spend itself to death.