SOTU: Escalation Has Been Tried And Failed
SOTU: Escalation Has Been Tried And Failed
Bush said: “My fellow citizens, our military commanders and I have carefully weighed the options. We discussed every possible approach. In the end, I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance of success.”
FACT — ESCALATION HAS BEEN A FAILURE: During the last six months, the United States has increased — or “surged” — the number of American troops in Baghdad by 12,000, yet the violence and deaths of Americans and Iraqis has climbed alarmingly, averaging 960 a week since the latest troop increase. This past summer, Bush announced a major effort to secure Baghdad, stating at a news conference that thousands of U.S.-led coalition troops would be moved into the city. Violence intensified throughout the country, and U.S. deaths in Iraq spiked. [AP, 1/9/07; Washington Post, 10/27/06; CNN, 6/14/06]
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
New Strategy: "CHOOSE VICTORY"
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:46 pmThe definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:46 pmEscalating the Iraq war with more troops will not lead to success!
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:47 pmI abhor war and view it as the greatest scourge of mankind.
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:48 pm---Thomas Jefferson
"Those darn escalators are complicated"
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:48 pmThere are no winners in war.
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:49 pmGWB, you are a drowning man.
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:50 pmAnd you take the troops with you, but they drown in blood.
#3, Upon what do you base that statement, Jay? Do you completely discount out of hand the possibility that the presence of some 21,000 U.S. troops in Baghdad might just help quell the sectarian violence in Iraq's capital?
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:53 pmMy first wish is to see this plague of mankind, war, banished from the earth.
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:57 pm---George Washington
Exley > no amount of troops can end the violence in Iraq, but it can kill more Iraqis and get more of our own troops slain too.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:01 pmJay, I am not saying that the "surge" will, in fact, work. I do not have the expertise or experience to say one way or the other what impact it will have. I am simply hopeful that it will work. I am not ready to say at this point that it is hopeless.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:05 pmBoy is Exley's face gonna be red when the surge doesn't work.
Right....who cares.
You need to sign up for the surge, Ex.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:08 pmwhoever's carrying the biggest stick is likely to be able to restore order, but not to maintain it. as any expert in asymmetric warfare and who understands modern civil war, we can't just target the "bad guys" anymore, because there's a public that will turn against you as well. you must also be able to protect civilians and govern for a long period after. there are no established institutions of governance in iraq that have a monopoly on the use of physical force. and there won't be for a long time. we'll be there a while no matter what. and more troops just means more boys away from home, just as long. it's like the 38th parallel in korea - we've been there forever. and it's still the most militarized border in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Demilitarized_Zone
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:11 pm“My fellow citizens, our military commanders and I have carefully weighed, then dismissed those options. We discussed every possible approach. In the end, I chose this course of action because it was exactly what I wanted to do in the first place." "Heh"
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:49 pmthe reason bush/cheney never had an exit strategy is...they never planned to exit. duh. surge or no surge, the game is to do whatever it takes to maintain permanent bases in iraq, invade iran, gain control over the oil. actually, the plan was laid out a couple of weeks ago, didja see that? it would make it ok for american oil co's to make 'up to 75% of the profits'...but if you were paying attention way back at the beginning about the reason osama bin laden's 'base' organization hq'd in afghanistan had been trying to blow up american targets since 1991, you'd remember it was chiefly because our infidel boots were on their soil [desert storm]. iraq had nothing to do with anything but the combined lust for oil on the part of b/c's big oil friends, and the industrial/military lust for power bases in the middle east. that's why iran is next.
January 24th, 2007 at 1:38 am