Excellent reading from Statfor on Bush and Iraq

[Mike AI]

I have always known and said that Iraq was a "strategic"
move in the War on Terrorism and kneww that the WMD's and bringing "Freedom"
to the Iraqis was a by-product and a cause celeb' only as I am sure you did
as well. I always did think Bush should lay it out to America in a "Cold
Blooded" way that Iraq was a building block in the ultimate scheme/strategy to isolate, defeat and kill Terrorists.

Heck, we didn't make many excuses for grabbing the Southwest of N. America away from Mexico in 1846 Mexican War that we really started just for that purpose. (Ostensibly, we were coming to aid of Republic of Texas, etc.,etc. and Santa Ana just stupidly played right into our hands.), right?


Bush's Crisis: Articulating a Strategy in Iraq and the Wider War
>
> Summary
>
> President George W. Bush's press conference on Tuesday evening
> was fascinating in its generation of a new core justification for
> the Iraq campaign: building a democratic Iraq. It is unclear why
> Bush would find this a compelling justification for the invasion,
> but it is more unclear why the administration continues to
> generate unconvincing arguments for its Iraq policy, rather than
> putting forward a crisp, strategic and -- above all -- real
> justification.
>
> Analysis
>
> It is clear that the current crisis in Iraq was not expected by
> the Bush administration. That in itself ought not to be a
> problem. Even the most successful war is filled with unexpected
> and unpleasant surprises. D-Day in Normandy was completely fouled
> up; the German Ardennes offensive caught the Allies by surprise.
> No war goes as expected. However, in order to recover from the
> unexpected, it is necessary to have a clear strategic framework
> from which you are operating. This means a clearly understood
> concept of how the pieces of the war fit together -- a concept
> that can be clearly articulated to both the military and the
> public. Without a framework that defines where you are going, you
> can never figure out where you are. It becomes impossible to
> place the unexpected in an understandable context, and it becomes
> impossible to build trust among the political leadership, the
> military and the nation. This is why the 1968 Tet offensive in
> Vietnam was unmanageable -- yet the Ardennes offensive of 1944-
> 1945 was readily managed.
>
> In a piece entitled "Smoke and Mirrors: The United States, Iraq
> and Deception" which Stratfor published Jan. 21, 2003, we
> commented on the core of the coming Iraq campaign, which was that
> the public justification for the war (weapons of mass
> destruction) and the strategic purpose of the war (a step in
> redefining regional geopolitics) were at odds. We argued that:
> "In a war that will last for years, maintaining one's conceptual
> footing is critical. If that footing cannot be maintained -- if
> the requirements of the war and the requirements of strategic
> clarity are incompatible -- there are more serious issues
> involved than the future of Iraq."
>
> During President George W. Bush's press conference this week,
> that passage came to mind again. The press conference focused on
> what has become the new justification for the war -- bringing
> Western-style democracy to Iraq. A subsidiary theme was that Iraq
> had been a potential threat to the United States because it
> "coddled" terrorists. Mounting a multidivisional assault on a
> fairly large nation for these reasons might be superficially
> convincing, but they could not be the main reasons for invasion -
> - and they weren't. We will not repeat what we regard as the main
> line of reasoning (War Plan: Consequences
http://www.stratfor.com/story.neo)
> behind the invasion, because our readers are fully familiar with our
> read of the situation. We will merely reassert that the real reason --
> the capture of the most strategic country in the region in order to
> exert pressure on regimes that were in some way enablers of al Qaeda --
was
> more plausible, persuasive and defensible than the various public
> explanations, from links to al Qaeda to WMD to bringing democracy
> to the Iraqi masses. Such logic might work when it comes to
> sending a few Marines on a temporary mission to Haiti, but not
> for sending more than 130,000 troops to Iraq for an open-ended
> commitment.
>
> Answers and Platitudes
>
> Bush's inability and/or unwillingness to articulate a coherent
> strategic justification for the Iraq campaign -- one that
> integrates the campaign with the general war on Islamists that
> began Sept. 11 -- is at the root of his political crisis right
> now. If the primary purpose of the U.S. invasion of Iraq was to
> bring democracy to Iraq, then enduring the pain of the current
> crisis will make little sense to the American public. Taken in
> isolation, bringing democracy to Iraq may be a worthy goal, but
> not one taking moral precedence over bringing democracy to
> several dozen other countries -- and certainly not a project
> worth the sacrifices now being made necessary.
>
> If, on the other hand, the invasion was an integral part of the
> war that began Sept. 11, then Bush will generate public support
> for it. The problem that Bush has -- and it showed itself vividly
> in his press conference -- is that he and the rest of his
> administration are simply unable to embed Iraq in the general
> strategy of the broader war. Bush asserts that it is part of that
> war, but then uses the specific justification of bringing
> democracy to Iraq as his rationale. Unless you want to argue that
> democratizing Iraq -- assuming that is possible -- has strategic
> implications more significant than democratizing other countries,
> the explanation doesn't work. The explanation that does work --
> that the invasion of Iraq was a stepping-stone toward changes in
> behavior in other countries of the region -- is never given.
>
> We therefore wind up with an explanation that is only
> superficially plausible, and a price that appears to be
> excessive, given the stated goal. The president and his
> administration do not seem willing to provide a coherent
> explanation of the strategy behind the Iraq campaign. What was
> the United States hoping to achieve when it invaded Iraq, and
> what is it defending now? There are good answers to these
> questions, but Bush stays with platitudes.
>
> This is not only odd, but also it has substantial political
> implications for Bush and the United States. First, by providing
> no coherent answer, he leaves himself open to critics who are
> ascribing motives to his policy -- everything from controlling
> the world's oil supply, to the familial passion to destroy Saddam
> Hussein, to a Jewish world conspiracy. The Bush administration,
> having created an intellectual vacuum, can't complain when
> others, trying to understand what the administration is doing,
> gin up these theories. The administration has asked for it.
>
> There is an even more important dimension to this. The single
> most important thing that happened during the recent offensive in
> Iraq was that the United States entered into negotiations for the
> first time with the Sunni guerrillas in Al Fallujah. The United
> States has now traveled a path that began with Donald Rumsfeld's
> dismissing the guerrillas as a disorganized band of dead-enders
> and led to the belief (shared by us) that they had been fairly
> defeated in December 2003 -- and now to negotiations that were
> initiated by the United States. The negotiations began with a
> simple, limited cease-fire and have extended to a longer, more
> open-ended truce.
>
> The United States is facing the fact that the Sunni guerrillas
> have not only not been defeated, but that they are sufficiently
> well organized and supported by the broader Sunni population that
> negotiations are possible with them. There is an organized Sunni
> command authority that planned and executed this operation and is
> now weighing U.S. offers on a truce. That is a huge change in the
> U.S. perception of the Sunni guerrillas. Negotiations are also
> something that the administration would never have contemplated
> two weeks ago, regardless of how limited the topic might be. The
> idea that the United States needed to negotiate anything was
> unthinkable.
>
> This is not the only negotiation going on at the moment. There
> are negotiations with the Muqtada al-Sadr group. Negotiations
> with the Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani group. Discussions with the
> Iranians. Iraq is swirling with negotiations, offers, bluffs,
> double crosses and lies. It is quite a circus at the moment, with
> at least three major players (the Sunnis, the Shia, the United
> States) who are in turn fragmented in all sorts of fascinating
> ways -- and this doesn't even begin to include the Kurds and
> other minorities.
>
> Making Alliances
>
> The United States is going to have to make alliances. Its core
> alliance with the majority Shia has to be redefined in the wake
> of al-Sadr's uprising. Even if al-Sadr is destroyed with his
> militia, the United States and the Shia will have much to talk
> about. Far more important, the United States is now talking to
> the Sunni guerrillas. That might or might not lead anywhere, but
> it is vitally important to all sides, no matter what comes of it.
> The United States has recognized that the Sunni enemy is a
> competent authority in some sense -- and that changes everything.
>
> The United States will combine military action with political
> maneuvering. That is logical and inevitable in this sort of war.
> But as deals are cut with a variety of players, how will Bush's
> argument that the United States is building democracy in Iraq
> fly? The United States will be building coalitions. Whether it is
> a democracy is another matter. Indeed, it was al-Sistani
> demanding elections (which he knew the Shia would win) and the
> president putting off elections -- declaring at the press
> conference that he would not bend to Shiite demands on a
> timetable.
>
> The problem that Bush has created is that there is no conceptual
> framework in which to understand these maneuvers. Building
> democracy in Iraq is not really compatible with the deals that
> are going to have to be cut. It is not that cutting deals is a
> bad idea. It is not that the current crisis cannot be overcome
> with a combination of political and military action. The problem
> is that no one will know how the United States is doing, because
> it has not defined a conceptual framework for what it is trying
> to accomplish in Iraq -- or how Iraq fits into the war on the
> jihadists.
>
> Bush Political Crisis
>
> This is creating a massive political crisis for Bush
> domestically. The public knows there is a crisis in Iraq, but
> there is little understanding of how to judge whether the crisis
> is being managed. If the only criterion is the creation of
> democracy, that is not only a distant goal, but also one that
> will be undermined by necessary U.S. deal-making. Democracy -- by
> any definition that the American public can recognize -- is not
> coming to Iraq anytime soon. If that is the mark of success,
> Bush's only hope is that he won't be kept to a tight timetable.
> What is worse for Bush is that, in his news conference, he framed
> the coming presidential election as basically a referendum on his
> policy in Iraq. The less that policy is understood, and the more
> Iraq appears uncontrollable, the more vulnerable Bush will be to
> charges that the Iraq war was unjustified, and that it is a
> distraction from the wider war -- which the American electorate
> better understands and widely supports.
>
> He is facing John Kerry, who has shrewdly chosen to call neither
> for a withdrawal from Iraq nor for an end to the war on the
> Islamist world. Kerry's enormous advantage is that he can
> articulate a strategy without having to take responsibility for
> anything in the past. He can therefore argue that Bush's impulses
> were correct, but that he lacked a systematic strategy. Stratfor
> said in its annual forecast that the election was Bush's to lose.
> We now have to say that he is making an outstanding attempt to
> lose it.
> Obviously, the administration has a strategy in Iraq and the
> Islamic world. It is a strategy that is discussed inside the
> administration and is clearly visible outside. Obviously, there
> will be military and political reversals. The strategy and the
> reversals are far more understandable than the decisions the Bush
> administration has made in presenting them. It has adopted a two-
> tier policy: a complex and nearly hidden strategic plan and a
> superficial public presentation.
>
> It could be argued that in a democratic society like the United
> States, it is impossible to lay bare the cold-blooded reasoning
> behind a war, and that the war needs to be presented in a
> palatable fashion. This might be true -- and there are examples
> of both approaches in American history -- but we tend to think
> that in the face of Sept. 11, only a cold-blooded plan, whose
> outlines are publicly presented and accepted, can work. We could
> be wrong, but on this we have no doubt. Even if the
> administration is correct in its assumption that there must be a
> two-tier approach to the public presentation of the war, it has
> done a terrible job in articulating its public justification.
>
> The administration has held only three press conferences. Some
> explain this by saying that the president is too inarticulate to
> withstand public grilling. We don't buy that. He is not the
> greatest orator by any means, but he doesn't do that badly. His
> problem is that he will not engage on the core strategic
> question. Franklin Roosevelt, our best wartime president bar none
> -- who should be the model for any wartime president -- spoke on
> and off the record with reporters, continually and with shocking
> frankness when we look back on it. He did not hesitate to discuss
> strategy -- from Germany First to relations with Joseph Stalin.
> He filled the public space with detail and managed public
> expectations brilliantly, even during the terrible first six
> months of the war.
>
> We are convinced that the Bush administration has a defensible
> strategy. It is not a simple one and not one that can be made
> completely public, but it is a defensible strategy. If President
> Bush decides not to articulate it, it will be interesting to see
> whether President Kerry does, because we are convinced that if
> Bush keeps going in the direction he is going, he will lose the
> election. The president's public presentation of the war is
> designed to exploit success, not to withstand reversals and
> hardships. What is fascinating is that political operatives like
> Karl Rove, the president's political adviser, can't seem to get
> their arms around this simple fact: The current communications
> strategy is not working. They seem frozen in place, seemingly
> hoping that something will turn up. We doubt strongly that
> building democracy in Iraq is the cry that will rally the
> American nation.
>
> © 2004 Strategic Forecasting, Inc. All rights reserved.
>
> http://www.stratfor.com

[PornoDoggy]

Mike, I cancelled my subscription to Strafor shortly after the invasion of Iraq because I disagree substantially with the analysis they delivered.

It is clear that the current crisis in Iraq was not expected by the Bush administration. That in itself ought not to be a problem."

Bull fucking shit, it ought not be a problem. The predictability of the the current crisis is incontrovertable evidence that the Administration is operating from a catechism that does not let reality interfere with their belief system. The inherent problems of the so-called strategic goal were further complicated by the abdication of the Powell doctrine, allowing the war to be fought "on the cheap" so as not to interfere with the domestic and political agenda of the administration.

To someone who has not been indoctrinated with the falsehood that we lost Vietnam because of the lilly-livered fifth columnists back on the home front, the idea that we are half-assed fighting a war with an Administration's domestic/political agenda in mind sounds horribly familiar.

Mikey, I cancelled my subscription to Stratfor shortly after the war began. I don't believe in the domino theory any more today than I did 30 years ago. IMHO, today the Bushites are the ones arguing for it - we can use Iraq as a base for further operations to topple the dominos, and thus remake the region in our image.

It's completely appropriate that you use the example of the Mexican War as a justification. That 160 years is just about how far out of touch with the realities of the modern world you, Bush, and the Startfor analysists are.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Apr 16 2004, 02:49 PM

[Mike AI]

PD I agree that there has been some stumbling on the administration's end. That is the nature of war however. This is not an uprising, but a power grab by interest inside Iraq, as well as from Iran, Syria and terrorist elements including Al Quada.

The attacks were timed to go with troop re-deployment. It was well thought out and well executed.

We need to align our military and political goals.

Stratfor is on the money again.

I am sure the Democrats would do a much better job! :lol:

[RawAlex]

Statfor got it about half right... the current Bush strategy isn't playing well in the court of public opinion, and his approval rating shows it. For every bubba yelling "bomb the bastards!" there is a more level headed american asking "why the hell are we (still) there?" (still is for those who originally thought it was a good idea, and have come to see that there is more here than just knocking off Saddam... and that there are no WMD or anything else in Iraq except oil and bombs).

Bush's position isn't very defensible because they started the war from a lie, have supported it with a rah-rah public face that doesn't clearly reflect the numbers of troops killed and the hardships faced. The troops will still be in Iraq at election time, and this will be one of the most important issues of the 2004 election.

I think just like what happened in Iran to Carter, I think you will see the Iraq war get quickly resolved once Bush is out of office.

Alex

[Buff]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Apr 16 2004, 01:51 PM
Statfor got it about half right... the current Bush strategy isn't playing well in the court of public opinion, and his approval rating shows it. For every bubba yelling "bomb the bastards!" there is a more level headed american asking "why the hell are we (still) there?" (still is for those who originally thought it was a good idea, and have come to see that there is more here than just knocking off Saddam... and that there are no WMD or anything else in Iraq except oil and bombs).

Bush's position isn't very defensible because they started the war from a lie, have supported it with a rah-rah public face that doesn't clearly reflect the numbers of troops killed and the hardships faced. The troops will still be in Iraq at election time, and this will be one of the most important issues of the 2004 election.

I think just like what happened in Iran to Carter, I think you will see the Iraq war get quickly resolved once Bush is out of office.

Alex
I am not convinced that there are no WMD in Iraq. It seems to me that it would be very easy to dig a hole in the middle of the desert, dump some barrels of chemical agent in there, cover it up, note the gps coordinates, and leave the shit there indefinitely.

The whole world is trying to acquire WMD, from North Korea to Iran... Why wouldn't Hussein have been trying to make them too???

"No no! I insist you do not build any WMD in my country!" -- Saddam Hussein

Right?

Please.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Apr 16 2004, 02:50 PM
PD I agree that there has been some stumbling on the administration's end. That is the nature of war however. This is not an uprising, but a power grab by interest inside Iraq, as well as from Iran, Syria and terrorist elements including Al Quada.

The attacks were timed to go with troop re-deployment. It was well thought out and well executed.

We need to align our military and political goals.

Stratfor is on the money again.

I am sure the Democrats would do a much better job! :lol:
I am sure the Democrats would do a much better job!

That's kinda like the speculation that Kennedy would have pulled us out of Vietnam (not a chance in hell) - it's only opinion. That being said, I don't think that Al Gore - or John McCain, for that matter - would have proceeded down the false path we have taken.

Put half those 130,000 troops and half the money we're spending in Iraq into Afghanistan, and by now we'd start to see the sort of progress there that really would speak to the "hearts and minds" of the Arab street. Like it or not, machismo or not, that's where the battle against terrorism will be won or lost. We will not be able to scare terrorists out of being terrorists.

Even putting the best case scenario on the Bush path to war, Mike, you have to admit that it makes LBJ's approach in Vietnam look honest and forthright by comparisson. Publicity stunts like the carrier escapade don't do much to prepare a nation for a long hard task. Not everyone shares your 1840s vision of realpolitik (because I'm feeling generous, I'll up that to 1900 if you'd like) - sheep, plebians, public school graduates and the like tend to progress from confusion to distrust over a rationale du jour for war. Simple minded bullshit like "we love freedom, they hate freedom" will only play for a short whle.

This may not be an uprising - yet. Whether it's Syria, or Iran, or a power grab by factions within Iraq is completely irreleveant. When the President of the United States stands in front of the American people and says "I don't know who we're turning power over to" in less than 3 months, we got a problem - one we need to send back to Houston.

I really want Bush to give dozens of news conferences before the election just like the one he gave the other night. One a week in October would be ideal.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Apr 16 2004, 03:27 PM

[Mike AI]

PD - you are wrong, democrats have not successfully prosecuted a war since Rooservelt. Liberals do not like the military and do not understand how to use it effectively to further National interests.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Apr 16 2004, 03:30 PM
PD - you are wrong, democrats have not successfully prosecuted a war since Rooservelt. Liberals do not like the military and do not understand how to use it effectively to further National interests.
Mike, how the hell do you go from posting things which at least demonstrate an ability to think (even if I think your reasoning is wrong) to posting mindless bullshit?

We've had three wars since Roosevelt. There have been other battles (Grenada, Panama), but hardly wars.

We did as well as could be expected in Korea once the Chinese got in. The minute we used the troops and undertook the tactics necessary to defeat the Chinese, we would have found ourselves pulling a Dunkirk on the west coast of France - probably trying to do so in the middle of a nuclear exchange. (Yup - I think Truman should have shot MacArthur).

We did no better than the French in Vietnam - all the more of a pity since we paid for them to lose, and quite predictable since the folks we allied ourselves with were their former colonial lackies - and the tactics that many say would have "won" the war probably would have brought the Chinese in again (the EXACT same leadership was in Peking between 65-70, and I don't think the would have viewed Americans that close to their border as any more to their liking).

Iraq I was not prosecuted by a liberal, and the end result was as fucked up as Korea.

[PornoDoggy]

You are right, however ... Ronnie Reagan did defeat the Evil Empire of Grenada, while Bush I defeated the well known military power Panama. :rolleyes:

[Mike AI]

PD - Gulf War I was a resounding success, we did not go farther because Bush Sr. did what liberals like you wanted and only went as far as the UN resolution would allow. To expel Iraq out of Kuwait. I am sure if Bush would have went al lthe way to Baghdad that YOU and the rest of the libs would have been flipping out...

You want to have it every way PD....

Democrats do not win wars.... they are incapable of it. Liberals would rather demonize their own country and coddle our enemies!

Democrats are continuing their hypocritical ways.... with Al Quada they want to know why Bush did not act sooner, and do something preventative. Then in Iraq they are bawking about acting too soon.

Democrats will say and do anything to get elected.

It is funny watching Kerry try to define himself as a moderate. A man who is more liberal the Kennedy, at least his voting record.

Demorats and liberals know that if they admit they are liberal and run on being a liberal they would NEVER win Nationa office!

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Apr 16 2004, 04:24 PM
PD - Gulf War I was a resounding success, we did not go farther because Bush Sr. did what liberals like you wanted and only went as far as the UN resolution would allow. To expel Iraq out of Kuwait. I am sure if Bush would have went al lthe way to Baghdad that YOU and the rest of the libs would have been flipping out...

You want to have it every way PD....

Democrats do not win wars.... they are incapable of it. Liberals would rather demonize their own country and coddle our enemies!

Democrats are continuing their hypocritical ways.... with Al Quada they want to know why Bush did not act sooner, and do something preventative. Then in Iraq they are bawking about acting too soon.

Democrats will say and do anything to get elected.

It is funny watching Kerry try to define himself as a moderate. A man who is more liberal the Kennedy, at least his voting record.

Demorats and liberals know that if they admit they are liberal and run on being a liberal they would NEVER win Nationa office!
Mikey ... FYI, this liberal was pissed when we stopped. I never bought into the "liberate Kuwait" stuff much - a feudal monarchy wasn't, IMHO, worth a fucking drop of American blood. I did, however, recognize that it was our dog (Saddam) that was out of his pen and into the chicken coop, so it was our job to put him down. If a dog is going to be killin' chickens, backin him into a corner is not the answer.

George the First (not the liberals, not the media, not even liberalactivistjudges) built a faulty coalition that did not allow him to do the job properly. For twelve years after the war he assured us was NOT like Vietnam, the son-of-a-bitch who started it was shooting missles at American aircraft, and was killing a bunch of folks we'd encouraged to revolt (a fact that I'm sure has nothing to do with Iraq suspicion of U.S. intent today, of course).

George the Second, in command of a military substantially smaller than that possessed by his father, dispensed with the coalition effort entirely. Nobody feared the Iraqi military; only a fucking fool believed the parade bullshit.

Now, you keep saying that liberals don't win wars. When I presented an alternative opinioin, you responded by repeating that liberals don't win wars along with a few other generalized attacks on the left that have no basis in fact other than the fact that enough bobble-heads like yourself keep repeating them. (You forgot Chappiquidik, btw). I also noticed that you skipped Vietnam and Korea entirely, and went straight to Gulf War I, the end of which was, of course, the liberals fault, not the asshole that built the coalition.

On the outside chance that you are capable of thinking beyond the catch-phrases contained in the catechism, answer my next question.

You advocate an outright imperialistic approach to Iraq. You want us in there to ensure the supply of oil and provide a base of operations (for military troops to be obtained later [and paid for by our Great Great Grandchildren], I suppose) for future operations.

Can you provide me any example of a victory in a war comprable to Iraq by ANY power?

Your answer is limited only by the cavet that the telephone should have been invented before the commencement of that war.

World War II was NOT remotely like this war, so don't try pulling out the post-war occupation on me.