Latest Change of Course by Bush in Iraq

[ajwps]

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1316

"Stay the course – but change the course. That was the meaning of the sudden, sharp, and understated change in Washington's Iraq policy last week.

After the American civilian administrator of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, made a hurried visit to the White House, President George W. Bush said he wants "the Iraqis to be more involved in the governance of their country" and offered some ideas toward that end. Two days later, the Iraqi Governing Council announced that the formal occupation of Iraq would end by June 2004, becoming at that time a mere "military presence."

Ambitious plans for an early constitution have now been shunted aside; instead, reports the Associated Press, Bremer will "name an interim Iraqi leader with authority to govern the country until a constitution can be written and elections held."

The military will be "Iraqified." The new emphasis is less on establishing a Jeffersonian democracy than on shifting power and responsibility to Iraqis, and doing so pronto.

This welcome shift marks a victory for the Defense Department's realism and a defeat for the State Department's dreamy hope (as the Wall Street Journal puts it) "to re-create the Philadelphia of 1787 in Baghdad." Sure, it would be wonderful if Americans and Britons could, in leisurely fashion, educate Iraqis in the fine arts of governance. But Iraqis are not children eager to learn from Western instructors. They are proud of their history, defiant toward the outside world, suspicious of Anglo-Americans, and determined to run their own country. Attempts to tutor them will surely fail."

Iraqi today is deeply dissimilar to Germany or Japan post-1945, primarily because a very different equation exists.

* Germans and Japanese were each defeated as a people, ground down by a multi-year total war, and so they accepted the remake of their societies and cultures. In contrast, Iraqis emerged almost unscathed from a three-week war designed not to harm them. Feeling liberated more than defeated, Iraqis are in no mood to be told what to do. They take what serves them from the occupation and fend off, through violence and other forms of resistance, what does not.

* Conversely, not having gone through a long and brutal war with Iraqis, Americans display limited concern about the future course of Iraq.

In brief, Iraqi determination is much greater than that of the occupiers, severely limiting what the latter can accomplish.

Washington's sensible new approach is in keeping with my call in April 2003 for a "politically moderate but operationally tough – democratically-minded Iraqi strongman," as well as my recommendation to let Iraqis run Iraq.

That's not to say that I want American, British, Polish, Italian, and other troops to abandon the country; no, they must remain but limit themselves to a lesser role.

* Presence: Boots on the city streets should be Iraqi, not foreign. Remove coalition forces from the inhabited areas, transferring them to the deserts (which are ample in Iraq).
* Power: Guarantee borders, oil and gas lines, and the government in Baghdad. Hunt down Saddam Hussein and his henchmen. Otherwise, Iraqis should maintain order.
* Decisions: Let Iraqis make internal decisions (security, finances, justice, education, religion, etc.), keeping only foreign and defense policy in coalition hands.

Iraqis should – with only distant coalition oversight – be given the chance to make a go of it on their own. When a government has proven itself over an extended period, it deserves full sovereignty. Should things go wrong, those troops in the desert can always intervene.

And, make no mistake, Iraqification offers ample opportunity for things to go wrong. The Iraqi record of self-rule over the past 70 years has been disastrous; realistically, we must expect the future leadership to be less than exemplary. But so long as it poses no danger to the outside world nor brutalizes its own population, that should be acceptable, for Americans and Britons gave their lives in the spring war less to fix Iraq than to protect their own countries.

Iraq is not likely to serve the Muslim world as a model of democracy anytime soon. But if the Bush administration stays the course with its excellent new policy, a new Iraqi government has the chance of developing over years and perhaps decades into a decent country with an open political process, successful economy, and flourishing culture.

 

[Sevendogs]

Bush probably realized his mistake entering Iraq. He missed real goal and not finished his terrorism war in Afghanistan and worldwide. Real weapons of mass destruction are schools run by clerics where they indoctrinate would be suicide bombers.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Sevendogs
Bush probably realized his mistake entering Iraq. He missed real goal and not finished his terrorism war in Afghanistan and worldwide. Real weapons of mass destruction are schools run by clerics where they indoctrinate would be suicide bombers.

And that knowledge is useless if we aren't supposed to be exposing tropps to terrorists. Let them continue to learn and thrive. All in the name of Allah!

 

[ajwps]

Sevendogs says

Bush probably realized his mistake entering Iraq. He missed real goal and not finished his terrorism war in Afghanistan and worldwide. Real weapons of mass destruction are schools run by clerics where they indoctrinate would be suicide bombers.

Bush probably realized his status as leader of the only remaining superpower in the world when he attacked Iraq and Afghanistan. His actions have so far prevented the people of the USA from being attacked on our shores by taking this action.

The American soldiers were volunteers who thought they would use their military service to obtain the benefits but had little idea that they would be ordered into a limited war against a backward people with little ability to fight against the US superpower.

The real WMD are not schools or clerics or Mullahs but real weapons that can destroy large numbers of humans with atomic, chemical toxins or bacterial weapons that Saddam was known to possess but refused to show the UN or anybody that he had gotten rid of them.

Peculiar how these weapons seem to have magically vanished right before the lightning 21 day war that toppled Saddam. Do you think that the French (former allies of the US) warned Mr. Saddam of the coming Americans allowing him to move his weapons out of Iraq and bury them in the Bekka Valley in Southern Lebanon?

Islam does not like it when they are being attacked in response to their commandment to wipe out all the infidels of the earth. Isn't that sad for them????

 

[jimnyc]

I agree ajwps, it's sad indeed. Even sadder is the fact that the majority of supporters for the Islamic militants comes from our very own war protesters, while the rest of us stand in astonishment of the evil and vile actions of Muslims.

 

[ajwps]

Yes I totally agree with your assessment. Not only war protestors but US politicians use the war to protest as a means of bashing President Bush to obtain the office next November.

The Islamic world sees these loud verbal attacks against Mr. Bush's policies to protect America as a sign of our weakness and disarray. History is a great lesson with little or no protest during WW1 and WW2 which gave the enemy no hope of dissention to stop or make appeasement but during the Korean and Vietnam 'police actions' protestors became internal agents of the enemy resulting in our loss of these recent wars.

The US military court-martials a Lt Kernel for saving American lives and permits traitorous behavior during a war that is meant to demonstrate that the US has resolve which could halt the Islamic attack against the world.

But I guess that this is a significant weakness in a free society.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by ajwps
Yes I totally agree with your assessment. Not only war protestors but US politicians use the war to protest as a means of bashing President Bush to obtain the office next November...The Islamic world sees these loud verbal attacks against Mr. Bush's policies to protect America as a sign of our weakness and disarray. History is a great lesson with little or no protest during WW1 and WW2 which gave the enemy no hope of dissention to stop or make appeasement

Recent polling suggest GWBs occupation and relection are becoming unpopular ideas. In response the right throws up the stunning rebuttal, " your doubts provide sustenance to terrorists, remember World War II". While stirring, it does not address the very real, fact based concerns the rest of the world has about the current occupants of the Whitehouse and the incredibly reckless policies they are undertaking. Bad news for the far right, we are as a nation in disarray over this war, since our goals have shifted repeatedly since the outset of the undertaking, there can be little question as to why.
I must say, repeated analogies to world war II have me baffled, who are we, the Germans invading countries to advance a plan of global domination or are we the french, bunkered down in a strategicaly pointless place waiting for the blitzkreig that isn't coming?

 

[ajwps]

Recent polling suggest GWBs occupation and relection are becoming unpopular ideas."

Polls like clouds are fleeting at best. Your poll site has as much validity as the polling methodology, those who were polled and the biases posed with the questions. The only polls that actually count are the election results following voting day.

Remember the polls and media papers the morning after, "Dewey wins by a landslide." After the Medicare bill is passed, what do you think your fleeting poll numbers will be now that the main Democrat pivital issue is lost to the Republicans?

"I must say, repeated analogies to world war II have me baffled, who are we, the Germans invading countries to advance a plan of global domination or are we the french, bunkered down in a strategically (sic) pointless place waiting for the blitzkrieg (sic) that isn't coming?"

I have to agree that your entire post is baffling. The WW2 Allies were united with no significant protestors against our own policy while the Axis powers who we know now were attempting to take the world in a massive world war. You seem to have forgotten the Jane Fondas and the hippy drug culture 'turning on and tuning out' who protested against the war in Vietnam. The despotic dictatorships of North Vietnam, Russia and China took heart at the internal disarray in America. They put their own propaganda and allies in America to work to bring the American effort to a halt and keep the people of that little country in the old dictatorship. Even though the Vietnam war as we now are aware was a sham created for profit by many who did not want President Kennedy to end the war prematurely.

You in your self righteous understanding seems to intimate that there is no blitzkrieg coming from the Muslims. From those who want to make the world Islamic in a war waged for their god Allah. The attack of 9/11 and all the other attacks against the infidels around the world make your words not only hollow but belie reality.

“In response the right throws up the stunning rebuttal,” your doubts provide sustenance to terrorists, remember World War II". While stirring, it does not address the very real, fact based concerns the rest of the world has about the current occupants of the Whitehouse and the incredibly reckless policies they are undertaking."

The only problem with your logic is that it is not the rest of the world that will be voting in the US elections next November.

"Bad news for the far right, we are as a nation in disarray over this war, since our goals have shifted repeatedly since the outset of the undertaking, there can be little question as to why."

I have no idea of where you get your obviously erroneous information about this country being in disarray or that the US is about to be overthrown by the bourgeoisie or of the deposing of the elected president of the United States. You apparently are watching and reading way too much of the leftist main stream media for you to craft your world shattering insight.

You remind me of the old Maoist verbiage. You would be just another 'running yellow lackey dog of the proletariat."

 

[Dan]

Polls like clouds are fleeting at best.

I agree with you, but you need to show this to the many pro-war peeps on here who keep posting polls about how better things are getting in Iraq.

You seem to have forgotten the Jane Fondas and the hippy drug culture 'turning on and tuning out' who protested against the war in Vietnam. The despotic dictatorships of North Vietnam, Russia and China took heart at the internal disarray in America. They put their own propaganda and allies in America to work to bring the American effort to a halt and keep the people of that little country in the old dictatorship.

OK, you actually havethe balls to say that America didn't win the Vietnam war because of protestors? And North Vietnam put their own propaganda and allies in America to bring the war effort down? Uhhhh, yeah.

Even though the Vietnam war as we now are aware was a sham created for profit by many who did not want President Kennedy to end the war prematurely.

Seriously, if you're going to make as inflamatory a remark as that, don't try to pussy out on it one sentence later.

And I'm sure a Vietnam vet would be more angry at someone who didn't agree with the war than at you saying that everything they did was just a way to line rich peoples' pockets.

"I must say, repeated analogies to world war II have me baffled,

Me too.

WWII wasn't fought in the name of religion. Islamic terrorism is coming at us in the name of Allah.

Furthermore, it was pretty easy to tell back then where our attacks were coming from. Today, terrorists can be in any country in the world. Anthrax wasn't a threat back then. In this day and age, one man could theoretically take out an entire city if he wanted to, and things just weren't like that back then. It's apples and oranges, people.

 

[Annie]

Dan,
I don't put much stake in polls either, but I do recognize the difference between Pew, Gallop, and ones based on calls or e-responses for results.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Dan
I agree with you, but you need to show this to the many pro-war peeps on here who keep posting polls about how better things are getting in Iraq.

Try reading ALL the threads before passing judgment next time. Most polls on this board come from the anti-war side. There are constantly polls about how America feels about Bush, the war, WMD, Iraq, our soldiers... Then there are many polls posted about how Iraq feels about the US and the occupation, and their newly formed government. There have been many polls reposted in here in support of ones argument, but those posted by those against the war FAR outnumber the other.

If you're so adamantly against polls and were tired of the pro-war people posting them, why are you just speaking up now? Why didn't you state your case when they were posted?

 

[Dan]

Try reading ALL the threads before passing judgment next time.

Sorry to have hurt anyone's feelings with my controversial stance on polls.

My point is, the media can be manipulated in any way, and polls are probably the most useless and easily manipulated of all media forms. In my opinion.

Again, I didn't mean to pass judgement on the board with my "polls are no good" statement, for those who feel completely destroyed inside by my outrageous comments, I sincerely apologize.

 

[jimnyc]

My comment had nothing at all to do with the validity of polls or your belief in them. I was urging you to read the threads and you'll see that the majority of them were posted by those opposed to the war, contrary to you making it seem as if it's the pro-war few who rely so heavily on them.

And you know where you can shove your sarcasm.

 

[Dan]

My comment had nothing at all to do with the validity of polls or your belief in them. I was urging you to read the threads and you'll see that the majority of them were posted by those opposed to the war, contrary to you making it seem as if it's the pro-war few who rely so heavily on them.

Fair 'nuff. For the record, I wasn't trying to say you guys relied on them heavily, just that for both sides, I think polls are kinda silly.

And you know where you can shove your sarcasm.

Into a fancy poll that shows without doubt that I'm right and you're wrong? HAR HAR HAR.:

 

[ajwps]

Dan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polls like clouds are fleeting at best.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I agree with you, but you need to show this to the many pro-war peeps on here who keep posting polls about how better things are getting in Iraq."

I have seen no polls concerning 'things getting better in Iraq.' I have seen our soldiers interviewed on the battle ground in Iraq and have seen the cameras panning around the streets of Iraq where Iraqi people go about their daily business, buying and selling goods and foods.

I have seen that Shiites can now pray in their mosques without being killed by Saddam's police. I have seen Iraqi kids waving at the cameras and being interviewed by US reporters. I have seen Iraqi policeman patrolling streets and arresting terrorists.

But I do not see or read any of these happenings in our US or European main stream media. I wonder why that could be?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"OK, you actually have the balls to say that America didn't win the Vietnam war because of protestors? And North Vietnam put their own propaganda and allies in America to bring the war effort down? Uhhhh, yeah."

For a left leaning Democrat, your reply of 'uhhhh, yeah' is something lacking in the 9 democrat presidential wannabees. Except of course for the Rev Al Sharpton of Twalla Brawly fame.

"Seriously, if you're going to make as inflammatory a remark as that, don't try to pussy out on it one sentence later.

And I'm sure a Vietnam vet would be angrier at someone who didn't agree with the war than at you saying that everything they did was just a way to line rich peoples' pockets.

Probably so and with good reason

"I must say, repeated analogies to world war II have me baffled,

"Me too."

Me three

"WWII wasn't fought in the name of religion. Islamic terrorism is coming at us in the name of Allah."

Yep for once you got that right. Many of the posters here cannot get the fact that Fascism was a definition of a true religion with a bible called 'Mein Kampf.' The Nazi religious dogma of racial purity and the sworn allegiance to their deity Adolph Hitler was a formal belief structure of its own. The main concept was to kill those damn Jews because of their religion who polluted the pure church of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. I especially enjoyed the bent cross icon of the church of the Nazis.

No analogy there....

"Furthermore, it was pretty easy to tell back then where our attacks were coming from. Today, terrorists can be in any country in the world. Anthrax wasn't a threat back then. In this day and age, one man could theoretically take out an entire city if he wanted to, and things just weren't like that back then. It's apples and oranges, people."

Yep, now we can tell exactly where the terrorist attacks are coming from. The 1.3 +/- billion Muslims of the world are using a regular/irregular pattern of attack for which the western civilizations are just beginning to get a grip on.

Unlike prior wars, Islam has a place from which all the power of Islam arises. Without this place in a city called Mecca, Saudi Arabia the Islamic has no way to get to paradise with the virgins and the little boy sinless sex objects of Qur’an promise for the martyr of Allah.

Without Mecca, all the 'mice and all the king's men' couldn't put Islam back together again.

Civilization will soon learn this little secret.

 

[dijetlo]

by ajwps
Polls like clouds are fleeting at best. Your poll site has as much validity as the polling methodology, those who were polled and the biases posed with the questions. The only polls that actually count are the election results following voting day.

The polling data reflects an eight month trend, if you'd like to dispute accuracy of a particular poll you'll have to be more specific.

The attack of 9/11 and all the other attacks against the infidels around the world make your words not only hollow but belie reality.

To the contrary. Our efforts are largely wasted in Iraq, for reasons you yourself detail in that excerpt.

The only problem with your logic is that it is not the rest of the world that will be voting in the US elections next November.

The comment was made in reference to how the world views us, not who we will elect at president.

You remind me of the old Maoist verbiage. You would be just another 'running yellow lackey dog of the proletariat."

I'm disinterested in what you think Mao Tse Tung would think of me. If I develop an interest, I think I might ask some one that knows that "yellow dog" is an insult in Mandarin while "yellow lackey dog" is just gibberish. "Chah ni ma," amigo.

 

[ajwps]

"The polling data reflects an eight month trend, if you'd like to dispute accuracy of a particular poll you'll have to be more specific."

Do you really think that an eight month biased polling trend means something tangible for the next year? Anything can happen to change those intangible polls in the blinking of an eye.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The attack of 9/11 and all the other attacks against the infidels around the world make your words not only hollow but belie reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"To the contrary. Our efforts are largely wasted in Iraq, for reasons you yourself detail in that excerpt."

In the universe is anything really wasted? In Iraq, our people maintain a degree of stability without the repressive Saddam returning to kill and torture the people of Iraq. The Islamic countries now find Iraq to be the place to go and fight the western powers instead of attacking America again. I would say that GWB efforts are far from being wasted. Islam is subtly being changed by the fact that they see a strong leader of the west which to Islam is NOT a good sign.

"-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only problem with your logic is that it is not the rest of the world that will be voting in the US elections next November.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The comment was made in reference to how the world views us, not who we will elect at president."

You missed the main context of the posters statement. What the nations of the world think of or consider irrational or dangerous is based on their own interests and perspectives. Envy of the only remaining decisive superpower is to be expected in a world of those who want to be 'king of the mountain.' The nations of the world need the USA, not the reverse. You seem to think that world opinion will change American's minds of whom they feel will be the best leader of the free and democratic United States of America.

"I'm disinterested in what you think Mao Tse Tung would think of me. If I develop an interest, I think I might ask some one that knows that "yellow dog" is an insult in Mandarin while "yellow lackey dog" is just gibberish. "Chah ni ma," amigo."

There are many dialects in China of which Mandarin is only one. My point was obvious and had nothing to do with the Communist dictatorship of the masses but of your feelings of depression as demonstrated by the ratings and ravings of your fellow 'yellow dog Democrats' as they see their omnipresent power slipping away from them after 40+ years of running roughshod over the American people.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by dijetlo
Recent polling suggest GWBs occupation and relection are becoming unpopular ideas. In response the right throws up the stunning rebuttal, " your doubts provide sustenance to terrorists, remember World War II". While stirring, it does not address the very real, fact based concerns the rest of the world has about the current occupants of the Whitehouse and the incredibly reckless policies they are undertaking. Bad news for the far right, we are as a nation in disarray over this war, since our goals have shifted repeatedly since the outset of the undertaking, there can be little question as to why.
I must say, repeated analogies to world war II have me baffled, who are we, the Germans invading countries to advance a plan of global domination or are we the french, bunkered down in a strategicaly pointless place waiting for the blitzkreig that isn't coming?

Very worthwhile points, and I find some of the responses to them quite ridiculous.

As for the polls, there is no question that the war's popularity has declined significantly. I would theorize (and I'm only speculating here) that there are about four segments of the population, each representing about 25% of the population.

About one-quarter would (and did) oppose the war no matter what. Even if we had found a big old pile of WMDs and didn't get bogged down in a guerilla war.

About one-quarter will support the war no matter what. Three years from now, no Iraqi elections, no WMDS, thousands of US dead, no end in sight, and they'll still be waving their flags and shouting horay when it comes to Iraq.

About one-quarter who supported the war when the tanks started rolling but don't today. They probably wanted UN approval if all possible; still, it seemed like a good idea at the time, but they didn't realize that WMDs were a smokescreen, millions of Iraqis hate us and don't want to co-operate, hundreds of US soldiers would and will yet die, and now they wish we had thought twice.

Then there are about a quarter who today support the war but will eventually see that colonialism still doesn't work, admit it's a hopeless cause, and blame the liberals. Will this shift happen before or after next year's election, though? I fear much of it will happen after.

The problem in terms of getting rid of Bush is that many people in the latter two categories will still vote Republican, especially if he keeps the economy propped up through reckless borrowing and presents good figures.

The above is just my guesswork, and the categories might not be exactly 25%; but I suspect I'm not far off.

 

[ajwps]

SLClemons Originally Posted

"Very worthwhile points and I find some of the responses to them quite ridiculous."

You have a protected right to discover any responses to be quite ridiculous. Most would expect nothing less from a professional institutional ivory tower observer.

"As for the polls, there is no question that the war's popularity has declined significantly. I would theorize (and I'm only speculating here) that there are about four segments of the population, each representing about 25% of the population.
About one-quarter would (and did) oppose the war no matter what. Even if we had found a big old pile of WMDs and didn't get bogged down in a guerilla war. --
About one-quarter will support the war no matter what. Three years from now, no Iraqi elections, no WMDS, thousands of US dead, no end in sight, and they'll still be waving their flags and shouting horay when it comes to Iraq.--
About one-quarter who supported the war when the tanks started rolling but don't today. They probably wanted UN approval if all possible; still, it seemed like a good idea at the time, but they didn't realize that WMDs were a smokescreen, millions of Iraqis hate us and don't want to co-operate, hundreds of US soldiers would and will yet die, and now they wish we had thought twice. --
Then there are about a quarter who today support the war but will eventually see that colonialism still doesn't work, admit it's a hopeless cause, and blame the liberals. Will this shift happen before or after next year's election, though? I fear much of it will happen after. "

You again are quite correct with your own personal right to any THEORIES AND/OR SPECULATIONS regarding the imagined percentage divisions of US population insights of the Iraqi war. Your perceived speculations and theories continue to be protected by the eighteenth century outmoded US Constitution. At least you did not speculate or theorize on European polls regarding the irrational and dangerous GWB war against terrorism. As with any world conflict, individual opinions wax and wane with events on the ground.

As for myself, I would not dare to make any educated speculations about valid popular war support or lack thereof based on many variables, i.e., left mass media biases and lack of honest reporting of the good and bad happenings in Iraq and the entire Middle East area.

"The problem in terms of getting rid of Bush is that many people in the latter two categories will still vote Republican, especially if he keeps the economy propped up through reckless borrowing and presents good figures."

I believe that you give most ordinary Americans too little credit for their ability to separate main stream media propaganda while still being able to understand reality for themselves. The extreme left institutionalized educators tend to fall into the trap that no one other than themselves can understand reality from their own educated theories and speculations.

It is interesting to watch the official Democrat politicians convulsing in horror as the left's perception of GWB's ignorance proves to be reducing their power and voter base in the US.

What is new about governmental borrowing which has been the usual course of this country for the past 40+ years of a Democratic Congressionally controlled public pocketbook.

Most people understand that GWB can only propose budgets while real spending is controlled by our elected representative Congress.

"The above is just my guesswork, and the categories might not be exactly 25%; but I suspect I'm not far off."

I wouldn’t count out GWB's re-election because of your suspicions, theories or speculations. The American public has become much more sophisticated now that they have alternative sources of information and not gleaned from the official leftist leaning main stream media slant. I 'suspect' that you are way off the mark

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Kathianne

"Dan,
I don't put much stake in polls either, but I do recognize the difference between Pew, Gallop, and ones based on calls or e-responses for results."

Kathianne what differeniates professional polls with questions designed to obtain specific responses from a poll taken by phone calls or e-mail results? What makes you think that those polled give the pollster an invalid view from his/her own true opinion in an attempt at skewing the poll?

http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/mlvasu/ps471/D14.htm

The public's position on the matter is so dynamic and fluid that a cross sectional estimate in time is effected by this instability in the population parameter. e.g. Events in the domestic or international arena change people's mind about which candidate they prefer in the final weeks of the election.

The so-called science of poll-taking is not a science at all but mere necromancy. People are unpredictable by nature, and although you can take a nation’s pulse, you can’t be sure that the nation hasn’t just run up a flight of stairs.

ATTRIBUTION: E.B. (Elwyn Brooks) White