Good sense from a Republican Senator
Anti-war currents (and anti-Bush currents) are now stirring on a whole new level within Bush's own party in the Senate. On Monday (US time), US News & World Report published this interview with Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel.
That USNWR piece by Kevin Whitelaw starts out with this landmark quote from Hagel:
- "Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality... It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is, we're losing in Iraq."
- "I don't know where the vice president is getting his information from. It's not where I'm getting mine from. This administration at the top–the civilian leaders–is disconnected from what's going on."
and
"We keep putting our forces who are over there in these impossible situations, asking them to do these impossible things when there's not enough force structure over there and there never was enough force structure."
"It's an absolute joke to say that we have a coalition of the willing."
Hagel does indicate in that interview that there's a chance of "turning things around" for the US in Iraq, if the right policies are pursued over the crucial next six months.
I disagree. We are far beyond that now.
In this companion piece in USNWR, Whitelaw reviews some additional evidence of the large erosion of support for the Iraq policy within the Republican Party.
In that second piece Whitelaw writes,
- Still, the Bush administration is planning to hit back, starting this week, with a renewed public-relations push by the president. Bush will host Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari and has scheduled a major speech for June 28, the anniversary of the handover of power to an Iraqi government from U.S. authorities...
Hagel stopped drinking the kool-aid. So did Walter Jones.
Seems like the beginning of the 'who lost Iraq' recriminations. I would expect more of this.
It's a horrendous legacy to leave for the next presidential incumbent, whoever they may be. What a mess to leave for someone else to clean up !
Insurgents Civil War?
In today's New York Times (6/21), Iraqi-based correspondent Sabrina Tavernise reports that there are signs that Iraqi Sunni insurgents and foreign jihadists are beginning to turn their guns on each other near the Syrian border.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/21/international/middleeast/21spear.html?
In order to "Win", the US/Iraq pro-democratic forces don't have to destroy the Sunni, just come to any reasonable compromise. The Times article referenced by Hammurabi indicates this is more likely than I had thought.
On the other hand, the insurgents simply cannot win over the combination of the Shiite, Kurds and US, no matter what the Sunnis do, even if the US reduces it's troop strength to 50,000 within a couple of years. The US kept 50,000 troops in South Korea for about 40 years, so I guess it could do that in Iraq for 5.
Apparently, the jihadists ("Foreigners") are strongly dependent on the weak government of Bashar Assad in Syria. And the recent election results in Lebanon make Assad even weaker.
Hagel's blast finally sets him apart from the other presumptive Republican candidates for President in 2008.... George Allen (R Virginia) continues to mouth the neocon homilies re. Iraq and terrorism.... By contrast, we'll see if Hagel's references of himself as an "Eisenhower Republican" have any resonance in the 21st Century. (Alas, when I read his speeches and writings on this theme, I'm left thinking not of Eisenhower's role Suez, but of Iran and the major goof of 1953.)
By the way, Hagel may also be a standout for having long had a credible Iraq/ME specialist as his top foreign affairs advisor - one Andrew Parasiliti -- a fellow wahoo to boot.... :-}
From the NYT article:
"As the operation ended about 6 p.m. Monday, marines, successful in their mission, lined the roof of the last house they took against the backdrop of plumes of smoke. Captain Ieva said: "Will some come back? Yes. But the bigger fruit is disrupting them. We've made them uncomfortable in their own system."
This is typical mainstream journalism. The marines have destroyed a lot of houses, killed a lot of people, but the NYT doesn't doubt that whatever the marines tell them is true: the houses were used by insurgents, those killed were insurgents, and the operation was a succes. In reality the Americans probably destroyed many houses of civilians and killed a lot of civilians. They always do. And as usual their real succes will be growth of anger among Iraqi's, and a growth of new recruits for the insurgency. As usual the New York Times parrots everything the soldiers tell them.
"the New York Times doesn't doubt that...the houses were used by insurgents"
-- what do you expect from Amerikan yellow journalism?...Even a casual viewer of al-Jazeera could tell you that the insurgents would never dream of putting civilians at risk by using a house that doesn't belong to them.
I think it is important..
<a href="http://exp1-23.expert-pro.net/leuler.html"&qt;Leonhard Euler</a&qt;
Who lost the war?
The traitors and fifth columnists within.
We were winning, always winning, we won this damn war dozens of times. We totally smashed the enemy monthly. But the enemy within didn't admit it. They said bad things, they didn't report the good news.
We need to shoot them! That's most important! Who cares about a place like Iraq? Good Americans can't even be sure it exists. But now we have identified the enemy within, this is a great victory! The liberal Democrats are commie jihadist traitors! Shoot them! Or better yet, bluster and bluster and bluster! That's how we win!
We always win!
Yay!
Rush Limpbaugh for president!
The insanity is about to begin.
Yeah ! An eye for an eye, and a finger for a finger.