As Bush43 purges his administration of unbelievers and brings in tougher linemen for the Alamo strategy he envisions, the biggest hurdle he faces, besides having no coattails within his own party for disgruntled Republicans who survived the Battle of the Midterm Elections, is that both liberals and conservatives for different reasons - no longer believe this war is worth the sacrifice.
Many liberals and/or Democrats believe that Bushs war was wrong in the first place, regardless of what they thought about military defense of the homeland post-9/11. Many conservatives and/or a few Republicans, objected on the grounds that regime change in Iraq was not sufficient to justify bankrupting decades of American prestige and reputation for upholding international rule of law, by breaking international law. For more than four years, the politics of fear, nationalism in the notion of winning a difficult war, and visions of securing the volatile Middle East for the future of crude oil importation, Americans tolerated the Bush43 administrations ambitions and delusions. Today, the public is overwhelmingly suspicious of the White House charade, but the POTUS, like a rebellious teen, rejects advice from the elders of the Iraq Study Group, who warned a prolonged war in Iraq cannot be sustained without the comprehending, full-disclosure, cooperation of the American people. Instead, the man who has stated that God wanted him to be president, thinks voters will again succumb to political machinations and a few well-timed staff changes. At least LBJ was smart enough to know his when his constituency had changed. Sen. Trent Lott, nicely resurrected to a leadership position in the Reformed GOP caucus, agreed yesterday that Bush pushed intel to justify the Iraq invasion, and admitted that they bought the package, despite private reservations. Strident Democrats have created political cover for recalcitrant Republicans who now refuse to cross the line in the sand for Bush. A checks and balances intervention may be necessary and forthcoming. EJ Dionne, comparatively a moderate liberal pundit in my opinion, writes that from a practical standpoint, even though they want to stand up to the delusional Bush, Congress has precious few tools available to stop the commander in chief if he decides to commit additional US troops to the Little Bighorn that is Baghdad today: "As a result, Democrats are quietly but urgently seeking ways of pressuring the president to change course, including the possibility of having Congress reconsider its original authorization of force, passed in October 2002. . . . "Given the limited options, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, has suggested to his colleagues that the strongest response to the surge would be a congressional resolution explicitly opposing the step." 010507 Short-Circuiting the Surge http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/04/AR2007010401 344.html <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/04/AR200701040 1344.html> Charles Krauthammer, who is often described as an ultra conservative, argues against troop escalation for another reason: "For the Iraqi government to have botched both [Saddam Hussein's] trial and execution . . . and turned monster into victim, is not just a tragedy but a crime. . . ."The whole sorry affair illustrates not just incompetence but also the ingrained intolerance and sectarianism of the Maliki government. It stands for Shiite unity and Shiite dominance above all else. . . "We should not be surging American troops in defense of such a government." 010507 The Hanging: Beyond Travesty http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/04/AR2007010401 347.html <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/04/AR200701040 1347.html> Krauthammer was until recently a staunch supporter of Bush43 war policy, a prime supporter of neoCon imperialism. My guess is that many conservatives who are provincial by nature detest the idea of American blood spilled, even if they have lots of crude oil, unless we are winning. That has to explain why Ollie North, of all people, has also spoken against a troop escalation. 010507 More Troops = More Targets http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18797 <http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18797> And that of course, is the ugly side of the Faustian deal that a US president made to secure the support of his countrymen in a war of folly based on fraud. If Bush/Cheneys war had been as victorious as they promised it would be, recriminations from the newly unbelieving would never have transpired. This leaves the political high ground to those who opposed the war based on the pretense and propaganda employed. Death with honor is one thing, death from deceit and incompetence breeds a whole new generation of political opponents. Bush has brought dishonor to true believers, and they are unlikely to forgive him for that, regardless of how slick the advertising and new marketing may be. The new Democratic Party leadership sent a formal letter to Pres. Bush today, urging him not to send more US troops deeper into Iraq. Senate Majority Leader Reid and House Speaker Pelosi wrote (excerpts): Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq. Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq. Our troops and the American people have already sacrificed a great deal for the future of Iraq. After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close. We, therefore, strongly encourage you to reject any plans that call for our getting our troops any deeper into Iraq. We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/01/05/dem_n_37915.html <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/01/05/dem_n_37915.html> I have little doubt what the glory-seeking Texan with Heroes of the Alamo mythology will do. KwC
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
