Welcome to Reality GW

tabs · 10-04-2006, 04:58 AM

For, all the power of the Kings men and Kings horses, can not put Humpty Dumpty back together again...

As I have outlined numerous times, when one enters into the ME and Central Asia, its d@mned if U do and d@mned if you don't, so why Is America so surprised at the outcome of events in Iraq, Iran, Afganistan and Pakistan?

The Bush admin was forced by 911 into dealing with Islamic extremism , the invasion of Afgan was necessary. Pushing Pakistan into an alliance was necessary, even the invasion of Iraq was not a total blunder, however the LACK of a plan for Reconstruction was criminal negligence. Bush and or his admin knew this and ignored it.

Now does Bush realize the situation for what it is or is he and his admin in denial? Bush in the past has made corrections in policy while the outward appearence has remained the same. Condi Rice was elevated to Secratary of State, Wolfowitz was put out of the way at World Bank. Kissenger and former Sec Baker were consulted and or sent on fact finding missions. Kharzid, Bush and Musharraff recently had a meeting. This is hopefull, however if Bush is "on a MIssion from God" then America will continue to make bigger and better blunders until a new president takes office in 2009.

Another problem with the conduct of Americas war on terror is the fact that winning this war requires thinking out of the box which due to the Bureacraticization of American thinking excerbates the problems instead of alleviating them.

The prognosis is well...bleak

1.Iraq at present is a failed state, there is hope for an improvement. With the American military presence the situation probably will just smoulder on. However the downside is a full scale Civil War which could spread into a regional conflict. Iraq may go to a Islamic Government which is hostile to the USA, or may fall into the orbit of Iran.

2. At present the USA is powerless to do anything but negioate with Iran. Any scenerio in which military action is used against Iran results in SEVERE negative results for the USA and world in general. The results range from a loss of a US Army in Iraq due to a popular uprising, disruption of oil supplies to regional warfare.

3. Afgan is another failed state. However Afganistan with the presence of over 20,000 NATO troops keeps Afgan in play. The problem is the Tribal areas of Pakistan and the USAs inability to destroy Taliban and Al Qaeda sanctuaries therin. The West realizes it can not afford to give Afgan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

4. Pakistan is becoming a question. Most recently Musharaff has distanced himself from the US, has signed a treaty with the Tribal Warlords along the afgan border, which ammounts to a surrender. Musharaff has limitations politically as to how much he can aid the US without risking himself politically at home. The USA must begin to consider what it will do if Musharaff is removed from power and an Islamic government takes his place. The consequences are dire if this happens, not only because Pakistan has Nuclear weapons but also with regards to India and Afganistan.

The outcome if anyone of these regions/areas scenerios should come to pass is that the Global economy will go into a severe depression. If that should come to pass the hand of Islamic fundlementalism will be strenghtened and its domination allmost assured in the Islamic world. A virtual new Caliphate will emerge. The world as we know it will have changed from Western domination into Muslim domination.

Rodeo · 10-04-2006, 05:05 AM

Well put.

We are in one helluva mess, despite the president's happy talk.

The only thing we as citizens can do at this moment is to change control of Congress -- see my Friedman thread today. Some fresh thinking, some accountability, some oversight, and maybe some reasonable course of action will emerge.

turbo6bar · 10-04-2006, 05:12 AM

The question I'm pondering is what if we never went to Iraq and instead centralized our forces in Afghanistan. Would we still be in trouble there? Is waging a war on terror in other countries a good idea?

Rodeo · 10-04-2006, 05:17 AM

Afghanistan was the right move. With the backing of the world community, which was invaluable in setting up a legitimite government. Hard to say what would have happened if we hadn't taken our eye off the ball.

Tabby's right, Afghanistan is still in play, but barely.

tabs · 10-04-2006, 05:18 AM

Hmmm..It is NOT a forgone conclusion that GW is out to lunch..his decison making seems to have changed..

One question rodeo.. What Prez would come out and tell the American Public the sky is about to fall....every Prez would paint a happy face on the situation. If for nothing else to advert panic.

One other thing ever since the USA was targeted by Islamo Fascists. America has been in one he11 of a mess, whether it was Clintons not wanting to deal with it or GW being Forced to...It is and was a damed if U do and damed if U don't situation in the region. History shows U what a tough time the Brits had.

Actually the problems were there long before GW or Clinton...

Rodeo · 10-04-2006, 05:23 AM

You are making the same argument O'Rilley made last night with Bob Woodward -- it's necessary to lie to the American people to maintain their resolve. Telling the truth will somehow embolden the enemy and make us all nervous nellies, incapable of winning.

I couldn't believe it when he made that argument, but he did.

tabs · 10-04-2006, 05:24 AM

Turbo..Sadam would have had to be dealt with one way or the other...He had to go...however the means we used were perhaps not the best. Time was out ally and not his, we however misused that advantage.

Rodeo · 10-04-2006, 05:26 AM

Saddam had to go nowhere. he should have lived to be an old man and died in office.

In fact, there is a very good chance that if the Islamic extremists now in charge of Iraq had tired to topple Saddam, we would have intervened ON SADDAM'S SIDE. Just like when he fought Iran.

That's how upside down Mr. Bush has gotten us.

tabs · 10-04-2006, 05:29 AM

Every prez back to Eisenhower has lied to the American people in some fashion....its not to keep our resolve but to keep Americans fat dumb and happy so we continue to watch the Superbowl and keep buying houses, new cars TVs, beer and soap. Keep that economy rolling...head em up and move em out...

tabs · 10-04-2006, 05:32 AM

Remember Sadams Sons....they would have taken over...

NO THE US WOULD NOT HAVE HELPED SADAM AGAINST THE SHI!!TES AFTER 911...if for no other reason that Wolfie had contacts with the Sh!!te Mullahs in Iraq

Z-man · Z-man's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by tabs
Actually the problems were there long before GW or Clinton...

Well said! (I nominate that as the quote of the year!) Sadly, most folks seem to forget how far back this conflict goes....

I typically don't bother posting in political threads, but I had to here - the assessment that Tabs outlined above is about to most 'reality' based assessment of the current situation in the Mid-east, IMHO.

The problem seems to be that the 'solution' to the conflicts there are difficult to make a reality, and there are several 'solutions' but at this point none where everone (except the Taliban and Al Queda) leave the table with a winning hand.

-Z-man.

Rodeo · 10-04-2006, 05:37 AM

We would have helped, probably secretly, any secular government in the Middle East resist the forces of Islamic radicalism. That includes Saddam's government, and the government of his sons if it came to that.

That last thing we needed after 9/11 was for another oil-producing state in the ME to fall to a radical Islamic theocracy.

Which is exactly what we have now.

tabs · 10-04-2006, 05:43 AM

Rodeo GW and the NeoCons had reasons to get rid of Sadam that defy logic...so how/why would they have helped Sadam.

tabs · 10-04-2006, 05:53 AM

Some of U Boyz have a hate for GW that defys logic...and it clouds your vision...

The biggest problem in America is the PARTISAN DIVIDE or the POLITICALIZAION of the war on Terror. All for Political advantage. but what the winner of the contest might win is a burned down house.

Democrats and Repblicans BETTER REALIZE THAT STAKES ARE EVERYTHING WE HAVE. America better come up with a bipartiasan policy as to the conduct of the war on Terror.

The question becomes is HOW BRITTLE IS THE ECONOMY IF ANOTHER MAJOR ATTACK TAKES PLACE ON US SOIL! How much will it bend before it breaks...

Rodeo · 10-04-2006, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tabs
Rodeo GW and the NeoCons had reasons to get rid of Saddam that defy logic...so how/why would they have helped Saddam.

To fight Islamic radicalism. To prevent the enemy (violent Islamic radicals) from gaining Iraq's oil wealth, not to mention leverage over the United States and the world economy through its vast oil resources. To prevent Iraq from aligning with Iran and our other enemies in the ME.

In short, they should have helped Saddam fight Islamic radicals to prevent exactly what is happening in Iraq today.

tabs · 10-04-2006, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tabs

The question becomes is HOW BRITTLE IS THE ECONOMY IF ANOTHER MAJOR ATTACK TAKES PLACE ON US SOIL! How much will it bend before it breaks...

The Repblicans seem to think it will break and economic ruin will take place... and are thus willing to do things like rendition and Interogation by torture, circumventing civil rights etc...

Democrats seem to think not much will happen, and are willing to Politicalize the war for political gain.

tabs · 10-04-2006, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rodeo

In short, they should have helped Saddam fight Islamic radicals to prevent exactly what is happening in Iraq today.

Well Almost....Sadam was a CHECK on Iranian power in the region...Our troubles with Iran go back to Carter and the Embassy takeover in the 70s.

The real loose canons in the world is Al Qaeda... that is a SUNNI Phenomen and IS and was largely funded by Saudis....

FOLLOW THE MONEY HONEY....

Remember the Taliban and Sadam were MORTAL ENEMIES OF IRAN....we have removed them both and created another problem...another damnation if U will.

tabs · 10-04-2006, 06:07 AM

In Iraq and the region its Sunni VS Sh!ite....they hate each other...

gaijindabe · 10-04-2006, 06:10 AM

I am not sure about the Muslim domination outcome.. It may happen in Western Europe in our lifetimes, but that is mostly to do with demographics and cultural suicide.

If we are going to play this game it will have to be as it has always been done - through proxies. Pick one side and support them. Fighting all sides at once, or trying to stop them from fighting each other is not an option.

The best thing would to be secure energy from elsewhere (not much comes from the ME anyway) and back away almost completely. Militarily, travel, student visas, immigration - the whole lot. The less we have to do with that part of the world and them with us - the better.

hardflex · 10-04-2006, 06:11 AM

Did anybody soo "Frontline" last night, about the resurgence of the Taliban? My wife was telling me about it this morning. Included in her words were "you can see why they hate us so much, we are so arrogant in our approach". We are basically paying (thru Pakistan) Al Queda to sit quietly and not make trouble. How long can that last?

I think GW should resign, admit he made mistakes based on his flawed knowledge of the rest of the world, and turn it over to new leadership to resolve it in the best way possible. Not "you're with us or against us", but "let's do what's best for all".

Once Bush and company are gone, things will get better. The sooner the better.