Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Griff

[brooklyn bridge]It would set a bad precedent. He shouldn't have to explain himself to us. Democracy is too fragile for such things, it must be protected at all cost.[/on sale now!]

We can't handle the truth.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

We can't handle the truth.

Neither can we {the US public} handle the strategy required to take the fight to the terrorists on terms they can understand.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Funny this stuff about Cheney and his "secret" documents. Should make for a great book in '09. Otherwise it is all pretty insignificant.

It is only insignificant to those who love fascism. Meanwhile, the Washington Post has an ongoing series on unprecedented power by Cheney - who really makes the decisions unbeknownst to most even in the executive branch.

Pushing the Envelope on Presidential Power

On June 8, 2004, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell learned of the two-year-old torture memo for the first time from an article in The Washington Post . According to a former White House official with firsthand knowledge, they confronted Gonzales together in his office.

Rice "very angrily said there would be no more secret opinions on international and national security law," the official said, adding that she threatened to take the matter to the president if Gonzales kept them out of the loop again. Powell remarked admiringly, as they emerged, that Rice dressed down the president's lawyer "in full Nurse Ratched mode," a reference to the head nurse of the mental hospital in the 1975 film "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."

Neither of them took their objections to Cheney, the official said, a much more dangerous course. ...

Not only did the court leave the president beholden to Congress for the authority to charge and punish terrorists, but it rejected a claim of implicit legislative consent that Bush was using elsewhere to justify electronic surveillance without a warrant. And not only did it find that Geneva's Common Article 3 protects "unlawful enemy combatants," but it also said that those protections -- including humane treatment and the right to a trial by "a regularly constituted court" -- were enforceable by federal judges in the United States.

The court's decision, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, was widely seen as a calamity for Cheney's war plan against al-Qaeda. As the Bush administration formed its response, the vice president's position appeared to decline further still.

Cheney's position? Yes, torture was avocated by VP Cheney. Even done so by keeping other government officials so isoated as to discover America was torturing, in violation of Federal law and the Geneva convention in the Washington Post.

Ongoing is a question of George Jr's legacy. To protect that legacy, Guantanamo should be closed. George Jr had even said, "I'd like to close Guantanamo." A year later, Guantanamo is still functioning since that is what Cheney wants.

the vice president stands by the view that Bush need not honor any of the new judicial and legislative restrictions. His lawyer, they said, has recently restated Cheney's argument that when courts and Congress "purport to" limit the commander in chief's warmaking authority, he has the constitutional prerogative to disregard them.

If Cheney advocates a return to waterboarding, they said, they have not heard him say so. But his office has fought fiercely against an executive order or CIA directive that would make the technique illegal.

It is quite clear why TheMercenary would love Cheney. Cheney demonstrates everything that fascists advocate including unrestricted torture, wiretapping without judicial review, and wars against enemies that don't really exist. Notiice that TheMercenary has again posted the silly myth that "if we don't stop them there, then they will attack us here".

The Washington Post series started with

'A Different Understanding With the President'
Just past the Oval Office, in the private dining room overlooking the South Lawn, Vice President Cheney joined President Bush at a round parquet table they shared once a week. Cheney brought a four-page text, written in strict secrecy by his lawyer. He carried it back out with him after lunch.

In less than an hour, the document traversed a West Wing circuit that gave its words the power of command. It changed hands four times, according to witnesses, with emphatic instructions to bypass staff review. When it returned to the Oval Office, in a blue portfolio embossed with the presidential seal, Bush pulled a felt-tip pen from his pocket and signed without sitting down. Almost no one else had seen the text.

Cheney's proposal had become a military order from the commander in chief. Foreign terrorism suspects held by the United States were stripped of access to any court -- civilian or military, domestic or foreign. They could be confined indefinitely without charges and would be tried, if at all, in closed "military commissions."

"What the hell just happened?" Secretary of State Colin L. Powell demanded, a witness said, when CNN announced the order that evening, Nov. 13, 2001. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, incensed, sent an aide to find out. Even witnesses to the Oval Office signing said they did not know the vice president had played any part. ...

[Cheney] has found a ready patron in George W. Bush for edge-of-the-envelope views on executive supremacy that previous presidents did not assert. ...

Cheney is not, by nearly every inside account, the shadow president of popular lore. ... Their one-on-one relationship is opaque, a vital unknown in assessing Cheney's impact on events. The two men speak of it seldom, if ever, with others. But officials who see them together often, not all of them admirers of the vice president, detect a strong sense of mutual confidence that Cheney is serving Bush's aims.

Cheney's political agenda approaches what is called fascism. He openly states that the President does not have sufficient powers; needs more. A president can openly create war and torture in direct violation of Federal laws, Geneva Convention, and basic American principles - and still does not have enough power? That would explain why those here who know by using a political agenda also so love Cheney.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

Allah Akbar!!!!.

Ok, thanks for your support of terrorists and all things anti-American. Well done!

[tw]

From The Economist of 16 Jun 2007:

For only the second time since he became president, George Bush went to lunch with Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill on June 12th. They entertained him frugally: he had a peanut-butter and jam sandwich. And when he tried, strenuosly and politely, to persuade them to revive his stalled immigration- reform plan, they gave him more peanuts.

Well its a good thing that TheMercenary's hero is an elephant. He got an honorary meal well deserved.

[TheMercenary]

Yea, I am sure the US was really glad when JFK came on the nightly news and told the country about the blockade off of Cuba. Or when Carter came on and told us about the reason they were about to send a completely failed rescue mission to Iran, or maybe when Regan came on and told us all about the CIA working behind the scenes in Afganistan... Yep all good stuff. Keeping the well educated American public informed.

[TheMercenary]

The Economist is a good mag. I have a subscription.

[tw]

From the Washington Post of 26 Jun 2007:

A GOP Plan To Oust Cheney
The big question right now among Republicans is how to remove Vice President Cheney from office. Even before this week's blockbuster series in The Post, discontent in Republican ranks was rising.

As the reputed architect of the war in Iraq, Cheney is viewed as toxic, and as the administration's leading proponent of an attack on Iran, he is seen as dangerous. As long as he remains vice president, according to this thinking, he has the potential to drag down every member of the party -- including the presidential nominee -- in next year's elections. ...

Today, another group of party elders, led by Sen. John Warner of Virginia, could well do the same. They could act out of concern for our country's plummeting reputation throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East.

Let's look at the Middle East. Under George Jr, the Oslo Accords were destroyed and the Intafada II expanded to war all over Palestine and even into the most northern cities of Lebanon. Under George Jr, Iraq that was probably on the verge of an Orange or Rose revolution, instead was put into Civil War with democracy no longer considered possible. Many (without a political agenda) now believe Iraq with become a theorcratic dictatorship dominated by Shia.

And Afghanistan that was justified by 11 September. More than 50% of the country has now fallen back into Taliban hands since "America does not do nation building". We all know the genius who repeatedly stated that violation of Military Science 101.

Meanwhile Iran that once had a strong reformist movement is now a bastion of wacko extremists. That key turning point was the famous "Axis of Evil" speech based in a political agenda; listing countries that were a threat to no one.

Pakistan is now under threat of Islamic extremism and rattles nuclear weapons. India is being exempted from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - a treaty setup specifically to stop what India is doing.

Turkey is talking about invasion of Kurdistan. Somolia is now only peaceful when Islamic extremists control the country. And the US keeps sending multiple carrier task forces with amphibious task force to threaten ... well we still don't know who Cheney want to attack next.

As scholar after scholar have noted - today it was Robert Dallek, a presidental historian who just published Nixon and Kissinger - everything in the Middle East that this administration has touched is now a disaster. Show me one success. There are none. Zero. Dallek said this noting the similarities between Nixon's Vietnam and George Jr's Iraq. Virutally everyone without a political agenda notes both events are so extremely similar; complete with the rhetoric.

"If we don't stop them there, then they will attack us here." Some in the Cellar also foolishly advocated that nonsense claim in 2003. Same thing in Nam was called the Domino Theory. Deja vue Nam. You would think Cheney et al had learned from history. No wonder top Republicans would love to execute a coup.

Do you know how bad Iraq has become? It is even worse. Republicans Lugar, Warner, and others want Cheney out.

Gen David Patraeus recently said Americans may be in Iraq for another 9 or 10 years. Patraeus is correct if we continue this Cheney doctrine. No wonder top Republican Senators have been so angry for so long. No wonder they fed George Jr only peanut-butter and jelly sandwiches.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by tw

As scholar after scholar have noted - today it was Robert Dallek, a presidental historian who just published Nixon and Kissinger - everything in the Middle East that this administration has touched is now a disaster. Show me one success. There are none. Zero. Dallek said this noting the similarities between Nixon's Vietnam and George Jr's Iraq. Virutally(sp) everyone without a political agenda notes both events are so extremely similar; complete with the rhetoric.

Public opinion, of course, can change. In 1973, 1974 and 1975, Congress undoubtedly felt it was reflecting the country's disillusionment with the Vietnam War, and it forced a disengagement over the Nixon administration's strong objection. Yet military historians are coming to a consensus that by the end of 1972, there was a much-improved balance of forces in Vietnam, reflected in the 1973 Paris agreement, and that Congress subsequently pulled the props out from under that balance of forces -- dooming Indochina to a bloodbath. This is now a widely accepted narrative of the endgame in Vietnam, and it has haunted the Democrats for a generation..

If we let ourselves be driven out of Iraq, what the world will seek most from the next president will not be some great demonstration of humility and self-abasement -- that is, to be the "un-Bush" -- but rather for reassurance that the United States is still strong, capable of acting decisively and committed to the security of its friends. Given our domestic debate, to provide this reassurance will be an uphill battle in the best of circumstances. It will be even more difficult if President Bush succumbs to all the pressures on him to do the wrong thing in Iraq.

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Public opinion, of course, can change. In 1973, 1974 and 1975, Congress undoubtedly felt it was reflecting the country's disillusionment with the Vietnam War, and it forced a disengagement over the Nixon administration's strong objection. Yet military historians are coming to a consensus that by the end of 1972, there was a much-improved balance of forces in Vietnam, reflected in the 1973 Paris agreement, and that [b]Congress subsequently pulled the props out from under that balance of forces -- dooming Indochina to a bloodbath.

If America had pulled props out from under Saigon's army, then why did that army never once stand on its own with props? As made so obvious in Halberstam's 1965 "Making of a Quagmire" and Sheehan's "Bright Shining Lie", Saigon's army never operated under stress without full American support.

A classic example was Saigon's attack on the Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos with multiple divisions, full supplies, and American airpower in support. This time, American units were not in that operation. Communists simply let Saigon drive deep into Laos - and then destroyed those Saigon divisions. Whole Saigon units would disappear. Classic Diem Bien Phu. How could this be? America provided everything including air power and supplies. But American troops were not part of the invasion. Saigon’s soldiers did not trust their officers. Proven but again, Saigon never had a viable army.

Why? 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Saigon never had a viable government. Lack of support made obvious even in movies such as "Good Morning, Vietnam" and "Full Metal Jacket"(?). How bad was it? What was even a biggest source of Communist supplies? The US.

Things were so bad that Le Duc Tho would provide Kissinger with N Vietnam secret assessments complete with time lines. Paris negotiators were simply reminding Kissinger how bad things were in Saigon. Saigon fell apart faster than even N Vietnamese estimated because - 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. S Vietnam never really had a viable government - in 1963 Halberstam's book or in 1973. It is total nonsense to believe America could keep supporting a full scale war where it was actually supplying both sides and where insurgents were far stronger. Insurgents repeatedly avoided confronting direct attacks making Saigon appear equal only on paper.

Gen Petreaus constantly repeats what everyone here should now know. He says he cannot win “Mission Accomplished”. As was also true in Nam, he is correct. Petreaus says he can achieve stunning tactical victories - just like in Nam. Made to look even better because insurgencies don’t confront 'surges'. Where is that strategic objective? Americans cannot achieve a strategic victory - just like in Nam and for obvious reasons. If you are not hearing Petreaus, well, he is making that point painfully obvious to those who understand basic military concepts.

A strategic objective can only be achieved by Iraq's government. As made just as obvious in Halberstam's book, et al, Iraq's army also will only be as viable as its government. Maliki's administration is about as incompetent as the many who preceded him. But then who supports Maliki? Same Americans who also believed Chalibi.

Number one problem - widespread government corruption. Deja vue Nam complete with American supplies flowing to the enemy. Other problems include a government more interested in partisan politics than a national agenda. Who visits province chiefs to gain their support? The Maliki government? Of course not. Just as John Paul Vann and others had to do in Nam, so Americans do in "Mission Accomplished". In both wars, the national government had little public support. Americans bought support then and pay for it now. Support did not come from people working for their country.

American presidents in both wars said otherwise. Maliki's government only has support when it is convenient for others to support him. Maliki is a good source for American handouts. Maliki's government is a government of convenience as demonstrated by four years - and still Iraq has no viable army.

Rocket man can setup across the river to attack the green zone. Nobody saw anything? Of course not. Rocket man is not the enemy. Insurgents could spend all morning outside Abu Ghriad setting up mortars even with a surveyor transit. Everyone saw it. Nobody said anything? An organized attack on Abu Ghriad was a surprise to Americans? Of course. These same Iraqi were described as welcoming Americans – by whom? Deja vue Nam.

Petreaus says he cannot achieve a strategic victory. He can only give Iraq’s government time to establish itself. But that has not been happening. Worse are the many power brokers (described by Americans as a monolithic Al Qaeda) who would be positioning themselves and supplies for this expected ‘end of calm’.

An insurgency never confronts a traditional military power. When the 1st Marine Division sat in Khe Sanh on the verge of being overrun, meanwhile insurgents were elsewhere. We call that the Tet Offensive. That is what insurgents do. Insurgencies are especially dangerous when quiet; when appear to be defeated.

When insurgents disappear from the battlefield, then tactical victories are proclaimed. It happened in Nam. Many make those claims in "Mission Accomplished". Some actually believe a monolithic Al Qaeda exists – and that it had a capital?

Insurgents are not dumb. They know this 'surge' cannot be maintained. Americans cannot maintain this without a draft. Already 10% of recruits have criminal records. The strain on America is great. When America tapers back, expect to see where insurgents have relocated and who stops working with Maliki. A strategic objective is not being achieved. Everyone would be waiting for a multiparty civil war – ie Lebanon style.

Meanwhile, a country currently with so little violence now has millions of refugees. A number now estimated to increase by 50,000 every month. Is a strategic objective being achieved? Or is a nation slowly readying itself for an expected upturn in civil war. Remember that civil war that we were told did not exist? Same people also claim things are getting better every month. They also proclaim another myth of insurgent united under an Al Qaeda banner. How many lies did Nixon say before Americans finally conceded he was lying? How many lies must George Jr tell before we acknowledge realities in "Mission Accomplished"?

Well, in Nam, the generals lied. At least the Generals are being honest about what they can do in “Mission Accomplished”.

Just like in Nam, when a major offensive is conducted, then the battlefield is devoid of insurgents. That proves we are winning? Even Gen Petreaus says America cannot achieve a strategic objective - another lesson made so obvious from Nam. An offensive with so much quiet is a calm before a storm - as N Vietnam planned for their final victory in early 1970s.

Le Duc Tho even showed their secret assessments to Kissinger knowing full well that America could do nothing. He was simply showing that they also knew what Kissinger knew. The defeat of a corrupt Saigon government was inevitable. Only on paper was Saigon's army an equal. N Vietnam had a government that even many S Vietnamese supported. The Iraqi army repeatedly duplicates Saigon's abilities. Without inclusion of American units, neither army (Saigon or Iraq) could operate in fierce battle. A problem directly traceable to governments that did not work for the country and that were/are even chock full of corruption. Armies that mysteriously lose units as soon as combat gets too dangerous. Deja vue.

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

[If we let ourselves be driven out of Iraq, what the world will seek most from the next president will not be some great demonstration of humility and self-abasement -- that is, to be the "un-Bush" -- but rather for reassurance that the United States is still strong, capable of acting decisively and committed to the security of its friends.

Time to worry about that was back in 2002. I was. Anyone who read those 2002 posts know damn well how much I feared the mistake now called "Mission Accomplished".

Three conditions are required for war. 1) A smoking gun. 2) A strategic objective. 3) An exit strategy defined by the strategic objective. These were posted here how many years ago? Five?

Your logic is too little too late. Damage was done long ago. Just another example of damage that does not appear in numbers until years later.

You are using the same logic that massacred so many of my generation. Those who have contempt for the troops used that rationalization. Even a poker player would never be so dumb as to use that rationalization. At the poker table, one who blindly used such rationalization becomes easy money for everyone else.

A smart man learns early when he has created an unwinnable situation - and folds long before the damage is evident. Our last hope for victory required 500,000 troops in country over one year ago. And that was a conservative number. Military doctrine puts the number at 600,000. You are supposed to know such basic concepts when somehow taking a Gen Curtis LeMay's 'big dic' attitude. Even LeMay conceded that Nam could not be won. But to get his attention, we even had to sacrifice 10% of this nation's nuclear bombers.

Yesman065 - at what point do you temper your reasoning by first learning basic military concepts and history? Three fundamental requirements are necessary for a military victory. None. Zero - exist in "Mission Accomplished". So you would throw away more good American soldiers? That is the definition of contempt for the troops.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by tw

Yesman065 - at what point do you temper your reasoning by first learning basic military concepts and history? Three fundamental requirements are necessary for a military victory. None. Zero - exist in "Mission Accomplished". So you would throw away more good American soldiers? That is the definition of contempt for the troops.

My reasoning is working just fine, thanks.

To me, trying to deny them financial support and treating them as pawns in an attempt to make your political opponents look worse - in effect - USING the troops so you may gain power--- That is the definition of contempt.

Oh hell I'll just post another link you won't read cuz it doesn't fit your agenda.

A War We Just Might Win

AND from the NYT of all places.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

The Domino Theory was validated by the results, even if the results did not go as far as was feared at the time: China, North Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam all fell to communism. That is the validation of the Domino Theory, and only the maddest of cranks dispute it.

Thailand had the societal integrity not to fall to communism, and Burma -- well, didn't need to, by anyone's lights. It deteriorated into its present basket case condition through its own mismanagement.

That the Domino Theory is now going in reverse as these nations recover from communism is a pleasant surprise.

Now we have tw to tell us the sky is everywhere falling. It's certainly not going to stay propped up if the likes of tw are in charge, busily trying to lose us the war. Phooey to the lot of them.

[xoxoxoBruce]

China & North Vietnam were already red states.

[Griff]

tw - Please don't use Dallek as a source. His cheerleading for Democrat imperial Presidencies helped lead to our present difficulties.