GWB's "Plan for Victory"

[Happy Monkey]

He said "metrics" if a victory can't be defined by a set of metrics, it isn't possible to be victorious.

Who needs metrics when you can make statements like this one (from the Plan):

Coalition troop levels, for example, will increase where necessary to defeat the enemy or provide additional security for key events like the referendum and elections. But troop levels will decrease over time, as Iraqis continue to take on more of the security and civilian responsibilities themselves.

So, troop levels will decrease, but not really. Or maybe they will. But then again...

[tw]

Originally Posted by marichiko

So, troop levels will decrease, but not really. Or maybe they will. But then again...

America's rising opposition against an unjustified war is giving Islamic (including Iraqi) civilians a new opinion on this American invasion. Because America may be forced out (like in Somalia and Vietnam), Islamic civilians are suggesting that outright violence and terrorism may no longer be necessary. American domestic opposition to the "Mission Accomplished" war for the first time has locals thinking that America might just leave after all.

Save American lives. Demand we get out now. The administration will deny this. But the administration is wrong (so what else is new).

Currently, insurgent numbers and their attacks have more than doubled every year. This created because Americans remain in Iraq. How does America withdrawal when number of operational Iraqi battalions only diminishes; the current number having dropped to one? What happened in Falluja and so many other towns? Entire Iraqi battalions completely disappeared - probably into the insurgency. An American occupation makes effective Iraqi battalions unnecessary.

There are only two ways to get out of Iraq. Send in 1/2million to end it now. Or completely withdrawal so that Iraqis are forced settle things at the negotiation table - either by meeting up front or driven to the table by civil war. Civil war in Iraq remains a viable alternative the longer the US remains. Under the George Jr status quo plan, civil war becomes a more likely possibility every year. The Iraqi military cannot grow as fast as the insurgency.

Trying to solve Iraq with too few American troops - 100,000+ - is a fool's solution. Either we are in or we are out. Only 100,000+ troops means the insurgency will grow until Civil War is inevitable.

Previously most Islamic people believed the US was in Iraq intending to stay. Truth be told - they were probably correct. That probably was the intent of George Jr - actually Cheney. Americans are finally learning what was obvious years ago. We've been here before. It was called Vietnam. And yes, the administration insisted that army could defend itself. We stayed in Vietnam so long that the S Vietnamese army no longer had a hope in hell. The insurgency in Vietnam grew larger and faster because the Americans were there.

[tw]

John Burns who has spent many years in Iraqi has reported on Charlie Rose for those many years. History demonstrates he has truly seen what is happening and therefore what will probably happen. Last night Burns summarized the situation acutely:

The Iraqis will never stand up until the Americans stand down.

IOW what George Jr proposes will never end the war. Either we are fully in or we must get out.

Richard Clark confirms this. First, Clark believes the administration wants bases in Iraq. Second, the president's Annapolis speech basically calls for a ten year diminished occupation of Iraq. The administration wants influence in the government and in the oil. Third, the administration has no idea what is really happening in Iraq. Fourth, as long as Americans remain, the insurgency will grow. The greatest force fueling the insurgency is American presence. In a recent Arab league meeting, the one fact that all factions - Sunni, Shia, etc agreed upon was that America did not belong in Iraq. Fifth, the longer we remain, the more attacks will be staged upon domestic US. Sixth, the Iraqi army is trained in and therefore cannot operate without American logistics. Seventh, the administration has made democracy a bad word in the Middle East. Anyone advocating democracy is regarded as advocating an American dominance. Clarke suggests the George Jr administration could have promoted democracy covertly. But instead they have overtly promoted democracy so as to associate democracy with an American occupation. Eight, the CIA wants out of the prisoner game. An insurgent prisoner only has useful information for a few months anyway. But since CIA has been forced to run covert prison camps, the CIA is promoting much of this 'American prison camps in East Europe' news so that the administration must let the CIA get out of the prisoner business.

You tell me where a solution is found in the president's speech? Those whose life has been about this stuff say the president's agenda is a formula for defeat. Richard Clarke, for example, suggests our best strategy is a complete withdrawal within 18 months.