I don't know why they bother

[serai]

The Iraq Study Group, with all its good intentions and concern for how this country is going, basically took on a futile task. Honorable they were indeed for attempting it, but the fact remains that the friggin' baboon in the White House is simply never going to be willing to even contemplate the suggestion that he might be wrong about anything. For all their dignified and civilized attempt at turning the course of this nation's suicidal monkey-dance on the edge of the cliff (and no, it's not just the administration; the populace that voted this dipshit into office is just as much to blame), it's just not going to work.


But kudos for trying, guys!




Seeking a graceful exit

Dec 6th 2006 | NEW YORK
From Economist.com

The Iraq Study Group calls for American troops to withdraw from combat operations in Iraq and for new diplomatic efforts in the Middle East

THE 9/11 Commission set the standard, in recent memory, for a group of grandees advising a president. The commissioners’ political weight, and the support of victims’ families, made their policy recommendations hard to ignore. Some, like a reorganisation of intelligence, are now law, despite initial opposition from George Bush’s administration.

It is a different story today. On Wednesday December 6th the long-awaited report of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan commission headed by James Baker, a former secretary of state, and Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman was published. Its recommendations included suggestions that American troops should withdraw from combat operations and instead just offer support to Iraqi soldiers, and that America “must not make open-ended commitments to keep large numbers of troops there in Iraq”. The latter may be a cumbersome way of arguing that many soldiers should be pulled out of the country, perhaps in 2008.
Aftermath

But there is little evidence that Mr Bush will listen. He has already been preparing the ground to marginalise the report’s suggestions. He has said several times in the past week that he is not inclined to withdraw soldiers from operational duties. At the NATO summit in Latvia last week he explained “there's one thing I'm not going to do: I'm not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete.” Elsewhere, he put it more bluntly: “This business about a graceful exit just simply has no realism to it at all.” Over the weekend his national-security advisor, Stephen Hadley, trailed the same message on America’s closely-followed Sunday-morning political chat shows. He dismissed suggestions that the Baker commission would give political cover for Mr Bush to withdraw from Iraq: “Cut and run is not his cup of tea.”

Yet there is evidently pressure on Mr Bush to show that something is changing in Iraq. His outgoing defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said in a memo written shortly before the elections in early November, and leaked (perhaps by Mr Rumsfeld himself) at the weekend, that a major course-correction was needed. As striking, Mr Rumsfeld’s successor, Robert Gates, echoed this in his confirmation hearings before the Senate on Tuesday. Asked if America was winning in Iraq, he said simply “no sir”.

On troop levels, there are broadly three options: “go big”, “go long” or “go home”, as the Pentagon has dubbed it in a review parallel to Mr Baker’s. Going big by adding many more troops seems unlikely, other than for short-term ends. Nor does packing up and going home seem on the cards. Instead going long, by reducing numbers but committing to the long-haul in Iraq, may have the best chance of getting a consensus. That might depend on setting out a clear timetable for withdrawal, along with a promise to keep American forces on standby in the region, perhaps in bases in Kuwait.

The Baker commission also suggests “a new diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region”. That means doing more to sort out the festering Arab-Israeli conflict, and talking to Iran and Syria about how they can help in Iraq, or at least stop doing harm. Mr Bush has not aired a clear view on this. Mr Rumsfeld, in his memo, dismissed the idea of a “Dayton-like” international conference on Iraq. Mr Gates, on the other hand, seems more sympathetic to the idea of getting international help. In his confirmation hearings he said that he thought Iran was not trustworthy, but he also recalled that America had open channels with its adversaries Russia and China during the cold war. A regional “grand bargain” that discourages Iran and Syria from fanning flames in Iraq may remain a hope, albeit a distant one.

Just what path Mr Bush intends to take may become clearer soon. Mr Bush said he would take the report “very seriously”. Mr Hadley has been promising that his boss will listen to the Baker report (and the many others who are offering their ideas), and will then describe his own “way forward”, to be announced in “weeks, not months”. Mr Bush will also have a chance to swap ideas with Tony Blair, Britain’s prime minister, at a meeting on Thursday. Whatever advice he is given, and despite last month’s electoral drubbing, Mr Bush wants the world to know that he is still, firmly, “the decider”.




I just wish there had been more voices like this four years ago, before this idiot and his crowd of philistines even stepped foot in the quagmire in which they've sunk us all.

The report is something I plan to read, and I recommend that you all do so as well. It's available to buy, cheap in price and not even long - at only 160 pages, you could inhale it in a single afternoon. Not much of an effort in exchange for a cogent and well laid out set of arguments in favor of...oh, I don't know...SANITY???

Comments

[leia-grace.livejournal.com]

You could have put this behind a cut so has to not make this dipshit who voted him back into office get angry over a petty agrument, but, guess what, I am angry. So, I'm not going to put an ounce of effort into trying to understand your rant so I do not have to argue back and start a debate. I have been kind enought o a mostly liberal friends pahe to try to keep my political leanings under wraps or only post them on conservative communities. You might want to show the same respect. I would expect that, seeing as liberals are supposedly so much more nonjudgemental and open-minded.

Please extend the courtesy of a cut or find some other way so that any other conservatives like myself who consider you a friend they would like to keep don't have to become angry over one little post.

Thank you

[gloryunderhill.livejournal.com]

Geesh! Serai can post whatever she wants in her own journal. I guess your belief in freedom of speech is conditional. Freedom is good so long as it doesn't make you angry? Again, I say, Geesh!

[leia-grace.livejournal.com]

You can talk to me about conditions when my liberal friends get angry at my political posts so I have to put them behind a cut, because I value their friendship more than I feel political disagreements should come between us. It's not about how angry a post will make someone with opposing views, it's about having the courtesy to realize that not everyone wants to read a political rant that blasts everything they believe, because they happen to have friended that person over other, stronger mutual interests.

I am not angry. I am sad at the lack of understanding.

[gloryunderhill.livejournal.com]

I'm not the cause of what your liberal friends have done in the past, so yes I can talk about conditions. Your desire to protect your friends from being offended is admirable, but not everyone has to live up to your standards. That's what freedom is all about.

Serai is very open about her political leanings and she posts about them frequently. It is her space, she can think and feel what she likes here even if she feels like being rude and offending people. If you've been her friend for any amount of time this post would not have surprised you. You said you were angry and now you say you're not. I'm confused.

[leia-grace.livejournal.com]

*thinks on it*

I've always felt that political posts should be preached to the choir when it comes to the internet, because, as I'm sure you have often found, minds cannot be changed just from reading politically charged posts, and those arguing would have to reach the conclusion of 'agreeing to disagree'. Sometimes, I just feel that enough is enough, as I'm sure you have, when seeing posts that disagree with your views, and go as far as calling you names (which really surprised me) and I felt I had to say something at this point.

As for the confusion, I actually was a bit confused about what I was saying. my initial reaction was anger over the fact that her post seemed very argumentative. It quickly turned to sadness and disappointment over the fact that I feel it is impolite, and really, everyone on the internet lives by a double standard when it comes to politics. We agree that it is a good thing that one can talk about politics no matter their views, and we all accuse each other of living by a double standard by saying 'so it's ok for you to do this but not them?'. People give into this too much. I admit to saying to relatives, that I believe liberals to be open and understanding only to those who agree with them, and is that not a double standard on their part, as well as a double standard on my part for even stating my first post above?

Whew, I hope that didn't confuse you, it's just a very complicated subject to try to explain. Even for an English major!

[serai1.livejournal.com]

Thank you, sweetheart. I am so fed up with this kind of whiny, over-sensitive crap. It's not enough that the whole damn country is being ruined by the assholes that got voted into office by that sort. Noooo. Everybody has to tiptoe around them so they won't hear a single thing that might OFFENDTHEREVIRGENEERSOMGWTFBBQ!!!!!11!!! It's exactly the same attitude that self-worshipping know-nothing "president" has towards anyone who might disagree with him.

If she doesn't like what I have to say, she can go off the cliff with the rest of the lemmings. She will find no sympathy here whatsoever.

*hugs*

[serai1.livejournal.com]

If you don't like what I have to say,

PLEASE DEFRIEND ME NOW

I've had ENOUGH of conservative...people...coming to my personal journal to scold me for how I do thing IN MY OWN DAMN SPACE.

If I don't like someone's opinions, I take them off my list. I don't go to their space and start whining about OMYPOOREYES YOUREOPPRESSING MEEEEE. See that toolbar at the top of your screen? See the big arrow pointing back? Grow up and learn to use it.

I ran out of patience for this kind of crap a long time ago. Defriend me NOW, please.

[leia-grace.livejournal.com]

Oh how very nice and mature of you. If you had read my other posts you would know I the how I was not actually being mean.

Don't worry. We're no longer friends.

[serai1.livejournal.com]

Oh, good.

I did read your other posts. I saw nothing else in them to counteract my first impression. Whether you call it "anger" or "sadness", you still expect me to hide what I have to say under a bushel so you won't be offended.

Had you bothered to read any of the posts where I explained my stance on opinions and behavior on LJ, you'd have known this kind of thing would be futile. YOU chose to ignore them, therefore you called the response on yourself.

Again, grow up and learn to take responsibility for your mistakes.

[celandine-g.livejournal.com]

Loved your comments!

I just wish there had been more voices like this four years ago, before this idiot and his crowd of philistines even stepped foot in the quagmire in which they've sunk us all.

It wouldn't have helped because the lemmings were quite happy to follow the Philistines over the cliff because they didn't want to think about the facts and were too scared of having bad guys marching down Main St. (obviously having learned nothing from Viet Nam and 58,000 American casualties because of the same fucking ignorance).

So we are in the middle of a war that was started for the sole purpose of re-electing Bush and feathering the nests of all his "reconstruction" cronies. We're in a quagmire now because this war was started for all the wrong reasons and has no basis in anything but greed and arrogance. So of course there are no answers...and no palatable solutions.

[serai1.livejournal.com]

*sigh* Yep. The only choice we have is to hunker down and hope we all survive the storm. The Democratic leadership has said they aren't going to try anything drastic, and although I was pissed about it at first, I agree with them now. The majority they won in Congress simply isn't big enough to guarantee that any move to counteract Bush won't backfire on them come '08. I wish they could go after these assholes with both barrels, but it's just not politically wise. We wouldn't want the bastards taking the country again next time - if they do, there won't be any chance of taking it back for at least another thirty years, and by then America will be dead and buried. For now, we have to just try to control the infection and bring the fever down.

[celandine-g.livejournal.com]

wish they could go after these assholes with both barrels, but it's just not politically wise.

Yeah, me too. I'd like to see them all impeached and in jail for war crimes. But as you said, unless something really incredible comes to light, it would be an uphill battle and the available energy is probably better spent elsewhere. It may be that if we just give them enough rope they will save us all the trouble and hang themselves anyway.

But the next presidential election is critical and I just pray the Demos don't blow it since the ball is definitely in their court. They need to be very careful how they bat it back. *holds breath*

[hobbitlove83.livejournal.com]

Mr Bush still thinks he's the "decider"??

God have mercy on us all!

As long as that idiot is reciding in the White House, I'm afraid there will be no hope for our planet. Really, if he had any sense at all he would have ratified the Kyoto agreement as soon as it had been initiated!

I'm sorry about that "conservative"'s reply, Serai- she and the likes of her are doing this world a lot of damage, while thinking they have God on their side.

Btw, what is she on about: you did put your so called rant behind a cut, didn't you?

If there is a God, I'm certain he/she is cheering the people that are favouring the gentle voice of reason.

Really, organised religion!!

*is feeling quite disgusted*

[serai1.livejournal.com]

Thanks, hon. People like that can hoist themselves by their own petard. I really don't give a crap about them. Clearly, she had me friended so she could read my fics, because she's never posted a single comment that I can remember to anything I've posted. In my opinion, friending someone for her creative work and then turning around and bitching them out for having a political opinion and not hiding it in the closet like "decent" people is not at all on, and I won't put up with it. She can go bitch somebody else out for their beliefs. Five'll get you ten it'll be someone who'll meekly say, "Yes, ma'am" and do what she demands.

Why in the world she thought it would work here, I have no idea. Makes me wonder if she's ever read anything political I've posted. It's not as if this is the first time I've ever posted anything about my contempt for that tribe of shit-flinging apes before!

[gloryunderhill.livejournal.com]

that tribe of shit-flinging apes before

*snort* Half the reason I love your posts is your amazing way with scalding curses. *adores*

[serai1.livejournal.com]

*buffs nails on lapel* Just natural born talent, ah guess. ;)

[ladysunrope.livejournal.com]

Keep commenting, keep ranting and keep raging against the 'friggin babboon' (loved that) because every time you do you give me hope that there is at least one more person from the US who is prepared to make a stand somewhere. Watching from this side of the pond can be so fucking scary at times, god knows how it must feel there.

And I'm still amazed that anyone that sees Iraq casualties of 655,000, most of them civilians, as well as nearly 3000 US war dead can STILL admit to voting for the man without any hint of regret or remorse. Such inhumanity to man is beyond excuse and support of it deserves no respect at all. To be deliberately blind to such inhumanity in the name of conservatism beggars belief.

[serai1.livejournal.com]

It astounds me as well. To be honest, I don't think all these neo-conservatives give a rat's ass about dead Iraqis, whether men, women, children, oldsters, whatever. They're all roaches to the neo-cons, and deserve to die a bloody death so we can keep getting fat on their oil. Well, maybe our country is going through the equivalent of diabetes and heart disease in these years. As the doctors keep telling us, it's either get on a sensible diet or die, simple as that.

And thanks for the support, LSR. (By the way, have you realized that your initials pronounced come out as "Elessar"?) I'm glad I can provide information about what's going on over here, and the assurance that we are not all a bunch of flag-waving yahoos. *hugs*

[ex-rogerpit.livejournal.com]

For those who are interested, the Iraq Study Report can be downloaded as a free PDF file here (http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/index.html). I downloaded it myself earlier tonight, and plan to spend a few days digesting it.

[serai1.livejournal.com]

Yo, thanks! I'll alert folks. :D