Author Topic: Bush fans comments on this?  (Read 422 times)

Offline Frodo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7473
Bush fans comments on this?
« on: July 29, 2003, 09:55:52 PM »
I pulled this from another board,but thought you might want to toss this one around. :D

 
by Pat Buchanan


After five weeks of air strikes and 100 hours of ground war, President Bush ordered General Schwarzkopf to end his attacks and halt his advance. Receiving reports of air massacres of retreating Iraqis on the Highway of Death out of Kuwait City, unwilling to risk a defection of his Arab allies, Bush I ordered an end to the war.

America agreed. Our goal had been to liberate Kuwait. It had been achieved, brilliantly. Saddam’s army had been evicted. The 500,000-man army of Desert Storm was ordered home. And the neoconservatives never forgave Bush I for not going to Baghdad.

A dozen years later, the son, at their fanatical urging, invaded Iraq, seized Baghdad, and committed America to building a democracy that would serve as a model for the Arab and Islamic world.

Three months have now elapsed since Baghdad fell. In those 100 days, the wisdom of the father in disregarding the neocons, and the folly of the son in heeding them, have become apparent.

America has 150,000 troops bogged down in Iraq as proconsul Paul Bremer is demanding thousands more to put down a guerrilla revolt that has broken out against our occupation.

Each day brings reports of new American dead and wounded. Our enemies are said to be terrorists, Saddam’s Fedayeen, the remnants of the Ba’ath Party. But Saddam had hundreds of thousands of men in his army, Republican Guard, and Special Republican Guard. We did not kill a tenth of these soldiers. Where are they now?

George W. Bush is in more trouble than he realizes. Indeed, his place in history may yet hinge on how he deals with what Americans are coming to see as an intolerable cost in lives to maintain a presence in Iraq when they are not yet convinced it is vital to our security.

The president spent a year convincing us of the ominous threat of Saddam—his weapons and ties to terrorists—a threat that could be eliminated only by an invasion and the death of his regime. But he has not even begun to make the case for why we must stay on in Iraq.

Why are we still there? If our goal is a democracy in Iraq, that is surely noble, but is it doable? What is the price in blood of achieving it? What is the cost in tens of billions? What are the prospects for success? What would constitute indices of failure, at which point we would write off the investment? What is our exit strategy?

None of these questions has been answered. What we hear from the president is “Bring ’em on,” and from senators who visit Baghdad, “We must be prepared to stay five or ten years.” But why must we be prepared to stay five or ten years? Now that Saddam is gone and his weapons of mass destruction no longer threaten us, if ever they did, why must we stay?

Iraq is not Vietnam where we lost 150 soldiers each week for seven years. But it has taken on the aspect of the colonial wars of the European empires, all of which were lost because the natives were more willing to pay in blood to drive the imperialists out than the imperialists were willing to pay in blood to stay around.

The truism stands: the guerrillas win if they do not lose. And they do not lose as long as they keep fighting, dying, killing, and raising the cost of the occupation. British, French, Israelis, and Russians can testify to that.

Americans sense, rightly, that we do not need to occupy Iraq to be secure here at home.

Bush’s father understood this. Is the son wiser? Why did Bush I stop at Basra and not go on to Baghdad? He had no desire to occupy and rule Iraq. He saw no need to. He feared that a U.S. occupation would alienate Arab allies, inflame the Arab street, and invite an Iraqi intifada. He placed a high value on the coalition he had stitched together to fight, and to pay for, the war. He was warned Iraq could split apart and a Shi’ite south sympathetic to Iran could break loose. He did not see a routed Saddam as a mortal threat. He believed Iraq could be deterred, contained.

On this, he was a conservative. Has not history proven him right?

His son, however—to invade and occupy Iraq and oust Saddam—was willing to shatter alliances, alienate Arabs, Turks, French, Germans, and Russians, have his country pay the full cost of the war, and run the entire occupation ourselves. Now, U.S. casualties, after the fall of Baghdad, are approaching the number of lives lost in the war.

Looking back, were Saddam’s weapons so imminent a menace they required an invasion? Or did the neocons get revenge on the father by leading his son down the garden path—to the empire of their dreams, now creaking at the joints?

What does the son do now, with the election 15 months away?


Frodo


JG11 

TEAMWORK IS ESSENTIAL....IT GIVES THE ENEMY SOMEONE ELSE TO SHOOT AT.

Offline Sixpence

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5265
      • http://www.onpoi.net/ah/index.php
Bush fans comments on this?
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2003, 10:02:49 PM »
Can you put that in two sentences?
"My grandaddy always told me, "There are three things that'll put a good man down: Losin' a good woman, eatin' bad possum, or eatin' good possum."" - Holden McGroin

(and I still say he wasn't trying to spell possum!)

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Bush fans comments on this?
« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2003, 10:13:59 PM »
Hey... isn't Pat Buchanan a leftist whacko?


LOL...

:D
sand

Offline Raubvogel

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3882
Bush fans comments on this?
« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2003, 10:30:37 PM »
I wouldn't waste my time reading anything Pat Buchanan has to say.

Offline SirLoin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5708
Bush fans comments on this?
« Reply #4 on: July 30, 2003, 06:34:59 AM »
Pat,in his book,said America had no reason to go to war in WW2 with Germany..What a revisionist twit.
**JOKER'S JOKERS**

Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18791
I read this far ...
« Reply #5 on: July 30, 2003, 06:38:17 AM »
by Pat Buchanan
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | 16GB GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Ti Super | 850 watt ps | pimax Crystal Light | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder

Offline ra

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3569
Bush fans comments on this?
« Reply #6 on: July 30, 2003, 06:43:45 AM »
Quote
Three months have now elapsed since Baghdad fell. In those 100 days, the wisdom of the father in disregarding the neocons, and the folly of the son in heeding them, have become apparent.

Three whole months and Iraq is not Switzerland yet?

Offline Fishu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
Bush fans comments on this?
« Reply #7 on: July 30, 2003, 07:09:00 AM »
'a bit' too pessimistic view.
I don't think the saddams army is even half as much threat as the foreign jihad wannabes and that isn't actually so much.

It's not like saddams armys morale and loyalty was high ever since the first gulf war..

However it is a fact that the guerrilla war will continue for a good while, however I don't believe it will become anything big.

It's all up to US how much they're willing to accept casualties.
In my opinion, since everyone wanted it so much, they should now also stay up with their responsibility after the actual war.
It's not like you can just mow down a country and leave it a year after.
If a person didn't predict the aftermath, he needs to learn to think twice before cheerleading for the next war.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2003, 07:28:17 AM by Fishu »

Offline _Schadenfreude_

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Bush fans comments on this?
« Reply #8 on: July 30, 2003, 07:58:27 AM »
Saw the grilling that Wolfowitz got on the Hill this week - looked like a lot of po'd Senators where making him squirm - specially liked the question that they put to them "Anyone think we'll be getting our troop levels down to 100,000 in Iraq this year raise you hands" They all looked very sheepish and no-one said a word.

I think George W is going to get hung out to dry on this one.....if there is anything like another terrorist attack in the USA anytime soon he's a goner.

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
Bush fans comments on this?
« Reply #9 on: July 30, 2003, 08:00:19 AM »
I read as far as "Pat"...then began to wonder if Pat was a male or female (Anyone remember the old SNL skit?)