Iraq insurgency in 'last throes,' Cheney says

Remove all ads!

Iraq insurgency in 'last throes,' Cheney says. As that sounds so much like a 'mission accomplished' I found it remarkable enough to post it.

Even more as the news don't really seem to support his view:
Basra out of control, says chief of police
Fear of civil war grows as Shia start to retaliate

Well, an all out civil war would indeed mean the end of an 'insurgency' and mark the descent into total chaos. But he can't possibly be so cynical, I hope ...

 

The British probably said the same thing about militant Republicans during the early 80's...

Silly people and silly views!

 

Following Cheney's statement, the North Vietnamese violated the truce in place for the holiday and launched what is now being refered to as the "Tet Offensive"

Oops, wait, wrong war.

 

Pro American that I generally am, I have to say, to my dismay . . .

Cheney is a moron.

The reason they're having problems, IMHO, is they are not being aggressive enough. They could be, but all the bleeding hearts here and abroad would cry like a rainstorm and howl like the wind (as the lovely Linda Ronstadt put it.)

 

They can't afford to be anymore agressive than they are. The generals suggested that it would take about 300,000 soldiers to execute the war. They were slapped down by the civilians in the Pentagon (neocons) who believed, like our genius president, that the war would be a cake walk; that the "primtives" in Iraq would be "shocked and awed" by American technology and its ruthlessness to use its vast arsenal on such a puny state. Well, more ruthlessness breeds more ruthlessness, especially on a "primitive" level.

 

Well, Chandos, you know me -- I'm vicious, cruel and really don't have a lot of respect for rogue states. If the States were to REALLY use their superior weaponry and flatten a few major cities (with conventional weapons, I know they can do it) I truly believe that more terrorists would think twice before suicide mission.

Sadly, there are many Americans (and others) who would rather have more 9/11 or Moscow theatre incidents than crush the problem ruthlessly. So without sufficient political will, we're doomed to more terrorism.

 

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. Even those who thought up the war admit that Iraq was not involved in 9/11. But to say "9/11" everytime America does something in the Middle East is politically useful for the prez and his minons.

BTW, what exactly is a "rogue state" anyway?

 

Well, the war was a cakewalk. It's the keeping the peace part that's been a PITA.

 

And the people would rather weep over their dead than to avenge them.

There has to be something that Saddam did that was a big one fingered wave to the US at a time when they were still smarting from an unwarranted, unexpected kick in the nuts. If you poke a wounded lion with a sharp stick, you're going to get mauled...

 

Which was what? That apparently wasn't clear. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMDs. Those were the touted reasons. We can't just assume there must have.

unwarranted - I think it was but to others, the losses in 9/11 were insignificant to the losses they had through the decades.

unexpected - I thought that there was (correct) intel saying that such a threat was present. The different agencies just didn't share info with each other.

 

Some news first:
US 'losing its grip' on Baghdad's political process

Gnarff,
for the neo-cons the tragedy of 9/11 signified a unique opportunity. A war to liberate Iraq promised to change the face of American grand strategy.
By irrevocably committing the United States to a broader and heavily militarized campaign aimed at liberating the entire Islamic world, it would signify the triumph of principles that people like Wolfowitz had long espoused:

No more compromises with dirty leaders like Stalin or Mao - but to regain moral purity through the force of military arms. Never again would raison d’etat oblige presidents to soil themselves by associating with execrable tin-pot dictators. Through military power, the United States could recapture the innocence sullied in the aftermath of the nation’s rise to great-power status.

The point that directly killing civillians through the wars you start for such an ideology might dirty you too, didn't dawn them. Details, schmeetails.

But for that triumph to occur, the war needed to happen.

In this sense, the yearnings for a peaceful resolution expressed by Wolfowitz and other senior Bush administration officials during the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom surely qualify as disingenuous.

Gnarff, you're naive to believe that U.S. ever intended not to use force against Iraq - the object of the exercise was never to disarm Saddam peacefully.

The aim was always to demonstrate the invincibility of American arms, thereby resetting in a fundamental way the international correlation of power globally, and especially in the Islamic world. Violence as such was a sine qua non, its use expected to endow the United States with greater reserves of leverage, influence, and respect.

Insofar Wolfowitz strategy was like imperial Germany's Schlieffen plan that required Germany to attack and to invade neutral Belgium under violation of international law - when the emperor suggested a defensive posture in the west, the General staff refused in awe, crying: 'But what about our plan then?!' A set plan took the decision out of the leader's hands - it had to be followed because it was there, and no one seriously thought about alternatives.

Insofar, the only thing Saddam did, was to provide a target to prove some neo-con theology.

Look where we are now: The US is friendly with torture countries like Musharaf's Pakistan or Karimov's Uzbekistan, in Iraq they put some Baathists back in power - a lot of compromising - and not at all the moral purity Wolfie imagined. His new job at the world bank actually indicates his defeat, his strategy failed.

[ June 01, 2005, 14:16: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

quote: There has to be something that Saddam did that was a big one fingered wave to the US

Which was what? That apparently wasn't clear. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMDs. Those were the touted reasons. We can't just assume there must have.


Pricing oil in euros? Who knows?

 

Interesting. I have a great deal of respect for Cheney -- he's not one to make a Dan Quail. Maybe he knows something we don't. I think as the Iraqi people continue to take control of their government the insurgency will dissipate. There will always be fighting, especially as long as there are American troops in Iraq.

Whoa, there partner... I think this is a little off:

Saddam was no babe in the woods. He is guilty of attempted genocide and more homicides than the khmer rouge. The world is a better place without men like him in power (but then there will be people who will say the same about the US in 2008).

The press went nuts on the anti-terrorism bandwagon and Bush just let them go. In the beginning of the war he was very careful to not tie the anti-terrorist campaign and the anti-Iraq campaign together. Bush repeated over and over that the war was about Saddam's failure to abide the UN rulings -- granted he was wrong, but he did not jump on the anti-terrorism=anti-Iraq thing until later (by then most of the American public had equated the two). I disagreed with the reasons at the time and felt the UN process was working -- but I didn't disagree with removing Saddam from power.

 

So you've eliminated two possibilities. Something pissed the Americans off enough to fight.

So all they have to show for it is a picture of Saddam in his skivvies...

I didn't figure he'd go peacefully either. They just wanted him out.

Wasn't that when he wasn't supposed to be selling oil in the first place?

49 point something percent of voters thought that the US would be a better place without George W in the whitehouse in 2004. Back on topic, though, Saddam did a lot of terrible things. Some BS report about Treaty violations was just a convenient excuse to invade and beat the crap out of them, and remove Hussein from power. I say give the new leaders a chance to see what they will do...

If they've got the public demanding Hussein's head on a pike on the White House lawn, why stop the press when the President wants to do it anyway?

That's the official story that works for the US, Great Brittain and a few other countries that got involved...

A fact conveniently left out until after the war had started...

 

Uh, what? The public didn't demand that the government invade Iraq, the government demanded that the public support an invasion of Iraq. Did a damned fine job of it, too.

 

Everyone in the world knew that Saddam was evil -- that's never been a discussion item, really. We also knew that he wanted WMD, and he was not cooperating with UN inspectors. Frankly, I'm glad that Saddam was stopped before he did get such weapons. I'd rather lock the gun store and arrest the fellow trying to pick the lock rather than have to deal with him once he's inside and a real danger.