August 24, 2004
WHY DOES CHARLIE BROWN ALWAYS THINK THE FOOTBALL WILL BE THERE? (via mc):
In Najaf, Iraqi Politics Dictate U.S. Tactics (Karl Vick, August 24, 2004, Washington Post)
The company commanders had their maps, their orders and their rules of engagement."As for the timeline, I'm going to ask you to remain flexible," said Army Maj. Doug Ollivant, who was running the pre-battle briefing one day this month. "You've just entered the world of political war, and it's not a guy wearing a uniform who is going to be making the final decision on where and when this happens."
Ollivant was, in fact, flexible when the order to scrub the mission reached his armored Humvee that night, on the way out of the main gate of the principal U.S. base in Najaf with a column of Abrams tanks raring to go behind him. But three nights later, when his radio crackled with the same message -- no go -- passed down from the same guy not wearing a uniform, the 1st Cavalry Division officer slapped the dashboard and cursed.
"Welcome to my world," he ruefully told a Special Operations officer who also had been whipsawed for two weeks by the shifting political calculations dictating how U.S. forces go about defeating a Shiite Muslim militia fighting from inside the holiest shrine in Shiite Islam.
"We're in the same world," the officer said with a smile. "Especially down here."
If there is any doubt that the new Iraqi government is calling the shots in this country, the supporting evidence is mounting daily in Najaf.
Here's a case where the neocons were fooled as badly as their critics. The President meant it when he said he was transferring sovereignty. Never have so many been deceived so often by a man who keeps his word. Posted by Orrin Judd at August 24, 2004 8:50 AM
So does that mean when and if folks like Pat Buchanan ever catch on, he'll stop talking about fighting imperial wars to defend Israel and start criticizing the President for putting our troops under foreign command (as he criticized former President Clinton for UN involvement)?
Just wondering. :)
Posted by: kevin whited at August 24, 2004 9:03 AMGot a tyrant you need to be rid of? We've got a military you can borrow.
Posted by: oj at August 24, 2004 9:10 AMIt was right to hand over sovereignty to the Iraqis. But it would be nice if they didn't jerk our forces around so much.
Posted by: AWW at August 24, 2004 9:30 AMAWW;
If our troops are getting jerked around, it's because our leaders are permitting it. There's all sorts of things we could do that wouldn't impact sovereignity that would decrease such jerking.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at August 24, 2004 9:51 AMThe jerking is necessary to demonstrate jerkability.
Posted by: oj at August 24, 2004 9:55 AMThe safest and most effective way to deceive is to tell the truth in a forum where it will not be believed.
Posted by: mike earl at August 24, 2004 12:34 PMYeah, I do. Where do I apply?
(I dunno if this is accurate, but a writer of a letter to the editor quotes Bush II as saying, "Our actions begin today, and my administration will continue to speak and act for as long as the persecution and atrocities in the Sudan last."
Alleged date: 5-3-01
Move along with all deliberate speed, folks, nothing to see.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 24, 2004 1:33 PMHarry:
He made good on that pledge, but it took several years. One wouldn't expect quicker movement in favor of Muslims than we got for Christian in Sudan.
Posted by: oj at August 24, 2004 1:41 PMIndeed, Orrin, given the complexion of the UN and a sizeable fraction of the Electorate who, like edgar, would probably like seeing the Christians bleed and die.
Posted by: Ptah at August 24, 2004 6:45 PMMy name isn't edgar , and I've advocated saving the Christians (and pagans) since the late '70s, when I first became aware of the situation. (I was in Iowa at the time, and the Christian leader was an Iowa State Ph.D.)
Bush hasn't delivered and now he never can.
Here's the deal. It's like when Hitler threatened to bomb Prague unless he got the Sudetenland. He got it, and everybody breathed a sigh of relief and said, "He's a tough negotiator, but we can do business with him."
Six months later, he was back for Prague.
Here's how Khartoum sees it: Bush forces the Christians to accept Khartoum's hegemony, instead of the independence they wanted, and Bush and Orrin tell them what a sweet deal that is.
Meanwhile, Khartoum, tactically changing but not strategically, starts killing Muslims for a while.
There can hardly be any doubt that once the outside world is distracted, they get back to the Christians and pagans.
Only then, they know they'll have a free hand. Because Bush is desperate to appease Islam, and if he doesn't do anything in Darfur, he certainly won't be able to object to whatever happens in southern Sudan later.
He's caught in a trap.
Orrin keeps telling us how clever he is. I don't see it that way.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 24, 2004 10:48 PMHarry:
Actually Bill Clinton deserves much of the credit. Blowing up the aspirin factory may have looked bad at the time but convinced the regime they needed to be our friend not our enemy.
Applying the FDR standard--from Sudetanland to stopping the Nazis--Mr. Bush has 8 years to stop the Sudanese.
Posted by: oj at August 24, 2004 10:54 PMLike Bush now, there's no evidence FDR had any desire to help the Czechs.
And, even granting your point, the significant thing is that the Czechs didn't end up better off, did they?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 25, 2004 2:29 PMHarry:
No, they'd have been better off if FDR intervened right away, like Bush has.
Posted by: oj at August 25, 2004 3:46 PMWell, yes, as long as he didn't intervene in the way Bush has, which is the same way Chamberlain did.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 26, 2004 3:33 PMChamberlain brokered a peace deal between Hitler and the Czechs?
Posted by: oj at August 26, 2004 3:40 PMYes
Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 27, 2004 9:46 PMSearch Engine Cloaker - Cloaking Software
Posted by: Search Engine Cloaker at October 24, 2004 1:33 AM