The Iraq Hawks are fighting among themselves…

[Junkdrawer]

I see at least four hawk factions:

1.) The ones who believe we need to control the Middle East to fight terrorism. (The irony of our presence causing the terrorism seems lost with these folks).

2.) The ones that are simply out for the oil and reconstruction revenues. (There are the true looters.)

3.) The ones who would do just about anything to help Likud's vision of Israeli security. (I suspect Lieberman is in this camp, which is why I oppose him.)

4.) The ones who view controlling the ME oil as a strategic asset in a long term game of global hegemony. (The old Kissinger Realpolitik gang.)

Now, they all could agree on invading Iraq, but what to do after we invaded is splitting them up. Some want to continue the fight into Iran and Syria, some believe we’re overstretched already. Some want an international presence in Iraq, some want to keep the UN out at all costs. Some want more troops in Iraq, some want to save the troops for further adventures.

The result of all the infighting? A complete lack of any kind of plan for Iraq, good or bad. We’re adrift and it’s the troops who are paying the price. Daily.

[barbaraann]

1. Good analysis.

I think George W. Bush is the leader of Group #2 and he is yelling at the others to fix all the problems so that he can continue to profiteer. He has always been able to demand that someone else fix every problem he has encountered in life with no effort on his own part. However, I don't think it's going to work this time.

[ThoughtCriminal]

2. Group 2 runs the show

Everything else is just pandering.

[ewagner]

3. I see

the lack of a plan, but wehre is the evidence of the infighting?

"A" does not follow "B"....(there is no plan so there must be infighting) do you have other indications of infighting?

I would certainly be happy if the SOBs self-destructed.

[Junkdrawer]

4. Check this thread and check out Meet the Press..

Analysis: Is 'Perfect Storm' Brewing for Bush? (PNAC panicking)

Check Biden vs Meyers here:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/MEETPRESS_Front.asp

[TacticalPeek]

6. Is wolfie/gingrinch poking powell/navytage in the eye

extraneous to your taxonomy? Or part of the same catfight?

[Clete]

5. Your assessment is valid, in my eyes anyway.

The problem is where we go from here. Going by memory here as I couldn't write anything down at the time. My husband had some of the morning programs on and he switches from channel to channel while I make breakfast so I don't know who said it on whose show, but this is what I heard.

Some pundit said that nothing can be done in Iraq unless Bush admits he made a mistake and goes to the UN to get them to send in their troops and help in rebuilding the country and that the USA needs to let the UN be in charge. This is the only way the region can be stabilized and I agree. However, I believe it will be a fat chance in Hades before Mr. Arrogance humbles himself to admit he made a mistake and now needs to do what is necessary to salvage the situation and get back on the right track.

[Junkdrawer]

14. Biden on Meet the Press....

There’s nothing international about this until we get NATO in there and we get Islamic forces in there. And we can get 30,000 Islamic forces in there from Pakistan and from Turkey, and we can also get India in on the deal now, which would make a gigantic difference now, allowing us to free up our forces, doing police work, to concentrate on the borders and to concentrate on the tough areas. But we don’t seem to be willing to acknowledge this. What is the hang-up here? What’s the hang-up? We either pay for it all—this administration’s treating Iraq like it’s some prize we won that we don’t want to share.

More...

http://www.msnbc.com/news/956692.asp

[legin]

15. Wow !!

I can see why Rumsfeld can afford to let Gen. Myers out without a chaperone, Myers is really very efficiently full of it.


"MR. RUSSERT: Call up more reserves, if necessary?
GEN. MYERS: Well, the reserves are going to be part of whatever we do in the future, anyway. That’s just the way we are. You know, let’s go back and step back just a second and say what this is all about. We are a nation at war. This is a war against international terrorism. In my view, this is the biggest threat to this country’s existence as far back as I can remember,... Blah, Blah, Blah"


Standard political trick, don't answer akward questions you don't want to answer by changing the subject.

Anyway, if he doesn't want to answer the question then it does mean they are thinking of calling up some National Guard reserves. I'm still saying 100,000.

[legin]

16. Ooops and again

"MR. RUSSERT: Senator McCain, General Barry McCaffrey said this the other day. “Counting 10,000 troops in Afghanistan, 37,000 in Korea, more than half the army in Iraq, we can’t do any more. We have three brigades uncommitted and reserved, and we have other international responsibilities. The real question is, does the administration right now have the political will to call up maybe nine National Guard brigades and tell them they’re on duty for 12 months and add them to the force structure. If we don’t do that a year from now we are going over a cliff.”
Do you agree with that?
SEN. McCAIN: I don’t have the kind of knowledge that General McCaffrey and others have about the specifics of the number of troops. I know we need more. I know we need them particularly in certain specialties. People have said in the Guard and Reserves, time is up, and they have to be replaced. But I want to mention one other thing real quick, and that’s this business of all these outside people coming in from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran... etc, etc, etc.

(Don't quote me on this I think a brigade is about 5,000 - 7,000, in the regular army anyway wether that applies to the national guard)

[Junkdrawer]

17. I saw the whole show this morning and...

after I read some articles in LBN, it struck me: BushCo put together a coalition that agreed that invading Iraq was a good idea and then disagreed about everything after the invasion was done. Biden and McCain want a massive effort to rebuild Iraq and BushCo want to free up the forces for the next adventure. And the UN will come in only if we agree to stop calling all the shots.

[legin]

21. Agreed about the freeing up forces

i think bush* has to from his perspective.

It is not as though Powell can go to N.Korea and, as he would put it, "impress upon the leader of N.Korea the strength of our position." Because the guy can look around and see a large chunk of the u.s. frontline troops tied up in Iraq.

I mean even I am starting to think that this might be an oppotune moment for a little legin invaison of somewhere.

:evilgrin:

[legin]

7. Good post Junkdrawer

1. What lower ranking officials tell themselves when in the odd moment of reflection they ask themselves why they are going along with this shit.

2. bush*

3. Perle, Leeden, William Kristol(?), Rumsfeld.
My instint is that Rumsfeld is just ambitious. He got a taste of power under Nixon, liked it, and jumped on the neo-con bandwagon as his best way of getting back there.

With this group one wonders how committed they are to a united, healthy, democratic Iraq. From israel's point of view a hard working Iraq, with a vibrant efficient economy fuelled by a whole shitload of oil underneath it, may not be to israel's advantage. I think they would settle for an economic rival to replace a political/idealogical one, but neither would be nice.

4. Cheney and (being charitable) Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz gets a bit of flack from ZOA so he is probably not quite 3 enough for some people.

[legin]

8. Just a stray thought

that just flitted in front of my eyes.

The reason why reason Rumsfeld is so good at these Dept of Defence press confereces that i see on tele, OK he may be a lying sack of whatever but he does come across well, is because he totally loves doing that sort of thing, strutting his political stuff on stage.

With Harry Flasher he may well be considered an able White House spokesperson, but it was just a job to him, he's there because that is how he earns his salary, Rumsfeld is there because he likes it.

[TacticalPeek]

10. The thing about Rumdum's press conferences/appearances

is their sheer quantity as well. Sure, he relishes self-perceived bravura in the spotlight. But I think he's mainly there to nurse the story, massage the neohistory to be sure perceptions stay on track. Or rather mix the tracks to get the sound he needs. He would be concerned that press conferences with just a military briefer, or Pentagon suit not as talented as he, would risk the wrong words spilling out, or no parry ready for difficult questions. Like with Bush at the Crawford ranch last year during the runup, practically whispering Nancy Reagan-like into aWol's ear. "We're patient. No decisions to go to war. We're patient men."

Wherever he's put his boot down, he'll even lean across the line and strike where it pleases him, like threatening Syria and Iran knowing the State Dept can do no more than smile. The press are simply messengers for him, for the Office of Global Communications, and so forth.

Some rainy day, I plan to look up the number of press appearances by the Gleamer since 9/11, compared to other conflict SecDef's, Cohen, etc. I would expect a significant difference.

Their scheme has required a cooperative press. I heard a guy on c-span2 last night, Goldman(?) at Wellesley talking his book on the privatization of Russia, mention how the oligarchs sometimes needed to use their media outlets to influence high national policy, elections, etc. in their favor. It worked, of course. And I see it working here.

[legin]

11. Exellent post TacticalPeak

:kick:

[Jacobin]

9. Great analysis.

I think you've nailed it.

They were all deluded but for different reasons.

Now that they have their common goal first step done, it'll be a mess to watch it unravel.

It'll be their downfall, thankfully.

[Junkdrawer]

13. Yep. Everything is in neutral while they duke it out...

Meanwhile, every month, $4 billon, scores of US troop deaths, unknown numbers of US casualties, and countless Iraqi civilian deaths. And somehow or another, I just don't think the anniversary of Statue Topple Day will become a cherished Iraqi holiday.

[Booberdawg]

12. All the better chance they will be the source of their own demise

as the result of their own hubris and arogance.

drip, drip, drip

[CatWoman]

18. POINTING FINGERS

Are Iraq’s neighbors allowing Jihadis to cross the border and join the fight? Rumsfeld fingered Syria last week. But some intelligence officials suspect that most of the Jihadi recruits are coming from America’s oil-rich ally, Saudi Arabia. Some 3,000 Saudi men have been reported to have gone missing in recent weeks. (It is an inconvenient fact for U.S.-Saudi relations that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis.)

Stretched thin, short of military policemen (many of whom are reservists and National Guards, upset at long tours away from home), the U.S. military could use some help from abroad. A few nations may, reluctantly, send troops to Iraq to join the Americans and the British. The Eastern Europeans have already sent small detachments, and the Turks, Indians and Pakistanis are thinking about it. But while adding Muslim troops to the occupying force would be highly desirable from the American standpoint, Muslim political leaders are understandably wary about being seen as collaborators with Uncle Sam, especially as the violence escalates.

America would also welcome a NATO presence, but the Pentagon strongly insists that American troops will only follow American commanders. Though the French will be balky as ever, there may be ways to work around this impasse. Divided or joint commands have succeeded elsewhere, notably in Bosnia; in Afghanistan, NATO (a largely German force) has taken over security in the capital of Kabul. In Iraq, American troops could continue to take the combat roles fighting the resistance, while foreign troops, under international command, could guard relief organizations and “soft” targets.

Economic progress is probably the best hope for peace in the long run, but before Iraq can revive its oil industry and rebuild its infrastructure, it must have security. How bad is crime in Iraq? At a recent Washington conference on restoring the Iraqi electricity industry, one expert observed that so much copper has been looted from Iraqi power plants and smuggled out of the country that the price of copper has dropped in the Middle East. Seems there is a glut.

Rebuilding Iraq will take years and billions of dollars not yet budgeted by Congress. Iraq is far from self-determination. The members of the Governing Council are split by ethnic differences and live and work under heavy guard, afraid of being the resistance’s next victims.

Meanwhile, the mothers of American soldiers watch the hellish images on TV and listen to the gloomy commentators and want to know when their children are coming home. Perpetually conditioned by Vietnam, the pundits see a deepening quagmire and draw invidious comparisons between turning over power to the Iraqis and the ill-fated “Vietnamization” program of the early 1970s. The Vietnam analogies are facile and exaggerated. But the United States is not coming home any time soon.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/956618.asp?0cv=KB10

[IranianDemocrat]

19. How about Bush's number 5?

The ones who want to be viewed as a war time president, so they can do things like stage aircraft carrier photo ops even though they went AWOL, and take American attention away from domestic problems like the recession, so they can increase approval ratings.

[Junkdrawer]

20. A lot of poll boost in the invasion, not much boost in...

spending a cool $100 billion or more rebuilding Iraq. I said at least 4 groups...

[Junkdrawer]

22. Kick

:kick: