Wednesday, October 25, 2006

The Big Iraq Gamble: Is The Return Worth The Bet, Or Should We Get A New Set Of Dealers For The House?

I don't like gamblers. They take giant risks and often lose huge sums of money. That's fine when the loss is constrained to their own coffers. But when people borrow to make bets, and then lose, they deserve what's coming to them.

Unfortunately for us, the W, Rove and Co made a huge gamble that the Iraq conflagration would turn in our favor using a super-sized jumbo loan borrowed on the backs of the American Taxpayer for generations to come, not to mention the lives of many lost for their "noble cause." The question is, has the bet paid off?

Today, in an every widening and ratcheting up set of PR junkets, the President is in a desperate frenzy to prove to the American people that he and his party have lead us to the right craps table. I remain unconvinced.

Let's have a look Wednesday's Presidential Press Briefing and make a judgment of our own as to whether or not we think the sizable bet the W, Rove and Co. laid down has yielded any kind of return.

Let's look at the newly articulated "strategy" that W is trying to spin his way:
First, we're working with political and religious leaders across Iraq, urging them to take steps to restrain their followers and stop sectarian violence.

Second, we're helping Iraqi leaders to complete work on a national compact to resolve the most difficult issues dividing their country. The new Iraqi government has condemned violence from all quarters and agreed to a schedule for resolving issues, such as disarming illegal militias and death squads, sharing oil revenues, amending the Iraqi constitution, and reforming the de-Baathification process.

Third, we're reaching out to Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Jordan, and asking them to support the Iraqi government's efforts to persuade Sunni insurgents to lay down their arms and accept national reconciliation.
I see. Is that working? Judging by the intensity and frequency with which the sectarian factions are killing each other, I would have to say: nope.
We're pressing Iraq's leaders to take bold measures to save their country. We're making it clear that America's patient [sic] is not unlimited.
Well, that we are not an infinite pool of patients is correct, but I'm not certain that the wagging middle finger of blame should point solely at the Iraqi's here. I thought W had repeatedly billed us as the Iraqi's saviors, no? But wait, there's hope.
A distinguished independent panel of Republicans and Democrats, led by former Secretary of State Jim Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, is taking a fresh look at the situation in Iraq and will make recommendations to help achieve our goals. I welcome all these efforts. My administration will carefully consider any proposal that will help us achieve victory.
Excuse me for a second here? I thought that W was only going to be making decisions about tactics based on feedback from generals in Iraq? What happened to the credibility of those boots-on-the-ground?

Ah, but let's have some fear tossed at us so we can see how clearly W is able to predict the future and get us to toss more money onto the Iraqi craps table:
If we do not defeat the terrorists or extremists in Iraq, they will gain access to vast oil reserves, and use Iraq as a base to overthrow moderate governments across the broader Middle East. They will launch new attacks on America from this new safe haven. They will pursue their goal of a radical Islamic empire that stretches from Spain to Indonesia.
Really? Nothing makes a gambler place a new bet faster than the fear of losing. But do you think Saudi Arabia will allow that to happen?

But where is the proof that the bet is paying off?
Q Are we winning?

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely, we're winning. Al qaeda is on the run. As a matter of fact, the mastermind, or the people who they think is the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks is in our custody. We've now got a procedure for this person to go on trial, to be held for his account. Most of al Qaeda that planned the attacks on September the 11th have been brought to justice.
I thought OBL was the lynchpin to this whole thing? What about him?

And if victory is certain, why can't we set a time line or time table?
Q What about the 12 to 18 month estimate?

THE PRESIDENT: It's a condition, a base estimate. And that's important for the American people to know. This notion about, you know, fixed timetable of withdrawal, in my judgment, is a -- means defeat. You can't leave until the job is done. Our mission is to get the job done as quickly as possible.

Let's see here -- David.

Q Mr. President, for several years you have been saying that America will stay the course in Iraq; you were committed to the policy. And now you say that, no, you're not saying, stay the course, that you're adapting to win, that you're showing flexibility. And as you mentioned, out of Baghdad we're now hearing about benchmarks and timetables from the Iraqi government, as relayed by American officials, to stop the sectarian violence.

In the past, Democrats and other critics of the war who talked about benchmarks and timetables were labeled as defeatists, defeat-o-crats, or people who wanted to cut and run. So why shouldn't the American people conclude that this is nothing from you other than semantic, rhetorical games and all politics two weeks before an election?

THE PRESIDENT: David, there is a significant difference between benchmarks for a government to achieve and a timetable for withdrawal. You're talking about -- when you're talking about the benchmarks, he's talking about the fact that we're working with the Iraqi government to have certain benchmarks to meet as a way to determine whether or not they're making the hard decisions necessary to achieve peace. I believe that's what you're referring to. And we're working with the Iraqi government to come up with benchmarks.

Listen, this is a sovereign government. It was elected by the people of Iraq. What we're asking them to do is to say, when do you think you're going to get this done, when can you get this done, so the people themselves in Iraq can see that the government is moving forward with a reconciliation plan and plans necessary to unify this government.

That is substantially different, David, from people saying, we want a time certain to get out of Iraq. As a matter of fact, the benchmarks will make it more likely we win. Withdrawing on an artificial timetable means we lose.

Now, I'm giving the speech -- you're asking me why I'm giving this speech today -- because there's -- I think I owe an explanation to the American people, and will continue to make explanations. The people need to know that we have a plan for victory. Like I said in my opening comments, I fully understand if the people think we don't have a plan for victory, they're not going to support the effort. And so I'll continue to speak out about our way forward.
So, which is it? A time line or time table means defeat or victory? What's the difference between benchmarks and a time line? Can you clarify for us Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. First, this is back to the question that David asked about benchmarks. You called it "timetables."

Q He did, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, he called it "timetables," excuse me. I think he was referring to the benchmarks that we're developing that show a way forward to the Iraqi people, and the American people for that matter, about how this unity government is going to solve problems and bring the people together. And if his point is, is that those benchmarks, or the way forward can't be imposed upon Iraq by an outside force, he's right. This is a sovereign government. But we're working closely with the government to be able to say, here's what's going to happen then, here's what we expect to happen now, here's what should be expected in the future.
Huh? If we can't force a way forward for Iraq, why did we go there in the first place?

But let's shift gears to think about what's the best way out of the Iraq mess. Should we stick with Rummy as the house dealer?
Q When you first ran for President, sir, you talked about the importance of accountability. We learned from Bob Woodward's recent book that Secretary Card, on two occasions, suggested that you replace Secretary Rumsfeld, and both times you said, no. Given that the war in Iraq is not going as well as you want, and given that you're not satisfied as you just told us today, why hasn't anybody been held accountable? Should somebody be held accountable?

THE PRESIDENT: Peter, you're asking me why I believe Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a good job, I think, if I might decipher through the Washington code.

Q -- or someone else --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let's start with Rumsfeld, Secretary Rumsfeld. I've asked him to do some difficult tasks as the Secretary of Defense -- one, wage war in two different theaters of this war on terror, Afghanistan and Iraq, and at the same time, asked him to transform our military posture around the world and our military readiness here at home. In other words, the transformation effort into itself is a big project for any Secretary to handle. But to compound the job he has, he's got to do that and, at the same time, wage war. And I'm satisfied of how he's done all his jobs.

He is a smart, tough, capable administrator. As importantly, he understands that the best way to fight this war, whether it be in Iraq or anywhere else around the world, is to make sure our troops are ready, that morale is high, that we transform the nature of our military to meet the threats, and that we give our commanders on the ground the flexibility necessary to make the tactical changes to achieve victory.

This is a tough war in Iraq. I mean, it's a hard fight, no question about it. All you've got to do is turn on your TV. But I believe that the military strategy we have is going to work. That's what I believe, Peter. And so we've made changes throughout the war, we'll continue to make changes throughout the war. But the important thing is whether or not we have the right strategy and the tactics necessary to achieve that goal. And I believe we do.
Well, but I thought you were telling us you were planning a new way out? Let's see, can we talk about some hypotheticals here?
Q What if there is a civil war?

THE PRESIDENT: You're asking me hypotheticals. Our job is to make sure there's not one, see. You been around here five-and-a-half years, you know I won't answer hypotheticals. Occasionally slip up, but --
But wait a minute, this is not true, Mr. President. Just one question before this one, you present a hypothetical yourself. Have a look:
Q What about --

THE PRESIDENT: Let me finish. I view that this is a struggle between radicals and extremists who are trying to prevent there to be a democracy, for a variety of reasons. And it's in our interest that the forces of moderation prevail in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. A defeat there -- in other words, if we were to withdraw before the job is done, it would embolden extremists. They would say, you know, we were right about America in the first place, that America did not have the will necessary to do the hard work. That's precisely what Osama bin Laden has said, for example. A defeat there would make it easier for people to be able to recruit extremists and kids, to be able to use their tactics to destroy innocent life. A defeat there would dispirit people throughout the Middle East who wonder whether America is genuine in our commitment to moderation and democracy.

And I told you what the scenario, Dick, could look like, 20 or 30 years from now, if we leave before the job is done. It's a serious business. And that's why I say it's the call of this generation. And I understand how tough it is, see, but I also said in my remarks, just because the enemy has been able to make some progress doesn't mean we should leave. Quite the contrary; we ought to do everything we can to help prevent them from making progress. And that is what our strategy is.
Does that sounds like a hypothetical prediction of the future or not?
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Does the United States want to maintain permanent bases in Iraq? And I would follow that by asking, are you willing to renounce a claim on permanent bases in Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: Jim, any decisions about permanency in Iraq will be made by the Iraqi government. And, frankly, it's not in much of a position to be thinking about what the world is going to look like five or 10 years from now. They are working to make sure that we succeed in the short-term. And they need our help. And that's where our focus is.
But wait a minute. Just a hand full of questions above, you were predicting what it would look like if we did pull out? Can't you also talk about what it might look like in the opposite case?
Q What happens if that patience runs out?

THE PRESIDENT: See, that's that hypothetical Keil is trying to get me to answer. Why do we work to see to it that it doesn't work out -- run out? That's the whole objective. That's what positive people do. They say, we're going to put something in place and we'll work to achieve it.
Oh, I see. If we plan for contingencies, we are not positive?

So, if we are not going to plan for contingencies or possible scenarios, what exactly is your plan for bringing troops home Mr. President?
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Your comment earlier that last spring you believed that troops would be able to come home early next year --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q -- I wonder if you could talk to us about how you came to believe that, and over what period of time, or whether it was a single development because you realized that wasn't feasible.

THE PRESIDENT: No, no, no, look, Mike, here's the way it works. I meet with our -- or talk to our generals all the time. And the security situation looked like at that point in time that beginning next year, we could reduce our troop presence. That's what we felt -- until the conditions on the ground changed. And when they changed, our generals changed their attitude. And when their attitude changed, my attitude changed.

Look, I want to get our troops home as fast as we can. But I do not want to leave before we achieve victory. And the best way to do that is to make sure we have a strategy that works, tactics that adjust to the enemy, and commanders that feel confident making recommendations to the Secretary and to the Commander-in-Chief. And that's how that happened. In other words, they're saying it looks like things are positive, things are stepping up. The security situation is -- looks like it could be this way. And then when it change, we changed. And that's important for the American people to know, that we're constantly changing tactics to meet the situation on the ground.
Seems like the President is stumbling over himself to stay bellied up to the Iraq craps table:
Q I just wanted to ask you quickly, sir, if you believe that Iraq will be able to defend, sustain and govern itself by the time you leave office?

THE PRESIDENT: Mike, I believe Iraq will be able to defend, govern and sustain itself; otherwise, I'd pull our troops out. See, you all got to understand that. And the parents of our troops must understand, that if I didn't believe we could succeed, and didn't believe it was necessary for the security of this country to succeed, I wouldn't have your loved ones there. That's what I want these parents to hear.

And that's a backhanded way of getting me to put a timetable. My answer is, we'll work as fast as we can get the job done.
Is that the "or else" issued to the Iraqi people? We came, we saw, and if you don't deliver, we'll pull out? That's not the vini vide vici that I know.

What say you? Shall we let it ride, and up the ante, or get us a new set of dealers for the USA House?

Don't forget to vote 7 November, and blog on friends. Blog on all.

2 comments:

isabelita said...

I can barely stand to LOOK at that fucker's words, let alone imagine him speaking them aloud...
My anger boils up quickly whenever I hear him or his ilk saying that the Iraqis need to get things under control - @#$$#%@$$!!!! Let's see, that's analogous to going into a place, breaking up all the furniture, roughing up innocent bystanders,setting fires, torturing more bystanders, causing a riot...all, you know, for NOTHING.
Or no, that's not right, maybe therer's a lot of oil in that place...
Anyway, this was not a war to begin with. It was an invasion. Now we'be caused a BLOODY CIVIL WAR, WE'VE caused it, not the Iraqis.
Oh, I just want to beat these assholes over the head with a big heavy Bible!!!!
I'd like to use Bush et al as collateral for a really big gamble...

Kvatch said...

Unfortunately for us, the W, Rove and Co made a huge gamble that the Iraq conflagration would turn in our favor using a super-sized jumbo loan borrowed on the backs of the American Taxpayer for generations to come

Funny you should mention that. I just did a financial analysis of exactly this over on Blognonymous.