Bush Administration Fiasco Continues
Remember Afghanistan? The place where Osama bin Laden and al Qaida were located? Because of the fiasco in Iraq, Bush never got around to finishing the job in Afghanistan, a war clearly related to the 9/11 terrorists. Steve Clemons notes where some of the troops for the Bush 'surge' are coming from:
Read the Baltimore Sun article and ask yourself if the president really knows what he's doing.
My grandfather said once that if you're going to do a job, do it right. One time, he amplified on the theme and said you don't do a job halfway and then rush off to do a job somewhere else; you finish the job you started and then you move on. My grandfather was a Republican and he had far more sense than the current Republican in the White House.
We don't need more troops in Iraq at this point, we need a political settlement, a drawdown and a redeployment. The 'troop surge' ignores the need for a more sensible direction in Iraq. There are no good solutions in Iraq but it is becoming increasingly important to repair our foreign policy.
The president has two wars going and neither are going all that well. The problem in Afghanistan is more a matter of neglect. Iraq, however, is a strategic blunder. And Wednesday night, Bush hinted at possible war with Syria and Iran. The president isn't merely incompetent, he is out of control. I don't know what's going to happen but there are growing signs that a number of Republicans in Congress are finally realizing that the guys in the White House need to be reined in.
Bush Makes Same Mistake Twice: Pulling Troops from Afghanistan to Deploy to Iraq
President Bush is planning to pull troops out of Afghanistan to deploy to Iraq.
From the Baltimore Sun:As a last-ditch effort, President Bush is expected to announce this week the dispatch of thousands of additional troops to Iraq as a stopgap measure, an order that Pentagon officials say would strain the Army and Marine Corps as they struggle to man both wars.
Already, a U.S. Army infantry battalion fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be withdrawn within weeks in order to deploy to Iraq.
Read the Baltimore Sun article and ask yourself if the president really knows what he's doing.
My grandfather said once that if you're going to do a job, do it right. One time, he amplified on the theme and said you don't do a job halfway and then rush off to do a job somewhere else; you finish the job you started and then you move on. My grandfather was a Republican and he had far more sense than the current Republican in the White House.
We don't need more troops in Iraq at this point, we need a political settlement, a drawdown and a redeployment. The 'troop surge' ignores the need for a more sensible direction in Iraq. There are no good solutions in Iraq but it is becoming increasingly important to repair our foreign policy.
The president has two wars going and neither are going all that well. The problem in Afghanistan is more a matter of neglect. Iraq, however, is a strategic blunder. And Wednesday night, Bush hinted at possible war with Syria and Iran. The president isn't merely incompetent, he is out of control. I don't know what's going to happen but there are growing signs that a number of Republicans in Congress are finally realizing that the guys in the White House need to be reined in.
Labels: Afghanistan, Bush, Iran, Iraq, Syria, troop surge
posted by Craig at 11:15 PM
3 Comments:
Out of control in this sense. With our forces undersized, overstretched and run down the way they are, let some genuine attack or really serious provocation come along, and what can Bush do?
Nuclear retaliation, that's what. It's an all-or-nothing, doomsday predicament we should never be in. It's dangerous as hell, especially when we have an incompetent president whose instinct is to shoot first and ask questions later.
I'm no expert on international law or what-have-you, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people would call the seizure of a foreign consulate and the detention of its staff an act of war... the seizure of the Iranian Consulate in Irbil by U.S. forces, for instance. I could be wrong.
AQ, my understanding is that credentialed diplomats are always to be protected and/or given safe passage. The most that can be done to them is that they can be required to leave the country.
At the same time, I would be surprised if there' isn't some provision in international law that makes diplomats responsible for their own hides if they insist on remaining in a war zone.
It's not unlike requiring railroads to put up crossing gates, but saying "que sera" if someone is dumb enough to go around the gate and try to beat an approaching train.
Post a Comment
<< Home