"Former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, who regularly advises President Bush on Iraq, said today that a full military victory was no longer possible there. He thus joined a growing number of leading conservatives openly challenging the administration’s conduct of the war and positive forecasts for it. " NY Times
I would say that this is a real turning point. Kissinger has been advising Bush privately and for him to say this in the open is some sort of signal. Whether or not his "pupil" will accept the signal remains to be seen.
I guess, in a way, Kissinger has done another “Nixon”. As in China.
But Bush 43 is no Nixon. Or at least not in terms in terms of Nixon’s positives.
But by all means, let’s hang in there for another 5 or 10 years, kill a few or 10 or 20 thousand more American soldiers, and a few hundred thousand more Iraqis, and see if this thing can turn out as good as Vietnam.
We are ruled by morons.
One question: 20 or 30 years from now, can we blame the hippies and liberal media for our loss in Iraq? McCain says if we would just escalate this and send in more troops, we can “win” this thing….
six months from now withdrawal, redeployment or whatever you wanna call it should be well under way, knocking out both the levin and the mccain plans. and big hank’s statement today will be quoted as part of the wisdom of freedomocracy boy and his advisors.
ok, i guess wrong as often as not, but i think this could work for him. oh, and he can call it some sorta “best victory possible”.
Well at least some hippies are still at it:
San Francisco freaks call for global orgasm on December 22 to prevent war with Iran.
Hey, why knock it before you’ve tried it? Can you really look at the stupid criminal mistakes Bush & Co have made and tell me they are more sensible than Mr. & Mrs. Global Orgasm?
Yep, the hippie freaks are looking better all the time. Come on over, y’all, San Francisco is still fine! Capitalism hasn’t killed off our weirdness yet.
Maybe Kissinger has finally learned that it’s not really just all about us and what we assume will become the culture of another country if we invest enough money and blood.
Apparently the well documented growing anger of the Arab majority in Iraq was ignored by Bush/Cheney in the fond hope that once things quieted down and the economy improved the majority would be won over to a pro-American government.But the occupation has inspired the opposite of quiet in both the Sunni and Shi`a Iraqi Arabs. Supressing anti-occupation public expression in Iraq has not resulted in support or even tacit acceptance.
An Iraqi at Azzaman’s website said ‘America has no friends in Iraq’.
Not sincere friends, true, but plenty of smiling, insincere Arab Shi`a Iranian ally and Kurdish warlord type friends.
Perhaps the powerful but less than omnipotent Americans and British who tell themselves the interests of a few American oil companies, one British oil company and one Dutch oil company is an unstoppable force may reconsider. If not, the Labour and Republican Parties can lose some more seats at the next election.
Off topic. Looks like the Decider would “understand” if the Israeli’s attacked Iranian nuclear sites.
U.S. President George W. Bush and President Jacques Chirac of France met several weeks ago. Bush told his French counterpart that the possibility that Israel would carry out a strike against Iran’s nuclear installations should not be ruled out.
In earlier discussion threads it was felt that Israel lacked the capability to seriously attack Iran. Is this Haaretz report just propaganda or is there something more than smoke?
Ah, the Advisor. Like a dodgy kebab, it goes straight through you without touching the sides.
Well, I think Dr K has done one positive thing here: he ended the ‘is it a civil war or not’ debate. He says there is one going on. Ending this debate could have interesting consequences in Congress. See Sen Warner’s warning a while back on authorization to employ force in Iraq, as part of the war on terror, implied we might not be able to stay, legally, if there was a civil war ‘declared’.
I would say that this is a real turning point.
Pat – when will you join us hardcore cynics? You should know by now that the attraction of a “last big push” leading to victory is too great for The Decider. He will effectiely ignore the findings of the ISG but he will talk about how he has taken the message on board.
As we all know “a last big push” doesn’t work in counterinsurgency. All the insurgents have to do is hide their weapons, take a break and return to the fight as soon as The Decider announces victory in “the last big push”. A cynic might suggest that The Decider will claim a downturn in violence as a victory and get out while they can. Is The Decider that clever? No, instead he will see a downturn in violence, think that he really has achieved victory, go on building the “enduring bases” and then blame it all on the perfidious Iraqis when the violence starts up again.
Resistance is futile!
I think a better guess is that the US will ramp up the troop levels for “one last try” and to increas our involvement in training efforts. I do not think either the Military as an institution or the Republican party wants to have a failed war hung around their necks. If we haven’t been able to change the situation the ’08 election will be fought out on “Who lost Iraq”. We may be looking at a parallel to Augustus”s loss of three legions in the Rhine forests. The damage to our national interests will be serious.
The “tipping point” remark was intended as a comment on American willingness to continue. pl
“I would say that this is a real turning point.”
Pat, As much as any one thing can be,I would say the U.S. ELECTION was a real turning point, this is the lastest result.
How long has the advisor been blurring all the faces of Iraqi troops. I think it’s the right thing to do, but its kind of creepy to look at.
Are the people who are predicting all kinds of turmoil and disgrace if we pull out of Iraq, the same people who predicted thar we would be received as conquering heroes? If predictions were wrong then and have been wrong all along why are they credible now. Perhaps we should say “Bull—-” to any and all predictions.
The best and brightest establishment types in the U.S. must admit that if they’ve lost Kissinger, war criminals everywhere need face facts.
That includes those who thought this war was a swell idea going in. And those who thought it a noble fight once it began. And especially those now prepared to feed the fire.
How do these swine infiltrate our body politic?
“Abizaid, give me back my divisions”? And really there’s no comarison. While the loss of three legions meant that the Roman empire never extended north of the Rhine, the rest of the empire got along quite well for two more centuries.
I honestly don’t think there is a historical precedent that fits what a total U.S. defeat in Iraq would mean. This would be three divisions drawn from the most expensive and powerful army in the history of the world loosing to a divided group of sectarian militas with no national backing, little outside support, and nothing more than small arms and booby traps. Pick the biggest upset in history, and you’re still not even close to what this would be.
That said, I still think that the most likely outcome is that the situation in Iraq will continue to be a bloody stalemate until reality permeates into Bush’s skull. Of course, it may just be that I’m too naive to think that Bush will roll the dice on escalation or war with Iran or a last push or some other double or nothing fantasy to break the stalemate in America’s favor.