America ponders one last chance to "save" Iraq.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

The ImBushCile apparently believes in the axiom "When stuck in hole keep digging".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2508391,00.html

Having ruled out a “graceful exit”, Bush is tempted by the one option that presents the slightest chance of success: a sustained surge of up to 40,000 US forces into Baghdad and the Sunni stronghold of Anbar province. He believes a sharp boost in troop numbers could salvage his reputation as a resolute war leader while presenting a satisfying break with the “cut and walk” proposal to reduce combat troops by early 2008 that came from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by James Baker, his father’s secretary of state. This independent report is already gathering dust.

According to defence sources, he has been even more forthright in private. In essence, the generals have told Bush that they are willing to pour in more troops only if the Baghdad government allows US forces to crack down on Shi’ite militias, particularly those loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr, the cleric. In return, the US military would commit extra troops to hunting down Sunni insurgents and provide security for the terrorised Shi’ite community.

Up to 20,000 new troops could be sent to Iraq, while 20,000 who were set to return to America could remain. The plan would incorporate elements of the “80% solution” favoured by Dick Cheney, the vice-president — so-called because of the combined Shi’ite and Kurdish population of Iraq — which involves a tilt towards the Shi’ites at the expense of the minority Sunni community.

According to sources, the president’s announcement of a new strategy would ideally take place against the backdrop of increasingly favourable conditions, such as the announcement of a new oil-sharing deal that is believed to be imminent.

[twilight_sailing]

1. If we can't beat the Iraqis into submission,

what then?

[kenny blankenship]

2. Double or nothing?

[Double T]

3. Increasing troop strength and numbers is a band-aid on a situation.......

that is already completely out of control. Escalation of 'the war' will ONLY result in a call to arms for MORE INSURGENTS from other nations to fight the occupying infidels in the jihad. Where do these 'brilliant' ideas come from???

[rock]

4. Even worse, he wants to dig faster

An idiot of the first water

[xchrom]

5. al sadr could suddenly ''see the light'' -- or

al sadr could provide a new rallying point for the shiite community.

it's hard to see how leaning on al sadr is going to have the results desired -- if the u.s. creates a living martyr then we will have strengthened al sadr's hand.

some of this sounds like bush is pissed at how badly things went in jordan.

more -- the insurgents have the luxury of time the u.s. does not have -- the price tag in dollars and cents alone is having -- will have -- an extraordinary negative effect on this country.

increased troops means an increased bill that will have to be paid.

make no mistake -- the price of this war is even now having a negative effect on the country -- and we haven't yet begun to pay it all.

[bluedeminredstate]

6. The 80% rule was discussed in the NYT today

because someone from Cheney's office is floating this "Darwin war plan" in which we just side with the Shi'ites and let let them take out the Sunnis, figuring we'll get on the side of the guys who have the most man power and oil. It's being whispered around the whole beltway party circuit because everyone wants to know if Cheney is really on board with this nonsense.
The Darwin plan(sick basards), however doesn't take into account all our Sunni allies who would be royally pissed to see the US allow an ethnic cleansing of their brethren.

Don't these guys ever talk to experts, historians and scholars? How do they come up with these boneheaded schemes to kill even more of our troops? And to think that Cheney and his vile wife will live like royalty with all their blood money made off this war, putting them in an income bracket no normal American could contemplate - even after winning the Mega Bucks lottery - is sickening to think about. The suffering this man and his neocon bugshit insane cohorts have inflicted on this country in incalculable when you consider the pain of just ONE family of a dead soldier or a maimed for life vet who is looking at years of intractable pain. It makes me want to cry.

:mad:

[OneBlueSky]

7. in Vietnam, we had to "destroy the village in order to save it" . . .

in Iraq, we've extended the principle to an entire country . . .

[rdarmand]

8. Iraq is no longer the issue

The Islamofascists co-opted this conflict early on. The US mission was regime change and democracy in the Middle East; the Islamofascists declared it to be a war on Islam. Accusing the West of a new crusade was the pretext for them to declare a new war of their own. In case no one is paying attention, Islamofascism is on the rise throughout the Eastern Hemisphere. Islamofascists really are on a crusade; and that's one of the ironies about Iraq. We launched the attack; but they declared the war we are currently fighting.

If we lose in Iraq, which appears likely, it will only strengthen their determination and resolve. I believe this conflict will go nuclear before it's over. Islam will get the bomb, either by developing it themselves or finding a friendly supplier; and New York City will be no more.

This is no longer about Iraq. It's about survival in face of an implacable enemy with a "convert or die" mentality, motivated by a religious world-view that encourages and blesses every sort of abominable act in Allah's name. These people do not have the higher moral plane, but they do have greater moral fiber than we appear to have; and that is why they will win. We worry about relative inconsequentials while they are totally committed to victory at any price.

[Sparkly]

9. Interesting...

Where do you get your news about Islamofacists in Iraq, and their "convert or die" zeal to destroy New York City? Any links?

[Disturbed]

10. Al Sadr is the "new" "Bad Guy" of the Busholini Regime.

The problem is that al Sadr has called for an end to the US/UK Occupation, as has the Sunni Insurgency. Al Sadr has called for a peace between Sunnis and Shiites many times. If the Sunnis and al Sadr's followers decide to call a cease fire between them and join in a effort to fight the US/UK Occupiers this so called Surge of US Troops may well end in a large bloodbath of US Troops and Iraqis. In the end it will result in yet another bloody Fiasco for the US Fascist Regime.

[libnnc]

14. Our friend here doesn't have links....

He just likes typing the word "Islamofacists"...:eyes:

[leftchick]

15. O'Lielly no doubt

or Sean Insanity, or rush noballs. They all read from the WH script which seems to have made its way here.

[teamster633]

11. And this is all according to who?

Rush? Hannity? Coulter? Chimpy himself? Do tell?

[leftchick]

12. The US mission was disarming Saddam of WMD ready to strike us "imminently"

oh, I forgot that was 100 or so missions ago. And where is "Islam" by the way? :rofl:

[Jacobin]

13. "If we 'lose' in Iraq?"

I'm not certain I've heard anyone suggest a 'victory' (or even be able to define it) in Iraq in more than a year, other than Bush, Limbaugh, Coulter and Cheney.

The idea of the neo-cons that we could somehow invade an Arab country, impose on them our ideals of what a government should be and make them like it, is so preposterous that only guffaws are appropriate for those who repeat it. What's interesting, is that no one even parrots the 'reasons' we made up to invade Iraq to begin with.

Calling those fighting among themselves in a civil war and those fighting US troops to evict them from their country "islamofascists" is simply another epithet used to describe those who are fighting against our troops. You can be certain, after the Sunnis and Shia and Kurds have settled their differences through civil war, that the al qaida group (who are Sunnis btw) will have no more home in Iraq than they did before the war...which was NONE.

there are other sites on the internet that seem more consistent with your views, but welcome anyway