View Story | 29 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Maybe we can't raise 60,000 troops but just today the military admitted that 20,000 is not enough. That's not surprising, they need 50,000 to 60,000 to have any real impact on turning this around.
Politically speaking though, we're right back where we started. Hobson's Choice, which is no choice at all but to keep giving Bush what he wants. Time to break the game.
There is no point is dedicating more troops to a nebulous mission. The military needs clear objectives and the US needs clear indications that ground is being gained by risking our troops.
This diary was meant to inspire serious discussion along those lines rather than just complain about yet another disappointing play from Democratic leadership.
We'll see what happens.
Time flies, whether you're having fun or not.
by Kimberley on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 03:35:32 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Kudos.
"In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder, a secret order." Carl Jung
by Unduna on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 03:53:51 PM PDT
It's probably going to disappear soon but it was worth a shot.
by Kimberley on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 03:56:46 PM PDT
let alone actually do it.
I hear what you say, and you do say it so calmly, :) yet I know both of us, all of us, feel sick and disgusted and poisoned that this is the kind of strategizing that the situation has led to. It's perverse beyond all bloody hell.
We shouldn't have to get our minds around such a thing as this, but we do. Whatever it is going to be, it is going to be hideous, so by all means let the course we choose be a well deliberated least-of-the-hideous, lest the worst-of-hideous happen involuntarily.
I hate it all, but I want us to think for god's sake. And apparently it's time to get pro-actively perverse on our terms. Gack.
by Unduna on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 04:15:19 PM PDT
actually phase them, as as it stands now the public would freak, and be scarier to the spineless ones then standing up for the republic. However the would pussyfoot it till the clock runs out. The tragic part that lurks in my mind is that maybe they do have the same agenda.
"And if my thought-dreams could be seen They'd probably put my head in a guillotine" Bob Dylan
by shaharazade on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 06:35:40 PM PDT
I don't think we have to go that far. I want Iraq to have the best chance possible, but I don't think it's militarily achievable (by the US). I really think that the Bush admin has to be forced to bite the diplomatic bullet. I think that only Iran has the capacity (along with the Sauds) to provide stability to the country/region right now.
If we made any huge military offerings (and such offerings may be beyond our actual capacities) they would have to be accompanied by deadlines for the administration for diplomatic efforts and successes. The definition of success would have to be carefully thought through and our information on the actual diplomatic possibilties would have to be close to impeccable.
Additionally, I don't actually think that the bushies want 60,000 additional troops or, for that matter, stability in Iraq. (The generals are another issue, of course....) Anyway, of course the nasty little boys would have to pretend that they want those troops now even though they never did before, so we could use that a means of binding them, but I think that it is too shaky a force-play to risk - especially since we don't really want it as it won't likely work and they don't really want it because they could give a shit. That's not worth the blood.
We need to find out what feasable corner the nasty ones can be backed into by their own stated wants and tie it to what we really want. I think what we really want and are in a potential position to demand is serious diplomacy. Tie it hard to something they almost can't publicly refuse but doesn't actually further their nefarious shadow aims. We do need troops in Afghanistan...sidenote.
Anyway. There are my thoughts at present. It leads me to conclude that Dems need our own damn State Dept....
by Unduna on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 05:20:10 PM PDT
to find some of the stated objectives that could be used to rope them in. I'd love to corner these guys without putting anymore troops in harms way.
Great ideas, Uduna.
by Kimberley on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 05:27:44 PM PDT
Sorry for misspelling your name previously.
by Kimberley on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 05:31:25 PM PDT
They are basically holding Iraq hostage, at a certain level. This probably requires high ransom. The terms may not be public. As your diary challenges us to think about, the question is what are those with a national conscience willing to sacrifice...it probably won't be pretty.
Thanks for a thought provoking diary, and don't worry about the name!
by Unduna on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 06:31:22 PM PDT
when I've found enough for us all to brainstorm with.
That one should be easier for people to sink their teeth into. Thanks again.
by Kimberley on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 06:44:41 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 29 comments