It is my personal opinion that, at this point in time, neither the army nor the administration believe that their basic goals for their long-term presence in Iraq are lost. This is less obvious to us and the citizens of our countries because the nature of those goals has never been fully revealed.

I do believe that it is a political ambition of George W Bush to achieve a substantial draw down of troops in time for it to impact on the 2008 elections.

Your own military experience will tell you that for all the indignation that those of us opposed to the Iraq war have expressed over the years, there is some substance to the argument that is continually made that fixed time lines make the work of those in the field considerably harder. It is not simply just a piece of GOP rhetoric.

I anticipate that the result of the latest attempt by a less than certain Democratic Party will be at best that Bush will concede some deployment of troops under their proposals without firm commitment of a final date for withdrawal. Politically, he will "give away" some of the advantage of a pre-Presidential election announcement through a cobbled together declaration of "success" in exchange for a lack of finality to any time line that may be otherwise forced on him.

There is no way that Bush will accept the defeat implicit in signing off legislation from Congress that has as a declared target of complete withdrawal and certainly not by 2008. He will reject it not simply out of hubris but because he and many in the GOP will genuinely see in it not just as a humiliation for the United States but a long term threat to its international standing and existing oil dependent economic strength. Faced with a rigid demand by the Democrats, he will fight just not out of pride but he will fight also out of a sense of "patriotism", a belief that America must protect itself and has limited options in how to do so in an unordered world and in a firm belief that America is only weak because the will of its people lacks the strength of determined leadership.

It will be a bloody battle in which the Democrats will become engaged and there is no guarantee of the outcome.

I think that we should remember that the basic tenets of the PNAC, that is an anathema to you and I both, has never been put to the American people. It has been easier to use fear and a concoction of evidence of threat to justify the implementation of that plan.

Were these tenets of ensuring the economic future well being of the United States and each and everyone of its people through the subjugation of the Middle East and the threat of the exercise of its overwhelming military force be placed in front of your fellow citizens, nothing that I have seen convinces me that the majority of the electorate would not support it.

I believe, for example, Hillary Clinton knows this and that is why she is reluctant to say or enter into a debate that that involves justifying that going into Iraq was wrong. You may not like her for it, but you cannot deny her political instincts.

I suggest that the majority of Democrats in Congress have learnt that you don't voluntarily go into a war without knowing the outcome. A debate on what Iraq was truly all about would be a war and, as I said earlier, the outcome far from certain.

Throw into this melee the fact that in their hearts the Democrats know that they cannot be certain that the November results weren't simply a rejection of Bush for failure rather than an endorsement of any anti-war stance that was visible with only a few of their colleagues, then I see another fudged compromise arising.

(Oh, good. I have provided the conclusions - controversial though they may be - of my intended diaries without providing any of the justification and examples necessary to support them. Excellent. With only eight responses on DKos to the first one (which included criticism of its passive style). I had lost the will to complete them in any case)   :)

by Welshman on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 03:01:51 PM EST

The 35-foot Riverine Assault Craft, built in the 1980s and similar to the military's Vietnam-era swift boats, have been in mothballs before they were needed in Iraq. Laden with machine guns, including powerful .50-caliber guns at the front and rear, the aluminum-hull boats can run a river at 45 mph, powered by a pair of diesel engines and two waterjets.

This has got this ex-Navy, 'Nam Vet, puzzled!
We will now, Sadly, be seeing more Naval Personal listed on the KIA reports!  


by jimstaro on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 07:28:35 PM EST