"The issue is not Iraq. The issue is dealing with the consequences of our failure in Iraq,"

[laststeamtrain]

US/IRAQ:Surge Success Runs Into Sadr
Analysis by Khody Akhavi

<snip>

"The issue is not Iraq. The issue is dealing with the consequences of our failure in Iraq," said Andrew J. Bacevich, a platoon leader in Vietnam who is now a professor of international relations at Boston University.

The U.S., said Bacevich, faces monumental problems as it recalibrates its national security strategy to account for the failures of the Bush Doctrine, a shift that is unlikely to occur while Bush remains in office.

Referring to the Iraq Study Group report, a bipartisan effort that the Bush administration referred to as impractical and unrealistic, Bacevich said, "The biggest requirement is for some kind of a full-scale regional diplomatic effort based on the expectation... that every country in the region, even those who don't like us, like Syria and Iran... have a common interest in avoiding having the region descend into utter chaos."

<more>
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41812

[LakeSamish706]

1. Yeah, tell that to the million plus dead Iraqi's and the homeless, etc. shit...

Easy for him to say something like that, but no so easy if you are at the blunt end of the US bullshit that has occurred in Iraq.

[TomInTib]

2. In a nutshell...

From the article:

Regardless of how the surge is couched, it will have to end, not due to shift in strategy, but because the available resources will dry up.

"You can't take a 43 brigade force, and have 23 of those 43 brigades deployed, and have a one to one exchange for time at home and time in the theatre," said Major General Robert H. Scales, a Vietnam veteran and former president of the Army War College.

"Without reshaping our national military strategy and without re-slicing the defence pie to focus on the wars we have rather than the ones we want, we'll never have the resources to prosecute any kind of conflict in the future," he said.

"Your national security strategy is supposed to determine the number of troops that you need to affect that strategy rather than the actual number of troops that you have determining the national military strategy," said Scales.

The last time the White House had to shift strategy to meet conditions on the ground was during the U.S. Civil War in the 1860s, he added.

[madokie]

3. the onus should not be on the Iraqi's back

we owe them much more than we'll ever be able to pay.

[damntexdem]

4. Unfortunately, the Bushistas have never had an interest in preventing chaos in the region.

In fact, they embrace it -- so long as they think they can get Iraqi oil for their cronies and a permanent U.S. military presence for their jingoist hearts.

[sutz12]

5. The "failure" was going in in the first place...nt

:shrug: