Will Bush Finally Change Course in Iraq?

By: Lowell
Published On: 9/9/2007 12:35:36 PM

Will George W. Bush finally change course in Iraq following this week's report by Gen. David Petraeus?  Not likely, according to the New York Times:

Nothing has changed about Mr. Bush's intentions. Waving off the independent reports, he plans to stay the course and make his successor fix his Iraq fiasco. Military progress without political progress is meaningless, and Mr. Bush no more has a plan for unifying Iraq now than when he started the war. The United States needs a prudent exit strategy that will withdraw American forces and try to stop Iraq's chaos from spreading.

Wonderful, so that's what we've all been waiting for, a report that is ignored by the Bush Administration after they used it as an excuse to keep the "surge" going for months on end? 

Meanwhile, former chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, write in today's Washington Post that "U.S. foreign policy has not stemmed the rising tide of extremism in the Muslim world," that "[i]nstead, we have lost ground" and "[w]e still lack a sense of urgency in the face of grave danger.  Heckuva job, huh?

The last bit of cheerful news this Sunday morning comes from Bruce Hoffman, senior fellow at the U.S. Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center:

Under Zawahiri's leadership, the post-9/11 al-Qaeda has shown itself to be remarkably nimble and adaptive -- able to compensate for and even obviate some of our most effective countermeasures...

This alarming development called into question some of our most basic assumptions about al-Qaeda's capabilities and intentions, given that the movement seems to retain the same grand homicidal ambitions it demonstrated on 9/11. Its members may be dispersed, but al-Qaeda is once again capable of planning and executing bold terrorist strikes.

Thanks to Zawahiri, instead of al-Qaeda R.I.P., we're facing an al-Qaeda that has risen from the grave.

Unfortunately, that is the result of the Bush Administration's "war on terror," six years after 9/11.  So much for the Republicans being strong on national security.

Comments



I wonder (Alicia - 9/9/2007 1:27:55 PM)
I wonder where Bush plans on getting the troops from?  He can't seriously be considering our worn out troops for 5th, 6th, and 7th deployments?

How can a "person" (I use that term loosely) be so consumed with politics by pushing his hideous fiasco onto a new president, without even considering those who are walking his walk - and their families?

Wouldn't the extended, of-age, Bush clan constitute at least a platoon?  Pull their asses out of the bars and send them to help in this grand cause.



The plan is until we run out of troops (Dianne - 9/10/2007 7:40:31 AM)
According to many sources I'm hearing and reading, the surge is planned to last until the source for troops "run outs" in the spring. 

So bottom line, those troops there and to be deployed until then will merely be cannon fodder thanks to Bush's idiocy.  Have you seen Gandolfini's Alive Day Documentary?  There's your answer.



Let's Ponder The Odds (norman swingvoter - 9/9/2007 2:25:13 PM)
There is a probability that oil will be discovered in my backyard tomorrow.  There is a probability that Bill Gates will stop by and hand me a check for $1,000,000 this week.  In my estimation the probability that bush will change course is about the same.
There have been reports that we don't have enough troops to continue the surge after March or April.  I noticed that bush mentioned a drawdown.  What I expect at this point is bush will start talking about how well things are going about January or February.  By March he will say things are going so well that we can start bringing the troops home.  This will also be an attempt to help the republican candidates next year.


On the flip side... (MohawkOV1D - 9/10/2007 2:00:50 AM)

From the wapo Monday Sept. 10th...

"Democratic"Party leaders have so far failed to force a single, substantial change in U.S. policy in Iraq.