Widening the War?
There is growing buzz and increasing concern that the President’s Iraq speech Wednesday night may have signaled an important and – in my view – incredibly troubling stage in the Iraq War (even beyond the “surge”). Steve Clemons reports significant speculation in the capital that Bush recently “sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran.”
There was some discussion of this question (i.e. whether American troops would begin engaging in cross-border activities in Syria and/or Iran) in hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday (of which Clemons has excerpts), and American actions against the Iranian consulate in Irbil will almost certainly serve to add fuel to the fire. If true, and further actions against Iran and Syria have begun/are about to begin, it can be counted as a near certainty that the 21,500-troop increase that Bush announced Wednesday is but the tip of a very large iceberg.
Of course actions must be taken to protect our forces and ensure that they’re able to do their jobs as effectively as possible. But if this conflict is to widen, such a drastic escalation must have the support of the American people and their representatives in Congress. The debate must happen, and should not be hidden behind secret orders.
Share This
Related Posts
-
Stains on a Legacy
Posted on Apr 26, 2013
-
Saudi Arabia: Coddled Terrorist State or Victim of Libel?
Posted on Apr 23, 2013
-
‘Having Sown the Wind … America Reaps the Whirlwind’ – Iraqi and Jordanian Reactions to Boston
Posted on Apr 18, 2013
-
After Boston, Washington’s Next Moves will be Telling (La Jornada, Mexico)
Posted on Apr 17, 2013
What are the odds that the Congress will approve a draft of an additional two million + combat troops? I think it will be vanishingly close to zero or, at least, I hope so. That is the number of combat troops we will need to have a reasonable chance of maintaining the flow of oil from the Middle East never mind winning a World War III.
I deeply fear that our president has a messianic streak and the coterie around him as well. If so, we will have to depend on the military to rebel against any orders to do such an insane thing as to widen the war. Frankly, I think that idea of rebellion is remote.
All I can say is PARY.
Whoops, that should be PRAY!
anyone remember sy hersch’s piece in the New Yorker last spring? it’s clear this administration (at least Cheney) has lusted to go to war with Iran for some time now…hell we’ve got war already on two fronts, to these morons we might as well open up another on a third one.
http://www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com
I would be willing to bet that we already have conducted substantial “special operations” in both Syria and Iran and have probably taken both prisoners and casualties. It will take some time before this information comes out (like the “secret ” CIA prisons in eastern Europe) but it will eventually appear. Will it change anything? Not likely.
I most certainly hope that this is not true. I for one, a moderate, would prefer that we give this option of a “surge” a chance. I would hope though that this is not a ruse in order to build up forces for a major conflict involving Syria and Iran. If so, I will be knocking on the Whitehouse door, with the rest of the lynch mob!
“I for one, a moderate, would prefer that we give this option of a “surgeâ€? a chance.”
Since 60% or more of the population oppose the surge, you’re not a moderate in this regard, Jchris. Just a reminder.
Gray,
On what basis do you conclude that moderates don’t make up a sizable portion of the 40% who don’t oppose the surge plan?
Because the percentage that doesn’t oppose the surge/escalation….augmentation(Condi’s wordsmithing, and funniest) isn’t 40% but more like 34-35%. So we can guess about 10-15% max are moderate/centerist, making them a very tiny minority within their own groups.
You’re assuming that the distribution on the pro and con side is equal though. I think it’s quite possible that the centrists are highly overrepresented in the 30-35% group because they are less likely than partisans to dismiss it out of hand. We know most Dems are opposed, and a lot of the GOP is too because there’s a backlash against Bush. The centrists are more likely to look at the plan independently of their feelings for Bush IMO.
CStantley, logic dictates that the people most likely to approve of a surge are the people who approve of ANYTHING Bush says or anything the Dems oppose. You know, PARTISANS.
If anything Moderates would be split on the subject, as they would neither approve or disapprove of it out of hand, but try to judge it on it’s merits. Problem is, it’s merits aren’t backed by much, and other options (massive surge or reduction) have a lot more backing from credible people, so I’m guessing that moderates would be more likely to oppose it than favor it.
Just a reminder. There just isn’t anything really new in this surge plan. In fact, it would return troop levels to what they were about a year ago. The embed has been tried. The decision to “go anywhere” rather than honor the wishes of Maliki was also the state of things a year ago. Every single item on the list has been tried. And the “surge” has been tried 5 times.
OK, I’ll jump in with this thought. To me a moderate position would be not to automatically pre-judge the “surge” idea simply based on being pro or anti Bush but to look at it based on the merits as presented by experts, historical background and public opinion. Based on all three being in disagreement with the policy the moderate position would be to oppose the “surge” until there was some change in the experts opinion or the public perception (which is where Bush’s leadership could play a role).
Yet at this “moderate” website most commentators are supportive of the plan because they just hope for the best and want to give Bush one more chance. Which is the exact position you’ll find at Redstate and LGF and other non-moderate sites. I’ve got no problem with everyone chipping in with their opinion but it is an odd pattern especially given the overwhelming evidence that it is a policy which will change little save the bodycount.
Excellent point Eural. Bush is the classic coach who is calling the same play over and over, expecting a different result. The 11-percenters who are going along with it are the “our team right or wrong” folks who can’t imagine firing the coach or overruling him. And Bush has always been wrong. Every single time. Here’s the shoddy truth about his record on Iraq.
Btw CStan, my percentages were of ALL centerists/moderates. So a bare minimum of C/M would be about 5% of the fools that think Bush’s ideas have any merit LOL.
One thing that was brought up on MSNBC tonight. The additional soldiers imbedded with the Iraqis would be staying at Iraqi police stations, which are much more vulnerable to attack than US bases. So we might be seeing much higher casualty rates among those making up Bush’s surge.
BTW, I think those who support the president no matter what, the 30% who make up his approval rating, even when it bottoms out, are the same ones who are approving the surge. Add a few centrists, and you get to 35%.