home

Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 08:41:12 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

With more than 1,800 young American lives lost, does Bush think an Emily Litella "Never Mind" moment will do anything but enrage us and sour the troops?

The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.

The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say. What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "

Can you spell f-a-i-l-u-r-e?

< Christopher Walken Announces Run for President | Newsweek: FBI Feared Abramoff Would Flee to Israel >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq | 60 comments (60 topical)
    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#1)
    by Randinho on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    Can you spell f-a-i-l-u-r-e? B-U-S-H

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    Any honest Republican (I'd like to think I'm one) should admit that modest expectations about what government can achieve (in foreign or domestic policy) should be the rule.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    I wonder if they are going to tell Bush. They forgot to tell him about GSAVE.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    Yeah but for some folks this thing went just swimmingly... those "rangers" and/or "pioneers" that are walking away counting about 200 billion of our dollars.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#5)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    So now instead of spreading peace-loving Democracy, we're legitimizing a theocracy?

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#6)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    Why not, Roy? It's the same thing they're trying to do here.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    roy-Do they need our stamp of approval to figure out what kind of counry they want to be. We are the greatest country in the world, from my point of view, but it is not a mutually exclusive distinction, others may be the greatest as well.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#8)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    No time to comment much. I've got a constitution due on Monday.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    Really, Che? The dog ate mine. He's snoring in Waco, from eating a huge hole in our national security and economy. His primary pleasure is cr*pping our national wealth out into the bank accounts of his supporters. While they applaud, in private cabals of smirking treason. He's anal. His "failures" to produce the Magic Kingdom he promised the rubes is just more Bush road-apples. Turd blossoms, so to speak. God's blessing and total bullsh*t coming together in one cruel man. It's a miracle.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#10)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    sounds like "defining down" victory to me. the fact is, we were told that iraq was going to be the second real democracy in the middle-east, not that there was only so much that could be done. not that i actually expected this to occur, but let's not play fast and loose with the facts. us "libs" needn't make things up or exaggerate, this administration, and its congressional allies, has provided more than enough actual, confirmable incompetence to turn it into swiss cheese. i have a sneaking suspicion that the schmidt election is a harbinger for the republicans: iraq, the ineptitude displayed on real homeland security, budgetary disasters, all provide substantive grist for democratic mills. all they have to do is get out there and lay the facts before the american public. 2006 should be very entertaining. one note of caution: hide the paper shredders in the white house and republican offices on the hill, lest damning evidence be destroyed before the incumbents are ousted.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#11)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    That is part of the deal made with iran, the next move you will never see or understand, but keep your eyes open, its going to be fun to watch how bush will sell the deal to you, without you knowing what your buying.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#12)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    This goes hand in hand with changing the name of our "thing" to struggle instead of war... Mid terms coming up, cannot have the incumbents accused of supporting a WAR when a STRUGGLE AGAINST EXREMISM sounds SO much better... And why promise dreams of a new paradise in the middle east when you can just say "At least Saddam is gone..." And before the wrong wingers come at me with their typical "he was so naughty blah blah blah..." Yes I am glad he is gone. Do I think it worth 1800 dead and how many thousands of mutilated American soldiers? no.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#13)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    So it is to be "deja vu all over again", declare victory and leave. So having opened the gates of hell what are some of the possible long term consequences. 1. Obviously, Iran is the big winner. The last 30 years of US foreign policy have been dedicated to keeping Iran isolated even if it meant supporting Saddam. The close cooperation between Iran and the Shias in Iraq will help strength the quest for power and influence by Shias throughout the ME including Saudi Arabia. 2. The limitations of US military power have been exposed for all the world to see. All you have to fear from the US is cruise missiles and nukes, which is substantial, yet it changes the rules of the game. 3. decreased influence throughout the ME and central Asia. We've lost use of the major base in Uzbekistan. 4. Increased instability in the ME as Iran will continue to provide support for Shia's in other countries. 5. Decreased access to ME oil. Now that demand in other parts of the world is increasing they can sell their oil to others, and charge us exorbitant prices. 6. The decline of the "petrodollar". Iraq had changed from the dollar to the euro under Saddam , look for Iran to continue that policy 7. Increased hatred of the US by Muslims throughout the world. 8. Having treated our allies like crap, the US will find itself more isolated in the international community and unable to influence events that affect it. Many people including some of the Pentagon's military planners had predicted before the invasion all these events as possible results of invading Iraq. The only US winners will be Halliburton and KBR

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    "let's not play fast and loose with the facts." Oh, no, we mustn't! That's for the Bushies, in their next iteration of their treason and calumny against our national security. Can't wait for them to BLOW THE DOORS OFF THE WHOLE MESS with a nuke in Tehran. But we mustn't fear leaving a traitor in charge of the country, while we shyly point and whisper among ourselves, with our factual white hats on. Stolen elections, illegal war, predation on civil rights, claims of impunity and Divine Rights of Kings -- no, nothing to worry about. No need to trouble yourselves -- the midterms will fix the problem, or else it won't. Any bastard gets to be president if they can steal it, right? Enjoy the War-athon at the Pentagon and Be Happy.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#15)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    “Can you spell f-a-i-l-u-r-e?”
    I was very pessimistic about the chance of a stable and democratic Iraq; I thought it more likely to slide into a protracted civil Suni/Shia conflict. The orderly election for the interim government was something, albeit miles from a functioning, self-perpetuating democracy. But now it seems there may actually be consensus on the largest sticking point, oil and federalism. If it is ratified in an orderly and relatively violence free election you folks are going to need to rethink the vitriol. For Christ sake, I read Peaches actually admit she had initially been disappointed by the progress in Iraq because she wanted the President to fail. If the left defines itself as an opposition, you know, you really let right define you. And I think they’re doing a pretty good job at defining you all as a bunch of jackals; cheerleaders for a failed democracy in Iraq.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    btw - i get frustrated when i read (everywhere) "more than 1,800 young American lives lost..." - i understand that this is shorthand for "american military deaths" but there are also american non-military deaths. im sure these deaths are equally important to the families involved. there are also 113 dead U.S. contractors contractors (for starters) Operation Milestone Millstone is counting down the days till we get to the milestone of 2000 dead americans (soldiers and contractors). it looks as though we'll cross that number toward the end of the Inappropriate Sniggerer's crawford holiday, which will be kinda, ummm, poignant.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#17)
    by John Mann on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    As long as the United States controls Iraq's oil supply, it's "Mission Accomplished". All the nonsense about "democracy" and "a noble cause" and "getting rid of that tyrant" are nothing more than big fat red herrings.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#18)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    cheerleaders for a failed democracy in Iraq.
    Pig - your an ass. We are not cheerleading what you are hearing is an "I told you so". This mess was predicted by many including Pentagon planners before the invasion. But thanks for your daily attack and bs

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#19)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    and BTW if your still buying this "establishing democracy" crap you are an administration apologist

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#20)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    "When all else fails.......... Lower your......... We won't fail agin!"

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#21)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    pig,
    I was very pessimistic about the chance of a stable and democratic Iraq; I thought it more likely to slide into a protracted civil Suni/Shia conflict.
    I don't recall you ever expressing any pessimism about the "chance of a stable and democratic Iraq." Show me a single post where you express this pessimism.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#22)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    A perceptive reader writes to say that the short deadline for the parliamentary acceptance of the constitution means that most members of parliament probably won't have time to read or study it carefully before the vote, and there will certainly be no proper debate on it. Is it right to expect parliament to approve a constitution it has barely read, which is highly controversial, without time for study and debate? Isn't that making parliament a mere rubber stamp? The deadline is a US political issue, not an imperative of Iraqi politics.
    LINK

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#23)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    TL One of the best posts yet! This ties together the question posed by Mrs Sheehan "Why did my son die?" with the op/ed by Frank Rich, in which he claims that Bush is thinking about withdrawing in time to save some Republicans who are running for reelection next year. I hope all my conservative friends read this article. Read it and let it sink in. Remember all that propaganda you used to repeat on blogs like this about how great things were going? Tell me again why over 1800 American servicemen lost their lives. For a democracy? According the a government official ""We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic." All the idealistic bs from the neocons about why we invaded and occupied seems to have now evaporated. "We've said we won't leave a day before it's necessary. But necessary is the key word -- necessary for them or for us? When we finally depart, it will probably be for us," a U.S. official said. Maybe we should have taken Senator Aiken's advice about Vietnam - declare victory and leave. This might have saved us billions of dollars, and, more importantly, American lives.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    A question this article raises in my mind is why no serious anti-war movement has emerged? Hillary won't lead it. Neither will Dean. By why is there relatively little organized protest??

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#25)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    Horse- From an exchange with Hockey Dad last December, before he stepped off the edge of civility.
    SD- That being said, lets assume we are not going to drop and run but are going to stay until the country is stable. PW- I agree with your grim assessment. There are many outcomes that are less than desirable. Bottom line, we should just leave. Iraq belongs to Iraqis; let them work it out.
    Searching the TL archives is very difficult, and I admit there may not be so many examples of my pessimism; I tend not to add to the voices in an echo chamber. But I assure you; most of my discussions of the chances for democracy in Iraq have neither been optimistic nor relegated to the Talk Left boards. Look, when the invasion started and marines began to be killed there was a lot of hype about Vietnam II, and thousand of US dead. The war to date has been relatively painless, a couple thousand US dead over a couple years and a government and constitution soon to be in place. Sham or not, this is a much greater accomplishment than I had expected, and certainly not Vietnam revisited. Maybe I’m easy to please, I half expected Iran to double in size.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    Pigwiggle, the only "relatively painless war" is one no one gets shot in. That thought process got us into this mess in the first place. The only reason it won't turn into another Vietnam is that this one was timed to fit the election cycle. Gear it up in '02 so bushleague can brand everyone opposed as unpatriotic. Wind it down for '06 so they can say "Look! We won!" And by the way, Iran may not end up doubling in geographic size, but with the soon-to-come Islamic Republic of Iraq they will double in influence. Congratulations.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    I always thought "Lowered Expectations" was a SNL skit, making fun of a dating service. The current administration has adopted it as their mission statement.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    The war to date has been relatively painless, a couple thousand US dead over a couple years
    Painless is a very relative term. I guess you live in a world where you don't feel anything that doesn't directly affect you. I imagine that there are a couple thousand American families that would tend to think your an insensitive a-hole, just like I do. How many thousands of Iraqis died that were no threat to you? Who cares, right? They have a constitution (that won't be worth the paper it's written on) so it was all worth it. Go sell that story to the survivors.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    and by the way, PW, since my predictions on this abortion have so far been proven correct from day one, let me add another. The Iraqis will approve a constitution and have an election to get us out of there. There is absolutely no historical or societal sympathy for democracy there - but they do understand guns and tanks. Once we leave they'll do whatever the heck they want, which probably means killing a lot of Sunnis. When Sistani dies, al Sadr takes over. I think everyone who thinks of a war as being "relatively painless" needs to be drafted. (And if you were already drafted once, you need to be drafted again, because the lesson obviously didn't take.)

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#30)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    pig, I don't have to be civil to people who insult me. Relatively painless- now you have descended to scum. Those 2000 Americans and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis are not pieces on a game board, they were real people with sons daughters fathers and mothers. And they died for what? Dont worry Iran will be twice as big. They already support the Shias in Iraq and will aid the Shias in Saudi Arabia get rid of the royal family. Why do you think we supported Saddam for so long? Pig calls himself a libertarian - sounds like a neocon to me.

    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#31)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    From Col. Patrick Lang
    The US Military wants out. The force will do its duty no matter what and understands its obligations to the US Constitution and civilian control of foreign policy. The troops, when questioned in the field, will always say, "we are in the fight," and they are. God bless Them! Nevertheless, as has been said elsewhere this week, the officer corps is mindful of the fate and future of the military's institutions, and it now believes that those institutions are at risk if the war is continued at the present over all force levels in the Armed Forces and with the delusional ideas of a "Minister of War" like Donald Rumsfeld ......
    Re: Bush Administration Lowers Goals for Iraq (none / 0) (#32)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    War isn’t painless crowd- If I were to say something like surgery to excise a chronic ingrown nail was relatively painless you should understand exactly what I mean. Would you chide me for calling surgery painless, or otherwise jeer, “the only painless surgery is no surgery”? Of course not, you know any surgery is difficult, dangerous, and painful, but excision of a nail is not nearly as difficult, dangerous, and painful as cracking a chest for a bypass. The best war is the war never fought, but the current war is less fatal by nearly an order of magnitude than any other war the US has fought. Ernesto-
    “Painless is a very relative term. I guess you live in a world where you don't feel anything that doesn't directly affect you.”
    You’re fairly close; just like you I am emotionally moved by those things that most directly affect me. This is what allows us to waste our time blogging about a w