Please visit the new home of Majikthise at

« New York: Save Sparky! | Main | Bush appointee: Promiscuous sex is mind-blowing! »

November 16, 2006

Bush wants "One last big push" in Iraq

George Bush says he wants "a last big push" to win in Iraq.

He's starting to sound like Douglas Haig.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bush wants "One last big push" in Iraq:


Why doesn't he just say "pretty please, Dad!"

So that big todo about coming up with a strategy and those four points are the best they could come up with?

The "regional cooperation" part is nice: getting Turkey to sign off on de facto independence for Kurdistan, and the Saudis to help stabilize a pro-Iranian Shi'ite theocracy right next door... what could go wrong? And why hasn't ANYONE thought of mobilizing the vast resources of mighty Jordan (plus Kuwait!!) before now?

(Yes, I know some maps portray two additional nations as bordering Iraq. For the purposes of this discussion, however, we're just going to pretend that the Persian Gulf and the western part of the Euphrates River are a bit larger than we're used to thinking of them.)

Sounds right.

One last big push - accompanied by a grunt, then a phased withdrawl. Then we can say we're done screwing Iraq.

We'll call though. Promise.

A big push sounds like a great idea...if we did it in the summer and fall of 2003. The insurgency was at its weakest and most disorganized, and 20,000 extra troops might have been enough to keep it under control. It was a mistake to let the insurgency grow for three straight years, and I don't think 20,000 more troops is going to help much at this point.

The Messiah and Commander must have recently watched "Lawrence Of Arabia". Before he gets any more bright ideas from seeing "Battle Of The Bulge", maybe someone on His Majesty's staff should change the channel from Turner Classic Movies to the Learning Channel. Or VH1. Or Nicktoons.

i find the phrase "big push" very disturbing because it ought to be painfully clear by now that america has not a single good option in iraq, no direction to push towards. but i suppose pushing is what we do, which means we're gonna have to kill a whole bunch of people before we slink away. for some reason (insecurity, will to power), republicans simply can't acknowledge that military force will not accomplish anything in iraq. what possible good could an increased military effort do? does anyone really think that iraq's problem is a lack of guns?

"when one has come this far on a fool's errand, one has no choice but to obey the honor of fools by completing the errand."
-kurt vonnegut

I was going to compare Bushboy's efforts to pushing a dump, but Njorl has the better metaphor.

Then we can say we're done screwing Iraq.

See figure 1....2, 3, 4, 5

The whole war-psychosis is becoming quite manifest in both the US and the Israeli camps these days. As points out, its the Enron/Haliburton/Carlyle junta vs. the universe in the bunker, and that tunellvision has lead to one of the strangest fascist governments of western creation. From a European point of view, the US looks very disturbed, hysteric and corrupt.

I'm not a huge fan of a big push. Nor am I a fan of the "cut-n-run / dishonor the servicemen" policies of the incoming Democrats.

One of the "lessons from Viet Nam", and the only one worth remembering, is that you have to have the whole country behind your war policy. Otherwise you have shrieking hippie girls spitting on returning American servicemen (never returning American service woman) while calling these heroes baby-killers.

(I never went to Viet Nam, however: Been there, done that, remember every last one of the hateful looks on your flower-child faces.)


"You sleep well tonight because rough men stand ready to do violence on your behalf -" Orson Wells

>One of the "lessons from Viet Nam", and the only one worth remembering, is that you have to have the whole country behind your war policy.

Agreed. Therefore, it was incredibly stupid to divert our troops from Afghanistan, where _ALL_ of the US public, and most of the developed world (including France, Germany, and Canada, who sent thousands of their troops to die alongside ours) agreed we should be, to start an unpopular, senseless, and pointless war which we couldn't properly wage, against someone who, though detestable, had NOTHING to do with 9/11, and everyone knew it.

>"You sleep well tonight because rough men stand ready to do violence on your behalf -" Orson Wells

Actually, I sleep well tonight because we have no strong enemies menacing our borders, and are separated from those who would do us wrong by two or three huge oceans. If we shared a border with North Korea, I would not be sleeping well at all, and I would have considered it an even dumber mistake to go to war with Iraq, wasting all of our troops there. I would hardly be surprised if the Bush administration had been bought off by the Communists to purposefully take a fall in Iraq, so self-destructive was it.

The comments to this entry are closed.