Bush surge speech and three card monte

Just moments ago President Bush outlined the need for a surge in Iraq. Much of it was true; if America was to leave today it would be ugly. Sen. Liberman is to lead a bipartisan group to work out tactics to achieve the goals needed. Much of this is actually a distraction: early today four explosions from US missiles rocked Somalia (primarily Muslim) that was recently embroiled with Ethiopia (primarily Christian) in a conflict that led to rather odd result. Ethiopia has propped up Somalia and Muslim fighters have taken to the underground.

The political climate is right for a game of three card monte: Three card are placed out two black aces and a red queen. While everyone is looking for the queen the situation is sweeping out across the global. Democrats are desperate to look good on national defense, as Bush is struggling for more troops in Iraq, dem?s say those troops would be better used in Africa.

In the game three card monte the tosser or dealer will raise the ace of spades distracting long enough to move the queen. This is the game that the hill will soon be playing. Troops will leave Iraq and move to Somalia at the behest of Democrats. Watch our role in world affairs expand by the moment as the cards just get shuffled around.

It has already been reported that U.S. ground forces may be operating in Somalia. And essentially what you have is America backing an alliance of warlords (of the same variety that took down those black hawks in '91) against the Union of Islamic Courts who after more than 10 years of lawlessness, actually brought peace, stability, and commerce.

Regarding the surge, it would be pure speculation to say whether it would work or not. The question becomes, is this the last resort? If it does happen to fail, do you send more troops, pull out, or return to the prior troop levels? And how does one measure success...fewer deaths in a period of 6 months?

against the Union of Islamic Courts who after more than 10 years of lawlessness, actually brought peace, stability, and commerce.

Click to expand...

It is not quite that simple and there have been alligations against the Islamic Courts but it seems that the US is really supporting Ethiopia, rather than the Transitional government. There is real fear in Ethiopia and there as been for 30 years ever since the Ogaden War in which the Soviet backed Ethiopia fought Somolia. The US is taking advantage of the situation as they should to take down a few key enemies. And I would also like to point out that there are European ships in the naval task force out by Somolia, including German ships.

Right now they are using Ethiopia, but it was only several months ago that they were backing ARPCT themselves.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051601625_pf.html

As soon as these European entities take part in military action against Somalia, they will receive my vitriol.

There is fear on both sides, which is partly why so many are worried that Ethiopian forces on Somali land will only further escalate the conflict. So a civil war becomes a regional war, and now with Western power getting involved?

Yes, the United States is taking advantage of a situation (a situation they helped to create)...but to the detriment of Somalia. And it's going to end badly for all parties.

Personally, I feel that focus should be kept on Iraq -- securing and rebuilding and thus the bulk of any foreign deployed troops should be there untill the situation is resolved.

I've really never had a good opinion about operations in Africa. The place seems like it's in constant chaos, and personally I feel that getting involved there will only be trouble. Granted I wouldn't expect it to result in terrorist attacks on the US, but I see Africa being more of a 'quagmire' than Iraq and Afgahnistan.

I think it's funny though, that immediatly after taking office the Dems want to do basically what Bush has done, only in a different country. Weren't they the ones saying that Iran/N. Korea are more important "terror targets"? Then wth are they wanting to do in Africa?

Hmm I do not think leaving is an option for the US :

References :

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

Firecat said:

Regarding the surge, it would be pure speculation to say whether it would work or not. The question becomes, is this the last resort? If it does happen to fail, do you send more troops, pull out, or return to the prior troop levels? And how does one measure success...fewer deaths in a period of 6 months?

Click to expand...

One can not say it is the last resort, I believe that we will stay in Iraq for atleast the next two years. It is assumed that even if we are to remove a majority of troops we would still leave enough troops to support several bases there. The measure of success will be set by the Liberman group. Bush acknowledges that casualties will increase, and with more troops knocking on doors asking questions one can guess more deaths.

YF19pilot said:

I think it's funny though, that immediatly after taking office the Dems want to do basically what Bush has done, only in a different country. Weren't they the ones saying that Iran/N. Korea are more important "terror targets"? Then wth are they wanting to do in Africa?

Click to expand...

They also used the prospect of a military draft as a scare tactic against Bush and Co (during the 2004 and 2006 elections). However, the dems were the ones pushing for it in the first place....and they still are.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070111/pl_afp/usiraqmilitary_070111233117

Chuck Rangel: Chairman of ways and means hopes to help America by raising taxes and starting up the draft, that by the way the military doesn't want. No seriously this isn't a joke, this guy is more twisted than a rattlesnake in a stampede. Thats Chuck Rangel developing a time machine to the late 60's sense 1970.

we either need to pull out of Iraq or let our troops off the leash, none of this in between crap. basically either put up or shut up.

IMO we're spread way too thin, we need to focus on the most important areas, do those right and then move on.

Firecat said:

They also used the prospect of a military draft as a scare tactic against Bush and Co (during the 2004 and 2006 elections). However, the dems were the ones pushing for it in the first place....and they still are.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070111/pl_afp/usiraqmilitary_070111233117

Click to expand...

I'll tell you right now that I don't know a single serviceman who wants the draft to be started. Nobody wants to go into combat next to a guy who was dragged kicking and screaming all the way.

zenkidori said:

we either need to pull out of Iraq or let our troops off the leash, none of this in between crap. basically either put up or shut up.

Click to expand...

If the stakes are as high as Bush said they are...

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.

Click to expand...

Would a troop increase of 15% suffice?

He also says (referencing Iran & Syria)

we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq

Click to expand...

He follows this by saying...

I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing -- and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies.

Click to expand...

Do the insurgent groups have any tactical ballistic missiles?

we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

Click to expand...

Or is this leading up to something else? (In which these systems would be used to defend any retaliation). I've never been one to believe that a confrontation with Iran was imminent....but this makes me wonder.

If I actually typed out what I thought of bush your monitor would burst into flames. Trust me, I tried it. After burning down three monitors and setting my curtains on fire I stopped trying.

I forgot to mention. There was a raid on an Iranian consulate in Iraq (posted in another thread by Jetsetter). It only further reinforces the notion that America is goading Tehran to attack.

As far as the draft goes, I knew about that tactic that they've pulled. Also military commanders feel that a draft is unnessicary and would be detrimental as you've said. I think the Dems were wanting some kind of 'manditory service' like many countries do. 2 years in the military and all that.

As for Iran, yeah it does seem like we're starting to pressure them a bit. If we were to target another nation to attack, Iran would most likely be it. However, the problem with attacking Iran is that now we would really look like we're trying to take over the Middle East, and countries that have remained on the sidelines will probably join in.

Provoking them to strike first, while I don't like the idea, makes Iran look like the aggressors, almost giving us a "free pass" to attack them.

Like I said, personally I feel that we should secure and finish opperations in Iraq before doing anything else...

Firecat said:

Do the insurgent groups have any tactical ballistic missiles?

Click to expand...

No but Israel missiles could be stopped from going into Iran. Would make us look like good guys stopping a war that they started. Then we could negotiate from a seat of power.

I think taking on Iran without securing Iraq and having some time to rebuild various forces would be pretty stupid, but that can't be helped if Iran acts first. Honestly I half expect Iran and North Korea to wait for us to stretch ourselves too thin and the both make thier moves on thier respective regions.

Bush doesn't seem to listen to his military advisors and he's not proven to be a great strategist, so I hope whoever takes his place knows what they are doing or listens to those who do.

The Iranians haven't exactly attacked another country in 27 years. I don't think they are that suicidal to take on the United States (or Israel). If anything, the Israelis (after some kind of false flag op) may engage Iran and the United States would provide support (without putting any boots on the ground).

Again, this is pure speculation. But the rhetoric has surely intensified.

*edit*
forgot to mention that I don't think other countries in the region would get involved. Unless of course Hezbollah then tries to take down the Sinoura government in Lebanon, and that could bring in the United States and even Syria.

I don't think Iran would take us on directly, but if we were spread far and wide there's not too much we could do to stop them from other things, and being spread out may even give some of our politicians grounds to call for us to stay out of whatever develops.

Let's extrapolate for a moment, we're in afganistan, Iraq, and now Somalia apparently, keeping an eye on the chinese, pakistanis, Iranians, and north koreans(among others of course). Al Qaeda is rebuilding in Pakistan according to the beeb, so let's say things flare up in the regions we're already in, and another opens up, maybe somewhere in eastern europe or africa or something, so we send in more resources to the areas we're already engaged in, and into the new areas. Now our intelligence is going to be focused on these areas. in the meantime Iran, N Korea and China quietly build up, then practically simultaneously, North Korea moves on the south(and possibly Japan, but probably not), China moves on Taiwan, Iran tests a nuke and pressures other states in the region to join or treaty with them, and possibly Pakistan starts a row with one of thier neighbors, all at once. That would be messy.

and yes, this is all speculation, we're all just armchair quaterbacking here, none of us really have any clue.

Needless to the say, the world is a very volatile place. The United States does have allies though, so in all these situations they can fight proxy wars without the need to send in soldiers, just air support.