The Greatest Strategic Disaster in U.S. History

Eyewitness reports from U.S. soldiers returning from Iraq, as well as from exiled Iraqis who have just visited Baghdad after many years, establish, without question, that the United States must immediately initiate the process to leave Iraq now—while such an exit is still possible. The only question remaining, one retired Special Forces officer told this news service, is whether the United States can "walk out of Iraq," or whether it has to "fight its way out."
or is it this -
{ I was going to post it on its own, then I saw your post and thought it might fit in...}

"2004, 771,000 Americans were arrested on marijuana charges."

That’s more than all of the arrests for all of the violent crimes in America combined—181,000 more, to be exact.

89 percent were for mere possession.

And as far as disaters go, this might rate:

tobacco, which kills more than 400,000 Americans every year.
Or alcohol, which kills about 100,000.

But hey, the War in Iraq is the biggest most harshest bloodbath on the planet. Or so we would hope, the African Jinjaweed killers [Sudan] are right up there I guess.

The War in Iraq is getting really ugly too.
They may as well leave now because it is going to be civil war eventually, they are just getting stronger the longer America is there - gathering weapons, making plans, and working the government side a lot more as time goes on. Sunnis and Shias and Kurds all have land issues, and that makes for war.
I have not heard that American forces are trying to resolve any of that
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker

have not heard that American forces are trying to resolve any of that

Don't think they CAN or KNOW HOW. The forces are trained to fight and KILL. They object to any kind of other that is "not their role".
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker

The War in Iraq is getting really ugly too.

absolutely ! and the empty rhetoric /promises from the Wh.Hse are just more lies to try to cover the mess they created.

( on a personal level.........I still cannot believe they were THAT stupid--- to invade a nation based on lies)
No Party Affiliation
#5  Top Rated Post
Bush regime controlled by a cabal of warmongers:

Former Powell Aide Says Bush Policy Is Run by 'Cabal'

Published: October 21, 2005
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of staff has offered a remarkably blunt criticism of the administration he served, saying that foreign policy had been usurped by a "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal," and that President Bush has made the country more vulnerable, not less, to future crises.

The comments came in a speech Wednesday by Lawrence Wilkerson, who worked for Mr. Powell at the State Department from 2001 to early 2005. Speaking to the New America Foundation, an independent public-policy institute in Washington, Mr. Wilkerson suggested that secrecy, arrogance and internal feuding had taken a heavy toll in the Bush administration, skewing its policies and undercutting its ability to handle crises.

"I would say that we have courted disaster, in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran, generally with regard to domestic crises like Katrina, Rita - and I could go on back," he said. "We haven't done very well on anything like that in a long time."

Mr. Wilkerson suggested that the dysfunction within the administration was so grave that "if something comes along that is truly serious, truly serious, something like a nuclear weapon going off in a major American city, or something like a major pandemic, you are going to see the ineptitude of this government in a way that will take you back to the Declaration of Independence."

Mr. Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel and former director of the Marine Corps War College, said that in his years in or close to government, he had seen its national security apparatus twisted in many ways. But what he saw in Mr. Bush's first term "was a case that I have never seen in my studies of aberration, bastardizations" and "perturbations."

"What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues," he said.

The former aide referred to Mr. Bush as someone who "is not versed in international relations, and not too much interested in them, either." He was far more admiring of the president's father, whom he called "one of the finest presidents we've ever had."

Mr. Wilkerson has long been considered a close confidant of Mr. Powell, but their relationship has apparently grown strained at times - including over the question of unconventional weapons in Iraq - and the former colonel said Mr. Powell did not approve of his latest public criticisms.
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker

As the casualty count rises, an `Iraq syndrome' emerges

By Daniel Sneider

I make it a point every morning to read the latest names of the American soldiers who died in Iraq. I do this to remind myself of the real cost to this nation of the war in Iraq. I think of the husbands, wives, parents, children and friends left behind to comprehend their loss.

The constitutional referendum in Iraq this past weekend is yet another moment to step back and ask whether the war has been worth this price. The other costs of this war are no less real: the tax dollars spent and the massive public debt that is building; the erosion of American prestige around the world; the breeding of a new generation of Islamist terrorists; and the visible weakening of American will and power to tackle more serious threats elsewhere.

But most of all, it is mounting American casualties, now closing in on 2,000 dead and 15,000 wounded, that is wearing away support for the war. This follows a pattern of the two previous times since 1945 that Americans have suffered significant casualties in war -- Korea and Vietnam.

``The only thing remarkable about the current war in Iraq is how precipitously American public support has dropped off,'' argues Ohio State political scientist John Mueller, in an important new article in Foreign Affairs.

``Casualty for casualty, support has declined far more quickly than it did during either the Korean War or the Vietnam War. And if history is any indication, there is little the Bush administration can do to reverse this decline,'' concludes Mueller, an expert on war and public opinion.

The Bush administration inner circle believed that conquering Iraq would be the death, finally, of ``the Vietnam syndrome,'' the fear of foreign entanglement that crippled the use of American power. It is darkly ironic then that the war has given birth to what Mueller calls ``the Iraq syndrome.'' Potential support for a fresh front, whether it is in Iran, Syria or North Korea, is disappearing rapidly.

``In part because of the military and financial overextension in Iraq (and Afghanistan), the likelihood of any coherent application of military power or even of a focused military threat against the remaining entities on the Bush administration's once-extensive hit list has substantially diminished,'' writes Mueller.

Those foes are all too well aware of the Iraq syndrome. Iran and North Korea's defiant pursuit of nuclear weapons is clearly prompted by their sense of the post-Iraq limits on American power. The administration tries to clothe its sense of weakness by trumpeting its new belief in the virtues of diplomacy -- but that new faith rings a bit hollow.

The Iraq syndrome rests on the growing perception in this country that Iraq is a war with even less purpose and less at stake than the previous unpopular wars in Korea and Vietnam. That skepticism has been fed by the administration's string of changing reasons for the war.

The threat that initially sold the war -- weapons of mass destruction, potentially in the hands of terrorists -- proved false. The lingering support for the war rests mainly on the administration's persistent claim that Iraq is part of the response to Sept. 11. Increasingly, however, Americans see Iraq as more a spur to terror than a front on which to defeat it.

What is left is the administration's justification that this is a war to end tyranny and bring democracy to Iraq. However appealing, there is no evidence that the American people, if they had been asked, would give the lives of their sons and daughters for that cause.

The administration clings to the belief that good news -- such as the constitutional vote -- will eventually swing opinion back in their favor. It could slow the decline in support but it is unlikely to change people's minds, says Mueller. No string of good news, he says, could conceivably yield a clear-cut victory.

Seeking to rally support, the administration falls back on its final argument -- that retreat will only embolden the enemy and leave an even worse situation behind. As in Vietnam, there is a counterargument that withdrawal may have little impact on the outcome. The Iraqi authorities in any case may eventually conclude that the American presence does more to fuel the insurgency than contain it. For an American public weary of the daily toll, the case for withdrawal becomes increasingly compelling.

In the end, Iraq did not reverse decades of retreat and appeasement. Rather, it has sapped American will, becoming a graveyard of American power measured by the daily list of American dead.

This post may be best appropriate here under the Title "The Greatest Strategical Disaster in US History.

Go to

2- Type in the word Failure

3- Instead of hitting "Search" hit "I'm feeling Lucky"

4- See what comes up!

5- Tell your friends before the people at Google fix it
I used Yahoo and the number Two choice was "The biography Of George Bush"
Great missile, this makes him a failure on a grand scale.
Quote: Originally Posted by moghrabi

This post may be best appropriate here under the Title "The Greatest Strategical Disaster in US History.

Go to

2- Type in the word Failure

3- Instead of hitting "Search" hit "I'm feeling Lucky"

4- See what comes up!

5- Tell your friends before the people at Google fix it

Gee, I guess the Bush administration has not shut down the "failure" keyword in any search engine.

What a "conspiracy" if they did.

And as far as Iraq is concerned, most of these posts show no inclination to wish the best for Iraq now. That point is way down low on the partisan agenda.

Even those who supported this war see many of the same criticisms as correct.

We can now only hope the world in its fractured attention deficit state can join together with the same animosity against all who wish Iraq to have no chance.

Animosity towards all who wish to wreck Iraq's chances?


That's not a popular notion in the world mindthink.
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker

And as far as Iraq is concerned, most of these posts show no inclination to wish the best for Iraq now

not so, (IMHO) jim. I think that most of us here (if not ALL) want what is best for Iraq. But ....we want the Iraqis to get their country back so they can determine their own future. What ever they CHOOSE on their own should be respected as such.

The bone of contention is the US invading on lies, destroying and KILLING thousands.....(with more lies) and then controlling how the new Iraqi gov't is formed from the outline that was left by the US governing body. The contention is also about the PRESUMPTUOUS and ARROGANT nature that the US is simply stealing Iraqi land to construct massive military bases on the premises.

The contention is too.......that the US seems to be going with the policy of " We break it .......we keep it". So that emboldens them to keep breaking "it". It is that arrogant attitude of "entitlement " that the US operates from........that is offensive and destructive.

The Iraqis have NO CHOICE as to what happens now or their future.......with the way things stand now. They can have all the "elections" they want and that does not change the underlying principle of the US controlling things from behind the curtain.

And Yes, it is the Iraqis who are the VICTIMS here from every dimension. ......
The Iraqis do have a choice.

But the world is not condemning those who wish it to have no choice.

Your passion is selective.
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker

The Iraqis do have a choice.

and how do you propose they exercise this "choice"???

...........also , what choice might it be?? Does anyone KNOW for a fact what the IRAQIS want for themselves.. Is it possible that they might not know for sure yet either??? It is the process that matters and being able to control the process. ........which they cannot do with the US there.

IF YOU were an Iraqi living under these devestating conditions with a FOREIGN military around every corner , bombs coming from sky and from the "resistance"..............what position would you be in??? Can one try to imagine what their life is like now. They are pulled in all kinds directions........ and that is nothing more than a form of chaos and disorder.
I'm sure you believe that, because maybe the concept of "choice" should be less difficult.

But the concept of "choice" often is difficult.

Difficulty does not stop CHOICE.

Another concept of CHOICE is that we often do not know ourselves what to do.

And then the difficulty implicit in CHOICE stymies us all.

This country does indeed have a chance.

But it is not a popular concept in the world mindthink.

Nor is it popular to condemn ALL who wish Iraq to have no choice.
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker

The news media is suddenly declaring that the CIA case is forcing them to RE-examine the justification for the invasion of Iraq. Key word there being “RE”. When the hell did they examine the justification in the fist place? It was only the so-called Bush bashing anti-Americans who were questioning the rational for war. You know, the people like Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon. Actually they/we were not only questioning the rational for war, we were answering those questions. Another thing the criminally complicit media did not do.

Without the complicity of the American news industry the invasion of Iraq would not have been tolerated. The ludicrous notion that “if we knew then what we know now we would not have supported the war” does not hold water because we did know then what we knew now! We have learned nothing new, not a thing. They sold this war for profit. The news industry knows that war = high ratings and newspaper sales. They lied to us so they can make a buck on the greatest strategic disaster in American history.

The American news industry as a whole has Iraqi & American blood on their collective hands and all the spin in the world won’t wash it off now! Think about it! –

No Party Affiliation
Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 23/10/2005)

Millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified, a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers has revealed.

The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country.

Andrew Robathan: Government policy 'disastrous'
It demonstrates for the first time the true strength of anti-Western feeling in Iraq after more than two and a half years of bloody occupation.

The nationwide survey also suggests that the coalition has lost the battle to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, which Tony Blair and George W Bush believed was fundamental to creating a safe and secure country.

The results come as it was disclosed yesterday that Lt Col Nick Henderson, the commanding officer of the Coldstream Guards in Basra, in charge of security for the region, has resigned from the Army. He recently voiced concerns over a lack of armoured vehicles for his men, another of whom was killed in a bomb attack in Basra last week.

The secret poll appears to contradict claims made by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, who only days ago congratulated British soldiers for "supporting the Iraqi people in building a new and better Iraq".

Andrew Robathan, a former member of the SAS and the Tory shadow defence minister, said last night that the poll clearly showed a complete failure of Government policy.

He said: "This clearly states that the Government's hearts-and-minds policy has been disastrous. The coalition is now part of the problem and not the solution.

"I am not advocating a pull-out but if British soldiers are putting their lives on the line for a cause which is not supported by the Iraqi people then we have to ask the question, 'what are we doing there?' "

The Sunday Telegraph disclosed last month that a plan for an early withdrawal of British troops had been shelved because of the failing security situation, sparking claims that Iraq was rapidly becoming "Britain's own Vietnam".

The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces. It reveals:

• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;

• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;

• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;

• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq.

The findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the BBC in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it.

Under the heading "Justification for Violent Attacks", the new poll shows that 65 per cent of people in Maysan province - one of the four provinces under British control - believe that attacks against coalition forces are justified.

The report states that for Iraq as a whole, 45 per cent of people feel attacks are justified. In Basra, the proportion is reduced to 25 per cent.

The report profiles those likely to carry out attacks against British and American troops as being "less than 26 years of age, more likely to want a job, more likely to have been looking for work in the last four weeks and less likely to have enough money even for their basic needs".

Immediately after the war the coalition embarked on a campaign of reconstruction in which it hoped to improve the electricity supply and the quality of drinking water.

That appears to have failed, with the poll showing that 71 per cent of people rarely get safe clean water, 47 per cent never have enough electricity, 70 per cent say their sewerage system rarely works and 40 per cent of southern Iraqis are unemployed.

But Iraq's President Jalal Talabani pleaded last night for British troops to stay. "There would be chaos and perhaps civil war," he said. "We are now fighting a world war launched by terrorists against civilisation, against democracy, against progress, against all the values of humanity.

"If British troops withdrew, the terrorists would say, 'Look, we have imposed our will on the most accomplished armed forces in the world and terror is the way to oblige the Europeans to surrender to us'."

• John Reid, the Defence Secretary will announce next week that 3,100 troops are to deploy to Afghanistan next April as a part of the expansion of the International Sec-urity and Assistance Force. Their job will be to hunt down the Taliban and to take part in anti-narcotics operations.

20 October 2005: Roadside bomb kills British soldier
8 October 2005: Rise of militias leaves Basra in the balance
30 September 2005: Rise of militias leaves Basra in the balance
I almost find anecdotal evidence better than polls sometimes. That same person you ask a poll question to will have a more involved unquantifiable point of view when engaged in full conversation.

It's hard to say what to do or when to do it now, but the process of giving Iraqi's their own power, their own country is going forward.

They know that too.
Ten Packs
nice one Ten Packs. Better than Google search. It is better coming straight from his mouth.

Similar Threads

History: Greatest Leader and Why
by sine000 | May 11th, 2009