by Here’s my Iraq Timetable for the next two years.
August 2007:
The “Surge” didn’t work. The country is splitting into three region-states. American losses are outstripping any forward movement in the Iraqi coalition government. Now what?
December 2007:
After months of arguing and no Democrat backbone, another “infusion of
troops” is necessary in order to begin a “realignment” of the Middle
East. 15,000 more troops head into the desert.
January 2008:
We’re into Iran and Syria. More Surging. 30,000 troops are mailed across the oceans.
July 2008:
Democrats campaign
on which presidential contender can get us fastest out of Iraq as we
continue to lose more troops than we’re killing.
Meanwhile, the Middle
East is erupting into a series of intra-national civil wars with our troops as the prime pecking points.
June 2009:
President Rodham pulls us out of the Middle East. The world simultaneously sighs and screams.
October 2009:
Bush’s memoirs are published. He blames the Democrats for losing the Middle East and the War on Terror.
It’s been a long while, David. I have been on a semester break. Just back from Spain. My, how the world has changed in a month. We’re going even deeper into war. Your timeline is depressing but I don’t think I can offer anything better.
Anne!
There you are! I am glad to have you back. I have missed you. I hope you had a wonderful time in Spain!
Yes, it seems like we are on a carousel to nowhere. There’s lots of talk and breastbeating but there isn’t much in the way of getting hard results.
I’ve been reading the Bush has nothing to lose. The democrats don’t have anything to lose, either. So they’ll just sit back and let Bush hang himself in an ironic take on Saddam Hussein’s end. Like Goldwater went to Nixon and told him it was time to go, remember? I wonder if the old Republican guard like Lugar and Warner will have to bring home the reality that it’s over and he needs to start bringing an end to the Iraq mess.
Bush doesn’t have anything left to lose because he’s already lost everything. That makes him desperate and dangerous. He wants to win and refuses to lose and that kind of self-imposed conundrum has dangerous ramifications for the rest of the world.
Bush is looking lost in the headlights a bit but he won’t accept the proper help offered him out of the line of fire. He seems very brittle to me. And a little sad.
He has created sadness, Anne. I agree he is brittle and fragile and that is why the hard truths have been kept away from him.
Is a falsely confident president better than a broken one? I suppose we’ll know in 50 years when history pronounced its final judgment against him.
I wonder if his wife gives him any counsel? We know Hillary and Barbara and Rosalynn and Nancy and Jackie were in their men’s ears all the time whispering little truths at night so they wouldn’t hurt so much in the light of day.
I have wondered the same thing, Anne. Does the man listen to anyone who doesn’t agree with him? I’m sure his wife knows better than to speak out of turn. Her role is of the adoring wife, not the corrective mommy. Look at her wild children as proof.
She married an interesting man with a lot of promise and lots of problems. The wildness in her children is probably looked upon with a longing eye by their father and he quietly encourages their boorish behavior.
Hi David,
If I had to make a prediction about the future of the Middle East, I’d say that your time line would be what I would come up with also.
What are your predictions for Iraq 10 years and 20 years from now?
Anne!
I think you’re right that the father winks and smirks and secretly loves the carefree light of his daughters. It tells us a lot about the man.
Chris!
My timeline is very sad. There’s no hope in it. There’s no clean way out. It is pocked with hatred and death. That’s all the future shows me now. It’s the children of today who will pay for Bush’s blunders, not us.
In 10 years we’ll see the same thing that’s going on right now in Iraq. Great civil wars. Lots of fighting. Plenty of death. We’ll still be there in some capacity because we can’t let go of a total defeat.
In 20 years we’ll have Saddam Hussein Part 2 — but this one will be a religious leader who is harsher and more vicious than Saddam and his evil sons and it will be all our doing.
I’m on my way out now, David, and it was good to come back once I had connection access again. I’ll get caught up later.
Thanks, Anne! It’s always great to have you back!
The picture of him last week showed that he looks as though he has done as much damage to himself as he has to Iraq.
That is a depressing timeline, like Anne I cannot offer anything better. What may change it is future flare ups – other areanas.
Hi David,
If we are able to break our addiction to oil — or it all runs out — will we still care about Iraq 20 years from now?
Nicola!
Every president we’ve had looks worse going out than they did going in — I guess the weight of the world lowers the lives of all men. I’m surprised the weight is getting to Bush, though, because he so seems not to care. His advanced aging has only come in the last few years or so — previous to that he was unchanged. The next two years — having Congress set against his every wish — will make up for lost time, I wager, and give him that “dead look” that all presidents have when they leave power.
Poking at Iran is a dangerous game — especially when we are in such a poor and worn out position of non-power.
Hi Chris!
We will not break our addiction to oil unless the supply runs out — either falsely or naturally.
We’ll be sucking the Middle Eastern pipeline for the next century and the one beyond that.
Iran – the whole middle east ………. and Chris is right about oil …………… the first country to replace oil will win the race – by forging ahead
Nicola —
Oil is so deeply embedded into our economy — transportation and warmth — that to even begin to move away from it in any grand scheme is to endanger having it cut off before we’re ready to abandon it.
Jimmy Carter did his able best to wean us into self-reliance for our energy needs and big business shouted him down and shushed his foreign policy.
How do you heat your home? Coal? Gas? Wood? Oil? Do you rely on a service for your heat or are you entirely self-sufficient?
In the USA Midwest growing up it was electricity and Natural Gas for heating and cooling. Here on the East Coast it is almost exclusively oil in many older neighborhoods that provides warmth.
http://tinyurl.com/3sohz
Some say we should return to coal. There are enough coal reserves in the USA alone to last 200 years or longer.
http://tinyurl.com/3w22w
Because of our location – we cover our options for heating and cooking.
We have oil fired central heating via rayburn – which is also our main cooker, we also have a gas range as well as the rayburn needs electricity for the pump.
The rayburn replace an old multi- fuel range what ate anything – wood, coal , paper, refuse etc. It alsom was the smokiest most digusting range you could find – ( expect pics tomorrow).
We are looking into both solar and wind energy – but are having to fight the planners as we are in an area of outstanding natrual beauty.
So a “rayburn” is a brand name or the name of a generic power supplier or a machine?
I can’t wait to see pics of your disgusting range! Whoo!
😀