His own character, his admirers say, is marked by his resolute, from-the-gut, stick-to-it approach; his detractors call that quality a character flaw, better known as stubbornness.
Bush admitted his Iraq caper is starting to look like Vietnam
So it is that Bush's unexpected observation that his costly Iraq boondoggle is starting to look like the United States' disastrous experience in Vietnam is no casual, throwaway remark; instead, it's a major admission of failure and, around the world, it's news.
Nowhere does it resonate more profoundly, and perhaps more painfully, it appears, then in Britain, the American ally whose leader, Prime Minister Tony Blair, sent its soldiers to fight Bush's strategyless war despite overwhelming opposition throughout the United Kingdom.
The Commander in Chief, in costume, aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003...
Bush was asked in an ABC television interview that was broadcast in the U.S. last night if he agreed with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who has compared the deteriorating scene in Iraq with the Tet Offensive, one of the turning points in the war in Vietnam. Bush responded: "He could be right. There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence." (As this blog item is being posted, after ten U.S. soldiers were killed yesterday, and with the announcement of two more American casualties, the total number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq so far this month has risen to 69.) (Times) Bush asserted that al Qaeda forces that are active within Iraq "believe if they can create enough chaos, the American people will grow sick and tired of the Iraqi effort and cause the government to withdraw." (Voice of America)
...shortly before declaring the U.S. military's "mission" in Iraq had been "accomplished"
"The U.S. administration's nerve is beginning to crack," notes Britain's Guardian in an editorial today. The paper reports that a special advisory team headed by Bush family consigliere and dutiful, Republican fix-it man James Baker III will give the president an analysis of the Iraq-war quagmire and recommendations for what to do about it soon. (That advice, apparently for political reasons, is scheduled to come after November's midterm elections.) Baker's report, it is assumed, will propose "a number of alternatives, including withdrawing troops to neighboring countries and launching targeted strikes against insurgents. Or concentrating [U.S.-led] coalition troops in Baghdad and bringing in forces from Syria and Iran to help enforce security outside the capital." (Australian)
Some observers might ask, though, how can Team Bush ever expect Iran to take part in its occupation of Iraq when it isn't even talking to the government of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Meanwhile, Blair has started to distance himself from the war he worked so hard to cook up. Yesterday, he "shifted ground on the continuing presence of British troops in Iraq by saying it was government policy to leave the country within 10 to 16 months" - if the security situation improves, that is. Still, "Blair refused to abandon his aim to secure democracy in the Middle East saying: 'I believe that the maintenance of democracy is absolutely essential for us, in Iraq and in Afghanistan.'" (Guardian, news article)
U.S. soldiers in Vietnam: The 1968 Tet Offensive by North Vietnamese forces against those of South Vietnam and the U.S. was a turning point in the war
The Guardian's editorial notes that Blair "sounded both loud and lost, staying the course only because his opponents lack an alternative strategy. He could not create enthusiasm for his own approach when he said, once again, that Britain must 'stay until the job is done.'" The paper concludes: "Once, the prime minister's rhetorical magic could persuade others. Now, on Iraq,...Blair is the only person who still appears to be seduced by the illusion that he has created."
Retired British Army Colonel Tim Collins, who led a battalion in the Iraq invasion, writes in the Telegraph: "Three years into the occupation, with no real improvement, it is time to admit failure....Indeed, the British failure in Iraq may be characterized by history as 'ill-conceived and without enough effort.'" However, Collins notes, Britains's army "has not lost its spine....But the continued deployment to Iraq,...coupled by the muddled state of domestic government in the U.K....has struck at the roots of our military. Coupled with the further adventure in Afghanistan, our military has run out of resources."
Shutting the door on Bush-and-Blair's Iraq fiasco, Collins adds: "The end has come not because of any deeply contemplated policy decision, but because...Blair and his mates have driven our military like joyriders in a stolen car. General [Sir Richard] Dannatt has informed them that it has just run out of petrol. Let's hope they don't torch it to cover their tracks."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=15&entry_id=10022
Bush admitted his Iraq caper is starting to look like Vietnam
So it is that Bush's unexpected observation that his costly Iraq boondoggle is starting to look like the United States' disastrous experience in Vietnam is no casual, throwaway remark; instead, it's a major admission of failure and, around the world, it's news.
Nowhere does it resonate more profoundly, and perhaps more painfully, it appears, then in Britain, the American ally whose leader, Prime Minister Tony Blair, sent its soldiers to fight Bush's strategyless war despite overwhelming opposition throughout the United Kingdom.
The Commander in Chief, in costume, aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003...
Bush was asked in an ABC television interview that was broadcast in the U.S. last night if he agreed with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who has compared the deteriorating scene in Iraq with the Tet Offensive, one of the turning points in the war in Vietnam. Bush responded: "He could be right. There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence." (As this blog item is being posted, after ten U.S. soldiers were killed yesterday, and with the announcement of two more American casualties, the total number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq so far this month has risen to 69.) (Times) Bush asserted that al Qaeda forces that are active within Iraq "believe if they can create enough chaos, the American people will grow sick and tired of the Iraqi effort and cause the government to withdraw." (Voice of America)
...shortly before declaring the U.S. military's "mission" in Iraq had been "accomplished"
"The U.S. administration's nerve is beginning to crack," notes Britain's Guardian in an editorial today. The paper reports that a special advisory team headed by Bush family consigliere and dutiful, Republican fix-it man James Baker III will give the president an analysis of the Iraq-war quagmire and recommendations for what to do about it soon. (That advice, apparently for political reasons, is scheduled to come after November's midterm elections.) Baker's report, it is assumed, will propose "a number of alternatives, including withdrawing troops to neighboring countries and launching targeted strikes against insurgents. Or concentrating [U.S.-led] coalition troops in Baghdad and bringing in forces from Syria and Iran to help enforce security outside the capital." (Australian)
Some observers might ask, though, how can Team Bush ever expect Iran to take part in its occupation of Iraq when it isn't even talking to the government of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Meanwhile, Blair has started to distance himself from the war he worked so hard to cook up. Yesterday, he "shifted ground on the continuing presence of British troops in Iraq by saying it was government policy to leave the country within 10 to 16 months" - if the security situation improves, that is. Still, "Blair refused to abandon his aim to secure democracy in the Middle East saying: 'I believe that the maintenance of democracy is absolutely essential for us, in Iraq and in Afghanistan.'" (Guardian, news article)
U.S. soldiers in Vietnam: The 1968 Tet Offensive by North Vietnamese forces against those of South Vietnam and the U.S. was a turning point in the war
The Guardian's editorial notes that Blair "sounded both loud and lost, staying the course only because his opponents lack an alternative strategy. He could not create enthusiasm for his own approach when he said, once again, that Britain must 'stay until the job is done.'" The paper concludes: "Once, the prime minister's rhetorical magic could persuade others. Now, on Iraq,...Blair is the only person who still appears to be seduced by the illusion that he has created."
Retired British Army Colonel Tim Collins, who led a battalion in the Iraq invasion, writes in the Telegraph: "Three years into the occupation, with no real improvement, it is time to admit failure....Indeed, the British failure in Iraq may be characterized by history as 'ill-conceived and without enough effort.'" However, Collins notes, Britains's army "has not lost its spine....But the continued deployment to Iraq,...coupled by the muddled state of domestic government in the U.K....has struck at the roots of our military. Coupled with the further adventure in Afghanistan, our military has run out of resources."
Shutting the door on Bush-and-Blair's Iraq fiasco, Collins adds: "The end has come not because of any deeply contemplated policy decision, but because...Blair and his mates have driven our military like joyriders in a stolen car. General [Sir Richard] Dannatt has informed them that it has just run out of petrol. Let's hope they don't torch it to cover their tracks."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=15&entry_id=10022
