Why is this administration continuing on the wrong path in Iraq?

[Roland99]

I was watching C-SPAN this morning and was rather impressed with the answers to the many questions from the callers by their guest today, A. Heather Coyne of the US Institute for Peace. She's in civil affairs and was sent to Baghdad. Her role was to promote the establishment and growth of indigenous Iraqi nongovernmental organizations, professional societies, and local citizens’ committees to support the reestablishment of civil society. A couple of questions came to mind that have been unanswered in my mind and seem to be lacking from the national media, as well.

1) I saw Seymour Hersh speak here in town a year ago and back then he mentioned that the insurgents (assuming he was talking of the Ba'athist and Fedayeen members) had infiltratred all levels of the government. Also, we've read and heard reports of uniformed Iraqi security forces executing people and raiding homes in apparent retaliation for informing on insurgent positions. My questions are: How much is known about insurgent infiltration of the Iraqi government and of Iraqi security forces? What is being done to cleanse the government and the security forces of these militants? Also, how much of the missing $9.8 billion has ended up in these insurgents' hands?

2) Points were raised in today's show re: working to understand Iraqi politics (and one would think terrorism in general as Paul Hackett was discussing last night on Hardball on MSNBC). Coyne also brought up the point that our military is too involved in the peacekeeping/stabilization process in Iraq. My 2nd question is: Why is this administration continuing to use our military (esp. the Marines) as a peacekeeping force when that is not the purpose of our military (and is in direct contradiction to the President's promise during his 2000 campaign)? Also, why is the State Dept. not more vocal in demanding more control of the process? Is it because of incompetence in the State Dept.? Obstinance in the White House? Neoconservative forces in both overpowering reason and keeping the military in place?

These are questions that this administration needs to answer and they are questions the lapdog M$M needs to ask.

[NicRic]

1. Why are they on the wrong path on everything ?

Iam having a hard time finding one thing I can honestly say they have done a good job with ? The economy ,NO ,our relationships with allies around the world ,NO , Proper handeling of diasaster releif here at home ,NO ? The list of failures goes on and on ,perhaps somewhere in the pile of failures ,there is something they have done right ,I have'nt been able to find it anywhere !

[Flubadubya]

4. Rethugs can't even answer this question...

I listen to Mike Malloy all the time and Randi Rhodes when I can. I have heard them both ask Freepers who call their shows to name ONE thing that the Booosh administration has done to actually help average American citizens. Never even ONCE has any of them been able to describe ANYTHING that has been done good for us by the lamers in the White House. They were quite eager to talk around the subject, try to obfuscate and spin (which got them promptly booted from the airwaves, of course), but not a single one has ever come up with a concrete thing.

As a matter of fact, Lou Dobbs just asked John Fund on his show a few days ago the same question. This nitwit took the same path as the talk show guests... tried to talk all around it. Lou tried to redirect him a time or two back to the original question, but he still never gave a real example... couldn't!

SO... EVEN REPUBLICANS KNOW NOTHING GOOD HAS EVER COME FROM THE BUSHIES!!! NEVER!!! :grr::mad::argh:

[MrModerate]

2. Complicated answer but I think . . .

"Obstinance" is probably the closest thing to a global explanation. Since nothing is actually working out as guessed (not "planned"), they've had to improvise tactics every day. Over time they've drifted from their already sloppy and imprecise approach into tactics that are in direct contravention of their "principles," such as they are.

Incompetence, hypocrisy, intransigence, opportunism, all these also could be cited.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

3. Republicans are beating a dead horse (Iraq)

When Republicans first invaded Iraq by lying about it being involved in 9/11, the majority of Americans agreed (illiteracy, perhaps?). In any case, now it's well known (except among extremist right-wing Christians, who don't read anything except the vomit spewed by their Nazi preachers), that the Republicans lied about Iraq. Republicans are going down. However, they don't have many issues. They have Iraq, abortion, and gays. 3 issues. They keep pumping at them hoping to regain their popularity.

[EST]

5. The best answers and the ones that seem to fit are centered

around the tactics of mistake, arrogance and bullying. Nobody can change direction because that would require admitting you're wrong.
Everyone has fundamental issues of survival with being right, but, with bullies and others of overweening arrogance (and, let's face it, you cannot be submissive or withdrawing in anything having to do with politics,) the importance of being right is even more powerful and painful.
Now, in your wrongheaded blundering, which, of course, everyone around you has proclaimed to be creative, masterful genius, you have managed to murder a considerable portion of a million people. In your mind, if you suddenly pulled up and said "oops, sorry!" the hordes would rise up and tear you limb from limb, plus, since being right is equivalent to survival, the mind concludes such an admission is fatal, even if the crowds don't get you.

And there you have it. Reversal of direction or anything but a slight course correction is simply not on the radar screen. And being told by your inferiors that you are totally fucked up just does not translate; it renders you deaf in that particular direction.
Hitler did not commit suicide because he was afraid of punishment; he did it because his ego informed his mind that confronting the prospect of being wrong was a fate worse than death. His very survival was at stake.
We were gifted with a form of government that, historically, does not require the suicide or execution of a leader in order to bring about a change of direction or command. Some do not get it--witness the assassinations and attempted assassinations of our own government heads.
There are more interesting details surrounding this particular pile of shit, but you'll find that these should cover it nicely and are accurate, as far as they go.
In bush's case, given that he is psychotic and pretty unscrewed in some other mental pathologies as well, it's not a safe bet on whether he will resign, go quietly when he's dumped, commit suicide or have to be forcibly removed. You can bet, however, when he says he does not care about polls, he is deadly serious. His aides and associates, more politically savvy and less invested in their own righteousness than he, are quite fascinated by them, as a chicken is by a snake.

[Roland99]

6. Excellent analysis and along the lines of things I've said in the past

re: people being unable to admit to mistakes. It takes a brave, courageous soul to admit mistakes. Because to do so means injury to one's pride.

Take this and apply it to the inanimate object: the main$tream media and we find that actually the same thing applies. The media is controlled by humans with self-interest and survival at heart. They must answer to stockholders and value their monetary worth over and above the historical duties of their industry.

[EST]

7. Well, if you like things technical, it goes a little

deeper (in structure) than that. If you don't mind an analogy, people are actually a bit simpler than that, although it often looks quite complicated.
Consider this, please: people are possessed of a couple of items that are of interest to us. One of those things is called an ego. We haven't quite gotten it mapped onto a particular physical structure but as a conceptualization, it will do. The second item, or notion, is "self." The connection between the two has to do with the function of ego.
The purpose of ego is the survival of self or anything that self considers itself to be. Lets call it that the ego protects the survival of self.
At some point in a maturing human, whether consciously held or not, the mind and the self start to be regarded as the same thing. I know this gets a little complicated and clumsy, but hang with me for a bit; I'm trying not to be pedantic.
The survival function of the self shows up as being right, being right, being right - kind of like a rabbit being chased by a bobcat, if it fails to be right, it gets eaten. The ego actually will go so far as to allow the self to be killed in order to survive (be right) eg. suicide.
The person who suicides does it to be right and avoid being wrong.
Since the self considers itself to be the mind, the ego becomes about the survival of the mind.
The upshot of this whole thing (a rather clumsy approximation, I will admit) is that the mind has to be right all the time and being wrong is actually worse than death. It is "unsurvival."

We humans cling to this. We destroy our marriages. We wage huge wars in order to survive. We kill, steal, lie, do horrible things to ourselves and others, all on the altar of survival. People like Dumyah, Rumsfeld and Cheney have been so protected from the hard knocks in life that they have had little practice in sneaking around the ego, because of intellectual recognition the need for compromise in a complicated world, and finding ways of satisfying the demands of their ambitions, while also handling that overwhelming need for survival.
This also applies to heads and workers in the warm stream media, foot soldiers, and everyone else.
Dumyah is not only incompetent, he is sick-elevator doesn't go to the top floor, etc. He has no leavening of that other curious quality that allows normal humans to identify themselves in others and presents as compassion or understanding. He never matured past pre-pubescence and his stunted growth causes much suffering in the world. He is fundamentally incapable of owning up to being wrong or steerable-the very worst sort of creature to be in a position of power. Of such are tyrants made.

[Roland99]

10. Oh, I understand and agree completely. To admit a mistake or even failure,

for some, is to kill one's self and thus need to be reborn or recast. And once someone has reached a certain age, that prospect can not only be daunting, it can be an impossible task to accept.

[July]

11. I think you have nailed their point of view, but I also think that this

FUBAR works to a certain degree for them. The contracts and depletion of the Treasury are great for Bush and Cronies, as is the freer hand to step on us that a "war president," especially an arrogant one (as you describe well) is given.

The case you make for their inability to admit fault also applies to Bush's religiosity, I think. I have said before that it is so much nicer for him in his own mind if he claims/believes that God had a hand in his getting all this power rather than acknowledging that it is only through the name, wealth, friends, and corruption of Dad and Dad's cronies that he has ever "accomplished" a single thing in life. Wouldn't you rather say that you were chosen by a "higher father" than your own (an incredible diss of his father, there) for a special destiny, and that, therefore, your God-endorsed decisions CANNOT by definition be mistakes, than to admit that you were a failure in all ways who had been helped and propped up your entire life? The religious angle fits with his need for righteousness, admiration, and power.

[donsu]

8. because they are making big money off Iraq

nt

[salin]

9. Faith-Based Policy

Bush trusts his gut so much that he is right - that he believes they must continue (in the same way) and that eventually, somehow, it will suddenly "Work" and he will be proved right. No evidence can be offered to shake that view.

[Roland99]

12. Hey! I got a reply from Heather Coyne already! wow...that was fast

...On question 1, the infiltration of the security forces is on both sides, but most of the raids are actually against Sunnis who the Shia militias view as potential insurgents. While some of them may very well be, the number of innocents swept up in these raids just reinforces the sense of vulnerability of the minority communities, and the lack of rule of law and a culture of impunity. As I mentioned, whether the political leaders exercise control over the militias and other elements working inside the security forces is a very tough question, one of political will. Few of the parties have any incentive in this unstable environment to give up control of their armed forces, so this will be a continuing problem. I hope the appointment of competent leaders to the ministry of Defense and Interior will be able to address some of this, but if those leaders cannot give the parties confidence that the security forces will be used fairly and in accordance with rule of law, the problem will keep getting worse.

As for the use of the military in these operations, I do still believe it has a critical role but that it is a limited role and that the civilian side needs to step forward to do its part. However, I'm not convinced that the State department IS the civilian side--the State Department is very good at its job, but its mission is not mass mobilization of a populace to participate in a political process, it is not major economic reform and infrastructure overhaul, and it is not rebuilding ministries from the ground up to be more accountable and transparent. In short, none of the major points of a reconstruction effort are something that State is trained, staff, equipped, or resourced to do. You talk about breaking the military by asking it to do a job it doesn't have the mindset to do, I'm afraid that's is what we'd do to State department too if we force them to take on this mission. In my opinion, something new and different is needed if we're ever going to do this well.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. They're still trying to wrestle the tarbaby into submission.

And, save their sorry asses.