War President, my arse

[Nishlord]

US military had different strategy ahead of Iraq war: documents

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Four years before armored columns moved into Iraq, the US military produced a secret blueprint for what it saw as a successful occupation of the country, but many of its key elements have never seen the light of day.

The newly declassified plan, obtained by the National Security Archive and released to the public Saturday, calls into questions repeated assurances by President George W. Bush that he strictly follows recommendations by US generals in his quest for success in Iraq.

"I trust our commanders on the ground to give the best advice about how to achieve victory," the president told reporters late last month.

But the plan drafted by the US Central Command in June 1999 as a result of interagency wargames contained a set of recommendations that got mysteriously "forgotten" once Operation "Iraqi Freedom" got under way.

More than 70 experts from the Defense and State Departments, the Central Intelligence Agency and the White House, who took part in the wargames dubbed "Desert Crossing", believed it would take at least 400,000 US troops to stabilize Iraq following the removal of the government of Saddam Hussein, the document showed.

The intervention, they insisted, must be "swift, large-scale, and decisive."

Instead, the number of US troops in Iraq has never topped 160,000 and currently stands at about 144,000, with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld arguing that a large US "footprint" in Iraq would be counterproductive.

The plan also called for "co-opting and cooperating with Iraqi forces" that would not display hostility toward advancing US and British troops.

However, then-US administrator in Iraq Paul Bremer disbanded the Iraqi military soon after the April 2003 fall of Baghdad, a decision he now says he regrets.

The invasion, according to the blueprint, was also to be backed by massive infusions of economic and humanitarian aid.

"If food and drinking water cannot be distributed, if reconstruction progress does not provide incentives to refrain from renewing hostilities, or if minorities perceive that the social system will not protect them, then peace may be lost," the document presciently warned.

Many key reconstruction projects remain stalled to this day due to a lack of security, according to US auditors.

Success in Iraq, US military planners reasoned, would also be predicated on two major diplomatic breakthroughs, none of which ever materialized: a new start with Iran and an Arab coalition in support of the invasion.

Given Iran's strong ties to the Iraqi Shiite community, "the United States and its coalition partners should take steps to engage Tehran in a productive fashion wherever possible and ensure that at a minimum Iran does not support counterproductive activities in Iraq," the document recommended. "These steps include diplomatic overtures and appropriate force protection activities."

Some officials, according to the plan, even suggested lifting economic sanctions against Iran slapped in the wake of the 1979 US hostage crisis.

However, tensions between the United States and Iran only heightened since the beginning of the war because of a tense standoff over Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons program.

The US secret plan also called for securing Arab coalition partners, saying it "was considered necessary for the legitimacy of any intervention."

Arab support, though, remains lackluster.

The blueprint also warned about the danger of Kurdish separatism in northern Iraq and the possibility that Turkey might decide to intervene militarily to ward off the formation of an independent Kurdish state.

And it predicted that even under an optimistic scenario, the United States would remain involved in Iraq "for at least 10 years."

[Atomic Punk]

Are you playing the role of CTRL-Cuda or Terry in Crapchester now?

You Brits need to understand many here don't like this shit either. A few of us actually served in the US military and I don't see a whole lot of support for this shit.

Now if you're baiting tards to argue with, then have fun.

[The Seer]

A euro critiquing the U.S. on war strategies......


Bizarro world.....


go girl....

[Rich Fader]

Nish, between the possibility of having Prince Tampon the Horsediddler and his lovely mount as your sovereign and queen consort at any moment (forget for the moment the near-certainty of that joyous day happening eventually), and the great likelihood that all your parties in the Commons will be headed by twats after the next Labour leadership election (i.e. sooner rather than later, and no, I'm not excluding Cameron from that assessment, either), I think you have enough to worry about at home. Verrrrrry nice government you have there.

WAR Guy Fawkes

[Bizzarofelice]

I think you have enough to worry about at home.

Exactly. The douchebag Brits have this perchance for thinking America is an ally that won't run them into the shitter. You need to rethink this alliance, UK.

Verrrrrry nice government you have there.

Do they have 250 million bridges to nowhere inserted into bills in the middle of the night and thusly inserted into the taxpayer's rectums? Do they have lobbyists giving golf trips to congressmen and getting their stupid piddly crap further stuffed into the taxpayer's rectums? Do they have politicians too eager to get re-elected to actually face the deficit and social security and medicare deficits?

[Rich Fader]

I follow the news at least casually, but I'd think one C-SPAN rebroadcast of Question Time in the Commons would be more than enough to dispel the notion that the UK government is some sort of great improvement on ours. It is, if anything, an even more wretched hive of scum and twattery than ours. Thank God for the Revolution.

[Bizzarofelice]

British house of commons is tight. would the right honourable gentleman from devonshire please remove his head from his arse?

congress is petty backstabbing backdoor wankery.

[Goober McTuber]

The US could do well to adopt Question Time. Let President Chucklehead stand there for 15 minutes and take direct questions from Congress. Could be downright hilarious.

Loved Question Time when this guy was PM:

[Bizzarofelice]

If our Congress was more like House o' Commons, many years ago we would have heard:

I would request the honourable gentleman from Florida stop diddling my pages.

[Cuda]

Somebody remind me.. who was president in June, 1999, Bush I, or Bush II?

[Fat Bones]

If we are "strained to the breaking point" just maintaining our current strength level, how in the fuck are we supposed to support 400,000?

This was a game nothing more. We game scenarios under many different conditions and sets of assumptions every year.

W.T.F?! Where did this come from?

If we had followed half the recommendations on that report, we'd be much better off now. "co-opting and cooperating with Iraqi forces" and intially setting up a force large enough to actually control cities was the upfront investment that needed to be made. We would have suffered some because of infiltration, but they have been suffering that anyway. With enough troops on the ground upfront, the airport road would have never become the headache it did.

US troops are getting smacked in the mouth by updated driveby rickshaws with ordinance, and now we're just kiddin'? I'm guessing the lesson here is to not play the Game of Life while high on crack?


...He's talking about practice..."

[Cuda]

If we had followed half the recommendations on that report, we'd be much better off now.

Yeah, but wasn't invading Iraq and finishing up daddy's unfunshed bidness supposed to be totally a Bush II idea? If Whoever The President Was in 1999 was making these plans, doesn't that make the whole "Bush had it planned from the begining" thingie a lie?

[Fat Bones]

If we had followed half the recommendations on that report, we'd be much better off now.

Yeah, but wasn't invading Iraq and finishing up daddy's unfunshed bidness supposed to be totally a Bush II idea? If Whoever The President Was in 1999 was making these plans, doesn't that make the whole "Bush had it planned from the begining" thingie a lie?

Of course, but that's partisan politics...fuck all that, it's a fascade. Contingency plans are made and modified for military responses constantly. I'm guessing that's the gaming part of it. But when the decision is made to go on a plan, remind those in charge not to half ass it.

[Bizzarofelice]

Somebody remind me.. who was president in June, 1999, Bush I, or Bush II?

Someone remind me... does anyone give a shit what this guy thinks?

[Fat Bones]

If we had followed half the recommendations on that report, we'd be much better off now. "co-opting and cooperating with Iraqi forces"

So instead of pissing off 25% of the Shiites, you would piss all of them off. Brilliant plan, Gen. Dumbfuck.

Is that what Zogby is saying the numbers are? When you ain't got water for the shitter, everyone's pissed off.

intially setting up a force large enough to actually control cities

What force? We were just supposed to magically shit a competent, professional Iraqi military overnight? It doesn't work that way, moron. It takes at least five years...if you're lucky.

Yes, it is difficult... from the ground up. If we had not dismissed all the existing forces outright, we wouldn't have nearly this much troubled getting up to speed.

US troops are getting smacked in the mouth

Losing a couple troops here and there is of no military significance at all. It means nothing. It changes nothing.

Sure, on the grand scheme of things, I agree. The percentage of forces lost in this conflict are excellent, historically speaking. But hey, it's just a game, right?
We are losing control of the country by rationing our forces so thinly.

[Dog]

Sunnis will always hate Shiites, Shiites will always hate Sunnis.

Remind me again why this is our problem?

[warren]

Are you playing the role of CTRL-Cuda or Terry in Crapchester now?

You Brits need to understand many here don't like this shit either. A few of us actually served in the US military and I don't see a whole lot of support for this shit.

Now if you're baiting tards to argue with, then have fun.

No, douchelord is just exercising his right to cut and waste. By the rate that he's exercising, it should be as big as his manlord's extra muscle by now.

Oh, and by the way even though I just served in USCoast Guard I still support this shit. Or at least damn sure support the men and women in the shit.

[Fat Bones]

If we had not dismissed all the existing forces outright, we wouldn't have nearly this much troubled getting up to speed.

Arguable at best. What makes you think the Kurds and the vast majority Shiites would have ever stood for the the existing Baathist army? Then there is the fact that the existing Iraqi army was neither professional nor competent.

That's what we do here right? Argue? How many of those same Baathist are now wearing police and IA uniforms? At least by not hastily dismissing them all you could take the pick of the litter.

We are losing control of the country by rationing our forces so thinly.

We don't have 400,000 troops to pile into Iraq. Get that through your thick skull. There are less than 500,000 troops in the Regular Army plus about double that in the Guard and Reserves but they aren't as well trained or equipped as the RA and they also have a much higher proportion of service and support units. The Desert Storm era army no longer exists.

Is it getting drafty in here? So, you're not arguing the point of loss of control of the country, you're arguing manning levels. We are infusing the guard and reserves already...by piecemeal. When I play a game like RISK, I mass my troops on the borders, blitz and occupy the next territory wanted, and redeploy the cannon pieces to protect the flanks. Then I hack and slash with my horsey things and the guys with the bayonnets until I remake the world in my image. It always worked pretty well in the past.

[Y2K]

Sunnis will always hate Shiites, Shiites will always hate Sunnis.

Remind me again why this is our problem?

It's good to see the Foreign Policy of Jimmy Carter alive and well in 2006....

The Oval Office
Mid July 1979....

Brzezinski: Mr President, we have some disturbing intel fron inside Iraq. It seems the newly elected leader Hussein is taking members of the opposition and having his soldiers execute them in public. It seems they are putting bullets in their head and leaving the bodies there to serve notice to anyone who disagrees with his orders.

Jimmy: Isn't Hussein a Sunni Baathist? Those people hate the Shiites and visa versa, they have for years. Remind me again why this is our problem ZB? Sounds like an excellent opportunity to grab an easy Nobel Peace Prize if need be, it's not like this Hussein is going to invade any neighboring countries, perform any mass executions or build nukes anytime soon. Am I right or what ZB? I can't see him doing anything that will ever involve us over there.....

Brzezinski: I agree JC but there's a problem with the Kurds in the North, he hates them more than the Turks do and there's a chance he may do something pretty nasty if they don't bow down.

Jimmy: Who cares about the Kurds in Iraq right now ZB? I have an American Economy to fix and my time is better spent signing all these new additions to Welfare and a bunch of other new Social Service projects. Here, have a handfull of peanuts and sit down, Sunni's and Shiites aren't worth the time or effort, get a clue people...........

and so it goes.........

[Cuda]

Jimmah thought the muzzies were "men of God" just like himself.

Now that he's getting on in years, Carter has to be content fucking things up elsewhere.

He's helped Chavez steal an election or two in Venezuela, and now he's doing his best to get Comrade Ortega reinstalled down in Nee-kee-raw-wah.

[Bizzarofelice]

The Bush Administration policy is looking further down the road than the next election, idiot.

All these tax cuts and programs and wars the Bush Administration is running up bills for will be paid by presidents and taxpayers further down the road.

[Dog]

Perhaps if our leaders would look down the road further than to the next election at home, we might be able to develop some sort of sane foreign policy.

The Bush Administration policy is looking further down the road than the next election, idiot.

In your myopic little world, maybe. They're looking in the rear-view mirror wondering what the next two years will bring when they're under investigation for the shit they've pulled. You honestly think Bush really gives a shit about this country? He's more worried about saving face at this point.

[Cuda]

I think we could increase the odds of pulling it off if we'd handle the muzzies the way we handled the Injuns.

Neutron Bomb much?

[Dog]

In your myopic little world, maybe.

Try pulling your head out of your ass someday, fuckwit.

Stabilizing Iraq and transforming it from a regional shit disturber into a reasonably well inclined, prosperous nation that happens to sit smack in the middle of the most strategically vital patch of dirt on planet Earth is a worthy objective. It is also one that will entail a great deal of bloodshed and instability in the short term.

You can disagree on our odds of pulling it off, but there is no way you can sit there and say this is not a longterm objective.

Problem is, this started out as a short-term objective. I wouldn't give Bush credit of thinking long-term on this one, especially since he already declared "Mission Accomplished" like three years ago :hmm:

[Bizzarofelice]

Tax cuts pay for themselves, idiot.

try peddling that theoretical crap elsewhere. Sadly the American experiment has grown past its borders and includes the world's economy.

[Cuda]

The problem is that they only cut taxes to the point that more revenue is brought in. The only way to cut spending is to cut taxes so much that revenues actually drop. That way, the spenders will be forced to cut back

[Bizzarofelice]

It works every time.

Let's see those examples of where it worked.

[Bizzarofelice]

It's working as we speak

[Mikey]

It's working as we speak, dumbshit. Revenue is up and the deficit is down. It would go down a lot faster if they put the brakes on spending which doesn't seem likely to happen...well ever.

It also worked for Reagan and it worked for Kennedy.

Not exactly proof, sort of like if you weigh the same as a duck you must be a witch.

cum hoc ergo propter hoc

Sir Bedevere: Tell me, what do you do with witches?
Mr. Newt: Burn them!
Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn apart from witches?
Peasant #1: More witches! [Peasant gets slapped]
Peasant #2: Wood!
Sir Bedevere: So, why do witches burn?
Peasant #3: .......... 'Cause they're made of... wood?
Sir Bedevere: Good! So how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
Peasant #1: Build a bridge out of her!
Sir Bedevere: Ahh, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
Peasant #1: Oh ya.
Sir Bedevere: Tell me, Does wood sink in water?
Peasant #1: No, no, it floats. Throw her into the pond!
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What also floats in water?
Peasants yell various answers: (Bread!) (Apples!) (Very small rocks!) (Cider!) (Great Gravy!) (Cherries!) (Mud!) (Churches!) (Lead! Lead!)
King Arthur: A duck!
Sir Bedevere: Exactly! So, logically.....
Peasant: If she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore?
Peasant: A Witch!

[Bizzarofelice]

facts

What facts?

All I hear from you are rehashed Mehlmanmemos. Ask economists that aren't K Street shadow groups and you'll find that tax cuts don't pay for themselves.

[Dog]

Except that it never works that way. They just ratchet taxes up to the other end of the L Curve.

wrong

[Bizzarofelice]

Not exactly proof,

The numbers don't lie.

Actually they do.

Tell me you knew.

"off-budget spending"

[Mikey]

Not exactly proof,

The numbers don't lie.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_lusk ... 270946.asp

Yours do.

CONTRARY TO PRESIDENT’S CLAIM, LARGE
MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ULTIMATELY ARE
LIKELY TO LOSE FROM TAX RECONCILIATION BILL
By Aviva Aron-Dine, Leonard E. Burman, and Isaac Shapiro1
In his recent statement responding to the tax reconciliation bill conference agreement, President
Bush asserted that failure to extend the tax cuts contained in the bill would be “disastrous” for “all
working Americans.”2

The President’s claim is implausible in light of the distribution of the reconciliation bill’s benefits.
Some 68 percent of all American households will receive no tax cut at all from the legislation, and
the average tax cut for households in the middle fifth of the income distribution will be $20. While
the $43,000 average tax cut that households with incomes over $1 million will get from the bill could
have a significant impact on a family’s finances, it hardly seems that the loss of a $20 tax benefit
would qualify as a disaster.

An even larger fallacy in the President’s claim is that it rests on the assumption that the tax cuts
are a costless gift from a beneficent government. In fact, deficit-financed tax cuts eventually have to
be paid for. The 68 percent of households that receive nothing from the tax cuts will, nonetheless,
almost surely have to bear a share of the costs. More than 85 percent of all households have
incomes below $100,000, and the vast majority of these households will be net losers when the
financing costs of the tax reconciliation bill are considered, according to an analysis by the Urban
Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. Moreover, if the tax reconciliation bill is taken to
have been partly financed by the spending reconciliation bill enacted earlier this year, then
households with modest incomes are already net losers from the tax cuts (see discussion on page
four).

Some claim that there really is a free lunch to be had in this case because the tax cuts will spur
economic growth, which will help everyone and generate enough additional revenue to offset most,
if not all, of the tax cuts’ costs. That claim is not supported by the evidence (see box on page three).
Rather, it is widely recognized that the tax cuts eventually must be financed. Financial markets will
not indefinitely tolerate large, persistent, and growing deficits of the type that the nation is projected
to face. As former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned, “If you’re going to lower
taxes, you shouldn’t be borrowing essentially the tax cut. And that over the long run is not a stable
fiscal situation.”3 Simply stated, funds that are borrowed must eventually be paid back.

Under a Variety of Financing Assumptions, Most Households Will Lose from the Tax Cuts
In this analysis, we consider three possible approaches to paying for the tax cuts: one that
approximates financing largely through cuts in federal programs, one that approximates financing
through a combination of program cuts and progressive tax increases, and a third that approximates
financing entirely through progressive tax increases. In the first scenario, every household would
pay the same dollar amount — about $450, in today’s terms — to finance the cost of the tax cuts
contained in the legislation. In the
second scenario, all households would
pay the same percentage of income to
finance the tax cuts. In the third
scenario, all households would see their
income tax burdens rise by the same
percentage to pay for the tax cuts.4
The Tax Policy Center data show
that, under all three scenarios, the
average household with income below
$100,000 would lose from the tax bill.
Households in the middle quintile of the
income spectrum, which in the short
run will gain an average of $20 from the
tax cuts included in the legislation,
would ultimately lose by more than $110
on average under each financing
scenario (see Figure 1 and Tables 1 and 2).
If each household paid the same dollar amount to finance the cost of the tax reconciliation bill, the
middle fifth of households would experience an average net loss of $430 per household.5 The top 20
percent of households would experience an average net gain of $1,700, while the top one percent of
households would receive an average net gain of $13,600. For households with incomes over $1
million, the average net gain would be $42,000.

If each household paid the same percentage of income to finance the tax cuts, middle-income and lowincome
households still would still be net losers and those at the top net winners, although by
smaller amounts. Under this scenario, the middle fifth of households would lose an average of $240,
while the top 20 percent would gain an average of $750, the top one percent would gain by an
average of $5,800, and millionaires would gain by an average of $21,000.

Even if the entire tax cut ultimately were financed through a proportional increase in progressive
income taxes (with everyone’s income taxes being increased by the same percentage), households
with incomes below $100,000 still would see net losses on average. Under this scenario, the middle
fifth of households would lose an average of $100, while the top 20 percent would gain by $390 and
millionaires by $2,700.6

The Spending Reconciliation Bill
The President and Congressional leaders already have begun to use the substantial deficits that
have resulted in significant part from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to justify budget cuts in a wide
array of domestic programs. The President’s budget calls for increasingly deep cuts in domestic
programs over the next five years, including cuts in education, veterans’ health benefits, medical
research, and environmental protection, along with reductions in numerous programs for lowincome
families.

In addition, it is worth remembering that the tax reconciliation bill is the second of two
reconciliation bills authorized under last year’s budget resolution. The first, which was presented as
a deficit-reduction measure, contained significant reductions in Medicaid and some other federal
programs that directly affect low-income families and children or low-income people who are elderly
or have serious disabilities. If these measures are considered to be partial offsets for the cost of the
tax reconciliation bill, then this confirms that low- and middle-income households are net losers
from the tax cuts. More than any of the financing methods considered above, the spending
reconciliation bill (which enacted savings over five years equal to a little more than half the cost of
the tax bill) imposed significant burdens on households with modest incomes while demanding little
sacrifice from high-income households.

In the end, there is no free lunch: one way or another, future households eventually must foot the
bill for tax cuts that are now financed by borrowing.7 When these long-term costs are taken into
account, as they should be in evaluating the legislation’s effects, the bill is likely to be damaging
rather than beneficial for most Americans.

[Mikey]

http://www.cbpp.org/1-25-05bud.htm

[Mikey]

No link, no numbers, no dice...

Try again, Spanky.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uploaded ... n_bill.pdf

And Luskin's numbers are nothing but a lot of pseudo-economic handwaving, so eat me.

[Mikey]

And Luskin's numbers are nothing but a lot of pseudo-economic handwaving

His numbers come straight from the CBO.

And he claims that the CBO analysis is 180 degrees off.

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

(though if you put Cicero and Cuda alone together in a room I'd bet that they could come pretty close)

[Diego in Seattle]

A rising tide lifts all yachts.

-Ronnie