So…what’s the plan?

| February 5, 2007 | 2 Replies

Ever since Bush announced that he was sending 20,000+ more U.S. troops to Iraq, he has said he would not do so unless there was “a plan” for using them.  He then ordered senior military officers to create one.  Nevertheless, whenever people in the Bush Administration have talked about “the plan,” they haven’t actually described one.  They haven’t described “a plan” to send more troops to Iraq’s borders to prevent foreign insurgents from entering the country; they haven’t described “a plan” to clear and hold territory; they haven’t described “a plan” to bolster security in Baghdad, etc.  Instead, the “plan” refers not to any troop mission, but rather to Bush’s decision to order the troop surge.  In a monument to circular thinking (and to a profound waste of lives and taxpayer dollars), the troop surge itself has become “the plan.”  People in the Administration now talk about Bush’s “plan” to send more troops to Iraq, without ever bothering to notice that there is still no articulated reason to send more troops.

So, why aren’t our elected officials or the mainstream media journalists pointing this out?  Why, indeed.

Share

Category: Uncategorized

About the Author ()

Grumpypilgrim is a writer and management consultant living in Madison, WI. He has several scientific degrees, including a recent master’s degree from MIT. He has also held several professional career positions, none of which has been in a field in which he ever took a university course. Grumps is an avid cyclist and, for many years now, has traveled more annual miles by bicycle than by car…and he wishes more people (for the health of both themselves and our planet) would do the same. Grumps is an enthusiastic advocate of life-long learning, healthy living and political awareness. He is single, and provides a loving home for abused and abandoned bicycles. Grumpy’s email: grumpypilgrim(AT)@gmail(DOT).com [Erich’s note: Grumpy asked that his email be encrypted this way to deter spam. If you want to write to him, drop out the parentheticals in the above address].

Comments (2)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Erich Vieth says:

    Talking about the lack of plans. You really have to wonder whether there is any rational plan regarding Iran either. Check out the article under this headline: "By demonizing Iran and stirring up sectarian hatred against it in the region, Bush is pouring gas on the fire he started in Iraq — and empowering al-Qaida." Click here for the article in Salon.com:

    Here's an excerpt:

    Bush's Iran ploy reeks of desperation and shortsightedness; it is no more "realistic" than his Iraq strategy. It may briefly postpone the day of reckoning by diverting Americans' attention and providing a temporary bad guy, one Bush is sure to blame when his Iraq venture completely falls apart. But it flies in the face of a historical shift, the rise of Shia and Iranian power, that Bush himself rashly set in motion, and cannot now be undone. It could lead to a shooting war, which would be utterly disastrous for U.S. interests and would set back the cause of reform in Iran by years. And by further exacerbating sectarian and ethnic tensions in the Middle East while denying, in time-honored neocon fashion, that there are actual causes for what Bush simplistically labels "extremism," it is likely to further destabilize an already-chaotic region — and empower al-Qaida, which thrives on hatred and chaos.

  2. Erich Vieth says:

    Here's a plan . . . intentionally cook the books on Iran and then plunge into war without any exit strategy. Click here.

Leave a Reply


Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.