NATO Balking at Iraq Mission

Without a decisive regime change here at home, we might as well give up any hope of international cooperation.

This is what Kerry can't say as he campaigns: however, the world is waiting for our new "national nightmare" to be over.

our own Generals are bitching up a storm regarding our strategy!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11227-2004May8.html

for those guys. Incrementalism caused us to lose Nam. After the saddam was kicked out of Kuwait the military was a "winner". Now, Bush and his no-it-all neos have ruined the military reputation again. Bush is just like LBJ 120,000 to 135,000. And that won't be enough.

Bush's problem is that he has NO strategy. Anything the military advised was sumarily dismissed. I sincerely this failure rests with Bush and the military doesn't take the rap again.

and you can lay this at the feet of the sickos who run Social Democrats, USA!

...and that is potentially disastrous to the NeoCons. If carried too far, it could be disastrous on a much wider scale.

Food for thought...and a lot of it.

The military revolt began when the Army leadership stood up to Rummy and his ignorant war plans. Shinseki and others were shown the door as Rummy put yes men in key leadership positions. Rummy had to pull a general OUT OF RETIREMENT to be Army Chief of Staff. Unreal. If anything, this is Round Two of the military revolt. I have heard that many operations people (colonels, generals)in the Pentagon despise Rumsfeld.

home. This country need a leader that can lead.

Some officers say the place to begin restructuring U.S. policy is by ousting Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, whom they see as responsible for a series of strategic and tactical blunders over the past year. Several of those interviewed said a profound anger is building within the Army at Rumsfeld and those around him.
Tolerance of the situation in Iraq also appears to be declining within the U.S. military. Especially among career Army officers, an extraordinary anger is building at Rumsfeld and his top advisers.

Tolerance of the situation in Iraq also appears to be declining within the U.S. military. Especially among career Army officers, an extraordinary anger is building at Rumsfeld and his top advisers."

His VP will be the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.

There is no doubt in my mind that NATO is balking "until after the US presidential elections" in order to help do in the Bush administration.

Kerry's parallels to Nixon are frightening!

into real men, not just 'yes sir men' running around covering their asses.

Let's get civilan contractors into a court of law.

you bought it. What about all that talk we heard: "Well, if no one wants to join us, we'll go it alone." Looks like he got his wish.

It would be so wonderful to elect a legitimate president who will immediately reverse this course. Imagine the welcome he'll receive from the rest of the world.

Let's say Bush* is voted out and Kerry wins.

Kerry wanted this war too, don't forget that. I have no clue as to what he'd do. Do you?

Things may or may not improve after 4 years of Kerry, after which point we have another election. I think it's safe to say the neocons will re-engage in PNAC, et al, every chance they can get, while covering it uin syrup to bamboozle the Dems in the process.

I don't think the rest of the world will blindly help us. Kerry might ask the UN for help and give them control of Iraq. But given how the US has treated them, would they readily come crawling back?

Georgie Pordgie* has lost the trust and respect of a great deal of people and countries around the world. His* insanity will be felt for decades to come.

<<Kerry might ask the UN for help and give them control of Iraq. But given how the US has treated them, would they readily come crawling back?>>

I think the UN knows that Bush is the problem, period.

All this reminds me of that simple military axiom: You f*ck the herd, and the herd will f*ck you. The herd is tag teaming Bush et al. as we speak.

Painfully obvious that his mama never reared him right.

he repeated many, many times that the "Polish led, multinational NATO forces (of which the US would participate) would take over operations in Iraq to bring stability in the post election period..."

Days later there was controversy of whether Poland was going to withdraw now - or at the time originally stated (later this summer) - which the press didn't question... then how, Mr President, in your "Plan" (as it were - but that is how you sold it, and that is how your supporters lapped it up) the Polish forces will be the leaders of the international peacekeeping forces - if they will no longer be in Iraq?

Now the question should be asked again - not just in the OMG we are screwed b/c others will not join and the bulk of this tragedy will remain on US shoulders... but instead on "In the President's 'plans for Iraq', he stated repeatedly to the public that a multinational NATO force would take over.... what does a lack of NATO do to the President's "Plans"?

Take the president directly on - on the question of what his plans for the future of Iraq are (with regards to US military) - and when his answers include others that are not present - challenge it. When his plans include partners who withdraw shortly thereafter - go back to him and challenge it. The press lets him off - and those in the public who do not follow the news closely are left with the impression (solidified by his speech/press conference, and his multimillion dollar PR/Campaign efforts) that he "has a plan" (he stated dates, after all... and other partners, after all...)

This question - challenging his "plan" now --- opens the doors to bring back the questions/thoughts/concerns on the eve of the war about the lack of postwar planning (raised loudly by Republican Senators Lugar and Hagel)... which help explain why things are going so badly now (the non-news watching public does not always connect the dots... or does not have the info to connect the dots)...

Each time a story like this comes up - the press should become active not just in following the story - but then looping it back to the "plan" sold by the president to the public.

Last time I looked Iraq isn't near the North Atlantic.
Also didn't see Iraq attack anyone of the NATO countries.
Don't think that many in the NATO countries want their troops under Bush.