Et Tu Brutus?
January 4, 2007 4:25 PM Subscribe

President Bush has replaced Gen. John Abizaid as US commander in the Middle East. Et tu Brutus?
posted by augustweed (82 comments total)

A Raw Story link and an old piece of fiction?
posted by grouse at 4:40 PM on January 4, 2007

Generals in the regional commands (CENTCOM PACCOM NORTHCOM EUCOM SOUTHCOM) serve for two years and are replaced. That's been the case since the regional commands were established in the early 1980's.

General Abizaid's two years should have been up last summer, but he agreed to stay on a few extra months. Thus instead of the normal and expected 2 years in that position, he's served about two and a half.

There's no "et tu Brutus" involved here.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 4:41 PM on January 4, 2007

They're just shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic that is Iraq--Gates, Rumsfeld, Abizaid, Casey...there'll be a lot more.

I think they're just running down the clock, and trying to make it seem like they're doing something real and worthwhile but it's all theater and pr--but Iraqis and our troops will continue to die for it.
posted by amberglow at 4:42 PM on January 4, 2007

really!? holy crap, is this real?
posted by nola at 4:45 PM on January 4, 2007

Remember the vocative – "et tu, Brute."
posted by RogerB at 4:47 PM on January 4, 2007

What RogerB said. Also, sadly, because this could have been a great shitstorm, I think Steven C. Den Beste (longest Mefi nomen) is right on the money.
posted by snsranch at 4:53 PM on January 4, 2007

RogerB writes "Remember the vocative – 'et tu, Brute.'"

Seriously.

Man, I've been applying for jobs lately, and I've seen a few ads where people ask for a curriculum vita (sic) to be submitted. I think this is a case of hypercorrection: they're mistaking the genitive singular vitae for a nominative plural and they try to make it singular.
posted by mr_roboto at 4:58 PM on January 4, 2007 [2 favorites]

When I read 'vocative' I am irresistably reminded of the scene from Life of Brian where the centurion is making Brian correct the grammar of the graffiti he's been up all night painting.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:10 PM on January 4, 2007

...also doesn't that post read as if President Bush was taking over Abizaid's job as US commander in the Middle East?
posted by horsemuth at 5:11 PM on January 4, 2007

That's how I read it, horsemuth...
posted by Jimbob at 5:13 PM on January 4, 2007

Note about plural / singular forms:
"Curricula vitae" (vee-tie) is the plural form; "curriculum vitae" is singular.
The informal shortened form, "vita" standing alone, meaning a brief autobiographical sketch (Webster's), is singular, while "vitae," is plural.
The abbreviation is often used: CV or CVs.

That's for we descriptivists.
posted by found missing at 5:16 PM on January 4, 2007

found missing writes "'Curricula vitae' (vee-tie) is the plural form"

Good god. Certainly curricula vitarum, no?

And is there any such thing as a Latin descriptivist?
posted by mr_roboto at 5:20 PM on January 4, 2007 [1 favorite]

... the new strategy will be announced next Tuesday, and that an administration official “admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one.” ...
posted by amberglow at 5:23 PM on January 4, 2007

Harriet Miers also resigns.
posted by swell at 5:25 PM on January 4, 2007

And is there any such thing as a Latin descriptivist?

Maybe not, but I'm speaking English, and we've been appropriating Latinisms for quite some time now.
posted by found missing at 5:32 PM on January 4, 2007

Augustweed, I bet you weren't expecting this to turn into a lesson in archaic language usage, eh? Ha!

To amberglow's link; yea, that pisses me off. Iraq smelled like Vietnam along time ago, and it's only getting worse. If the generals and others who really knew stuff were running the show, we wouldn't have been there in the first place.
posted by snsranch at 5:37 PM on January 4, 2007

hello, new un envoy
posted by phaedon at 5:39 PM on January 4, 2007

found missing writes "I'm speaking English"

Well, hell. If I wanted to speak English, I'd just say resume. Or maybe résumé. Or resumé. At least I'm not insisting on curriculum vitæ.
posted by mr_roboto at 5:39 PM on January 4, 2007

In just 18 comments (as of this posting), this thread sums up the best and worst of MeFi.

It's yet another impassioned argument in a thread about the Bush administration... but it's about Latin.

I don't know whether to cheer or cry. :)
posted by Malor at 5:42 PM on January 4, 2007 [5 favorites]

I'm pretty sure that all eligible generals are trying as hard as possible to avoid the hot potato of being put in charge of that colossal clusterfuck by now. Still, one of 'em has to end up with the short straw.
posted by clevershark at 5:48 PM on January 4, 2007

Ah, this is nothing. The BBS I used to hang out on had a week-long flame war about gay sex followed by a week-long flame war about the correct Latin for "dirty buttfucker."
posted by nebulawindphone at 5:50 PM on January 4, 2007

Excuse my ignorance - but why would one put an Admiral in charge of two land wars? Last time I checked Generals were common as tabby cats.
None of them could handle it? Nobody? Nobody? Beuhler?
Just asking...
posted by speug at 5:52 PM on January 4, 2007

mr_roboto writes "Well, hell. If I wanted to speak English, I'd just say resume. Or maybe résumé. Or resumé. At least I'm not insisting on curriculum vitæ."

Of course technically "résumé" is French, although when we mean to say "résumé" in French we say "curriculum vitae".
posted by clevershark at 5:54 PM on January 4, 2007

Generals in the regional commands (CENTCOM PACCOM NORTHCOM EUCOM SOUTHCOM) serve for two years and are replaced. That's been the case since the regional commands were established in the early 1980's.

CENTCOM has had eight commanders in 23 years -- an average of three years per (with a winter replacement schedule that shifted to a summer replacement schedule). He's been there three-and-a-half so your theory is plausible. In any event Abizaid has had a longer term than any other CENTCOM CIC.

The relevant link here isn't that fanciful coup article but Will Gates Shake up the Generals? After including a dis on Abizaid for "not being enough of an asshole", apparently to the Pentagon and not Iraqis, they note that "Abizaid is expected to retire." Most of the article was about replacing Pace, so it's possibly interesting that things are happening in this order.

The really strange bit is that an Admiral from the Pacific is taking over. There's already an Admiral serving as Deputy Commander -- at least he knows what's going on. Are they going to have two admirals in two of the top three slots of CENTCOM?
posted by dhartung at 5:57 PM on January 4, 2007

I just have a sheet of paper with "things I done" in crayon and a series of crude drawings.
posted by cortex at 5:57 PM on January 4, 2007 [1 favorite]

That's for we descriptivists.

Surely us is called for....
posted by Hal Mumkin at 6:16 PM on January 4, 2007

Dan is right that the term is three years, not two years. Abizaid's term was supposed to end last June, but he agreed to serve longer because the President asked him to.

The regional commands were set up in the early 1980's after the Iran Rescue debacle. Post-analysis of that showed that one of the primary reasons it failed was that it was planned in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and their #1 priority seemed to be to make sure that everyone got to play, even if it didn't make any sense. (Thus, for instance, there were Marine pilots flying Navy helicopters they were not familiar with, so that the Corps wasn't left out.)

Senator Barry Goldwater sponsored the bill that set up the regional commands, and the purpose of them is to place a single flag officer in charge of all military forces from all branches in a particular region, who is supposed to use the appropriate forces available to him to carry out his mission, even if it means that one or more of the services doesn't get to be involved in any given operation.

By tradition, certain commands have gone to flag officers from certain services. PACOM (Pacific area) has always been an admiral, so if (God forbid) ground war in Korea begins again, an admiral will be in charge of it.

But it isn't mandated by the law. Ultimately it's up to the President to decide who he will nominate for any given position. Usually CENTCOM is an Army general, but it doesn't have to be.

The idea of putting an Admiral in CENTCOM is an interesting one. Recently two CBG's moved into the Gulf, and some have wondered if maybe there's going to be Navy action against Iran. Or it could be a feint to make the Iranians think something like that is coming.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 6:17 PM on January 4, 2007

ArmyTimes.Com — Fallon to replace Abizaid at CentCom.

They're not shuffling deck chairs: they're changing captains in order to stay the course, and Iran is the next port of call.
posted by cenoxo at 6:25 PM on January 4, 2007

every time i hear "troop surge" i'm reminded of a junkie who promises to clean up after just one more nice big fix.
posted by bruce at 6:26 PM on January 4, 2007

The really strange bit is that an Admiral from the Pacific is taking over. There's already an Admiral serving as Deputy Commander -- at least he knows what's going on. Are they going to have two admirals in two of the top three slots of CENTCOM?

They're preparing for Dunkirk. Maybe the Navy remembers more about 1975 than the Army did about the years preceding it.
posted by kowalski at 6:29 PM on January 4, 2007

If Bush goes ahead with the surge idea, along with a shift to a more aggressive counterinsurgency, it would in many ways represent a wholesale repudiation of the outgoing Pentagon leadership.

These leaders — particularly former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, the departing Middle East commander — strongly resisted more U.S. troops and a larger push into troubled neighborhoods out of fear it would prevent Iraqis from taking over the job themselves and exacerbate the image of America as an occupying power. -Old Guard Back on Iraq Policy.

Also: Iraq Strategy 2007 (cartoon from The Times UK)
posted by furtive at 6:45 PM on January 4, 2007

Fallon, an Admiral? Not surprising at all. As the ground-based militaries have been depleted of resources, the Navy has been building up and is probably the last resource, unless someone figures out how to use the airforce to eliminate minute targets in urban areas. (Not happening.) I'm talking Navy Seals! Yea, go team!
posted by snsranch at 7:37 PM on January 4, 2007

So is this still a rumor or is it real? The Army Times link says this isn't confirmed and the other link is to Raw Story which doesn't have a history as a reliable source.
posted by aburd at 7:46 PM on January 4, 2007

It's not really a "surge" unless they're coming home after; otherwise it's more of an escalation. And whatever you call it, we've tried it before, and failed. We had about 160,000 troops in Iraq in December 2006, and we have about 140,000 now, so adding 20,000 will only bring us to the same level as then. And last year we tried and failed to secure Baghdad, twice.

maybe there's going to be Navy action against Iran

Then maybe there will be Iranian action against the Navy, which could get Sunburned. Or the Iranians could follow Gen. Paul Van Riper's Red Force tactics from Millennium Challenge 02, except that we wouldn't be able to refloat ships by just saying so.

Remember the vocative

It's the basis of a bawdy Shakespeare pun:

Evans: What is the focative case, William?
William: O, vocativo, O...
Hugh: Remember, William, focative is caret.
Mistress Quickly: And that's a good root.

"Caret (literally, 'it is missing') equals carrot equals root equals penis equals fuckative case, get it?"
posted by kirkaracha at 7:48 PM on January 4, 2007

Mighty Falstaffian, Kirk.

She was Quickly before she died.
posted by rdone at 8:00 PM on January 4, 2007

...also doesn't that post read as if President Bush was taking over Abizaid's job as US commander in the Middle East?
posted by horsemuth at 8:11 PM EST on January 4

No.
posted by juiceCake at 10:32 PM EST on January 4

Hmm, that seems oddly dismissive, especially since when I searched for similar phrasings in other headlines, most of them read the way that I interpreted this post as reading.
posted by horsemuth at 8:04 PM on January 4, 2007

Not to say that the post was phrased incorrectly, but that it left itself open to another humorous interpretation of Bush taking over direct military operations in that theatre.
posted by horsemuth at 8:09 PM on January 4, 2007

The NYT now has a story up about all this, so I guess it is legit. What's interesting is that Gen. Petraeus will take over command of ground troops in Iraq. Petraeus is a serious thinker (Ph. D. from Princeton) and did a pretty good job of ocupying the area around Mosul in the initial 2003 invasion. If there is one general who seems to "get" counterinsurgency, he's the guy. Whether it is too late is a different story. But this guy should have been in charge of the whole show long before Tommy Franks or Ricardo Sanchez.
posted by Mid at 8:13 PM on January 4, 2007

Word, horsemuth. I was all, "President Bush is the new U.S. commander in the Middle East? Now that's news!"
posted by chinston at 8:13 PM on January 4, 2007

BBC, too.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:18 PM on January 4, 2007

Whether Gen. Petraeus "gets" counterinsurgency is hardly relevant now. The "golden hour" for patching up the fabric of Iraqi society is long since past. He will merely preside over the cascading debacle.
posted by rdone at 8:28 PM on January 4, 2007

So is this still a rumor or is it real? The Army Times link says this isn't confirmed and the other link is to Raw Story which doesn't have a history as a reliable source.

WHAT!? And the Mainstream Media is?
posted by augustweed at 8:46 PM on January 4, 2007

There must be something in Iraq we can shell with a battleship.
posted by smackfu at 8:47 PM on January 4, 2007

Wasn't Petraeus in charge of training the Iraqi army up at some point?

Yeah, I won't hold my breath, even if he does have a PhD.

It's maddening how the US media is covering the escalation, as if there are 20,000 grunts sitting on their collective asses at some military base in the American south. The "surge" is going to basically be in the form on in-theater troops getting extended on their tours, and troops who are at home having their leave shortened, along with guys who are unfit for duty not getting the discharges that they should.

You can just feel Bush's (McCain's) support from current GI's falling fast.

Ugly question -- what happens when the first uniformed Iraqi military guys open up on a group of US troops? Or vice versa?
posted by bardic at 8:48 PM on January 4, 2007

Bush and McCain's that is
posted by bardic at 8:51 PM on January 4, 2007

Not to say that the post was phrased incorrectly, but that it left itself open to another humorous interpretation of Bush taking over direct military operations in that theatre.

Horsemuth is quite right. The sentence in itself is ambiguous. Only by context can we resolve the ambiguity.

"On the weekend I replaced a tap fitting in my house." does not imply that I spent the weekend with my hand over the pipe, releasing it whenever someone needed to wash their hands in the sink.

"Linus is replacing Charlie as shortstop for the game, he's too sick to play." implies that Linus is going to be shortstop instead of Charlie. It's possible Linus is the coach, and Linus will select Beethoven to play as shortstop, but without the sentence naming Beethoven, or other context, it would be unjustified to jump to such a conclusion.

"The coach is replacing Charlie as shortstop." is a little less ambiguous - we know that the coach isn't allowed to personally play, which resolves the ambiguity, ie by context; but it still leaves the question of who will play as shortstop unresolved.

This is a lot of detail to go into about a momentarily amusing thought easily dismissed by conflict with common knowledge - G W Bush couldn't manage a baseball team, let alone a military venture, and would never voluntarily face a physical risk. Deckchairs, Titanic, etc etc.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 8:58 PM on January 4, 2007

Remember the vocative – "et tu, Brute."

Did anyone bother to read the link? 'Brutus' is a play on the link content.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:11 PM on January 4, 2007

... Cheney believes that more US troops in Baghdad and seats of the insurgency in the Sunni Triangle like Ramadi can in the end deliver "success", if not "victory." The president is expected now to order in between 20,000 and 30,000 more combat troops. Some 11 combat brigades will start clearing Baghdad sector by sector of militias and insurgents.

US combat teams have tried this before, of course, but this time they will be told to stay on after they have cleared each zone. This is the key part of the plan produced by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a favourite haunt of Dick and Lynn Cheney. The report's author Frederick Kagan told BBC Newsnight this week, "this has never been done before. This time the Americans will take and occupy these places." ...
posted by amberglow at 9:27 PM on January 4, 2007

(so much for that sovereign Iraqi government we keep hearing about, no?)
posted by amberglow at 9:28 PM on January 4, 2007

I'm somewhat intrigued to learn that Zalmay Khalilzad will be nominated by Bush to serve as the United States ambassador to the United Nations. Far as I know this is the first Muslim to hold that position. On the surface it seems like a great appointment. One that has the nuance and finesse sorely lacking in many other decisions by the Bush administration, but on closer inspection it seems business as usual as Kahlilzad's mentor at the Univ. of Chicago did not support disarmament treaties and he's a hawk with close ties to Neocon poster boys Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld (he worked for both) and has deep connections to big oil (Unocal). Oh and added bonus,he was a supporter of the Taliban seeing them as a force for stability in the Mid East and a counter-balance against Iran. That didn't work out so well.
posted by Skygazer at 9:34 PM on January 4, 2007

we'll see if there's an uproar from the rightwing haters about him being a Muslim like there was about Ellison being in Congress. A Muslim representing the US at the UN?
posted by amberglow at 10:19 PM on January 4, 2007

Did anyone bother to read the link? 'Brutus' is a play on the link content.

Thank you. You're not the only one who got it, but you are the only one to mention it. Oh BTW . . . quite a few members often DON'T bother reading the links.
posted by augustweed at 10:31 PM on January 4, 2007

Wait shouldn't Abizaid be stop lossed?
posted by srboisvert at 3:26 AM on January 5, 2007

(so much for that sovereign Iraqi government we keep hearing about, no?)

FTA: "US combat teams have tried this before, of course, but this time they will be told to stay on after they have cleared each zone."

I sure hope you've never bitched here about the failure of the U.S. to send enough troops to secure Iraq after the fall of Saddam, because this is basically the strategy those extra troops would (well, should) have been used for. Instead of the whack-a-mole approach we've been using for years, where we clear an area, then move on to another thus allowing the Bad Guys to come back into the area we just cleared, you stick around and make sure they don't come back.

This has nothing to do with the sovereignty of the Iraqi government. "Occupy" in this case is nowhere near as ominous as you'd like it to sound.

(Disclaimer: I don't think this plan will work. With 100,000+ fresh troops it might have a hope in hell, but not with stop lossed and rushed-into-theater ones.)
posted by Cyrano at 3:45 AM on January 5, 2007

I sure hope you've never bitched here about the failure of the U.S. to send enough troops to secure Iraq after the fall of Saddam

Opposing this escalation and criticizing the initial forces committed are separate things. Sending enough troops to secure the country and prevent looting would have gone a long way toward preventing the insurgency in the first place.* General Shinseki said it would take "several hundred thousand soldiers" to secure Iraq, and that was without an insurgency or civil war, or without even anticipating an insurgency. The coalition in the Gulf War had approximately 660,000 soldiers, and that was just to take Kuwait. The British had the equivalent of 750,000 troops in Northern Ireland, and weren't able to prevent violence there. Adding 20,000-40,000 troops to the 140,000 we have there during a civli war now would only bring us to about half of the lowest force level that was recommended for securing the country without an insurgency.

* So would not invading and occupying the country on false pretenses, having a real coalition that included Iraq's Islamic neighbors (like the coalition in the Gulf War), giving reconstruction contracts to Iraqi companies instead of to western contractors, restoring electricity and water to pre-invasion levels, not disbanding the Iraqi army, not torturing/raping/murdering people at Abu Ghraib, and not firing every Baathist party member when many Iraqis pretty much had to join the party to get a job whether they believed in the party or not.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:39 AM on January 5, 2007

Does anyone else think the logic behind the Surge Plan is:

1. Demand a implausibly big increase in troops
2. Wait for the Democrat Congress to reject Plan for being stupid
3. Blame Democrats for failure in Iraq: "It would all have been fine if they'd given us the troops."
posted by TheophileEscargot at 4:42 AM on January 5, 2007

Could be. Or they might intend to actually do the surge, then run out the clock for the rest of Bush's term so they can blame Iraq on the next president.

Winter 2007: Talk about the surge
Spring/Summer 2007: Do the surge.
Fall 2007-January 2009: Claim we haven't given it enough time to work, or claim that it actually is working, but the goddamn media won't report on all the schools we've painted.
January 21, 2009: It's the next person's fault.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:08 AM on January 5, 2007

Hmm, that seems oddly dismissive, especially since when I searched for similar phrasings in other headlines, most of them read the way that I interpreted this post as reading.
posted by horsemuth at 11:04 PM EST on January 4

Hardly dismissive as all. You interpreted it one way, I another. Simple really and meaning nothing more. If you dismiss the context it could be amusing but if you know who Bush is, the context makes the sentence clear. Just my opinion. If it's dismissive, I apologize.
posted by juiceCake at 6:20 AM on January 5, 2007

White House Postponing Loss of Iraq, Biden Says:

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said yesterday that he believes top officials in the Bush administration have privately concluded they have lost Iraq and are simply trying to postpone disaster so the next president will "be the guy landing helicopters inside the Green Zone, taking people off the roof," in a chaotic withdrawal reminiscent of Vietnam.

"I have reached the tentative conclusion that a significant portion of this administration, maybe even including the vice president, believes Iraq is lost," Biden said. "They have no answer to deal with how badly they have screwed it up. I am not being facetious now. Therefore, the best thing to do is keep it from totally collapsing on your watch and hand it off to the next guy -- literally, not figuratively."

Admiral Fallon's appointment "also reflects a greater emphasis on countering Iranian power, a mission that relies heavily on naval forces and combat airpower to project American influence in the Persian Gulf."
posted by kirkaracha at 7:06 AM on January 5, 2007

Instead of the whack-a-mole approach we've been using for years, where we clear an area, then move on to another thus allowing the Bad Guys to come back into the area we just cleared, you stick around and make sure they don't come back.

No, you stick around and the militia in the neighborhood doesn't have far to go to bomb you. Picture every neighborhood in Baghdad with a US post--we're sending our troops to certain death.

And it has plenty to do with sovereignty--Maliki made us stay out of all of Sadr's areas.
posted by amberglow at 7:27 AM on January 5, 2007

If it's dismissive, I apologize.
posted by juiceCake at 9:20 AM EST on January 5

No need. It just seemed as though you were taking the headline very literally. Humor often requires the suspension of belief to be effective, so while I understood the context, it was funny to displace that and posit Bush in the role that could have been implied by the headline, a role in which he would be greatly overwhelmed... Of course, aeschenkarnos composed it in a far more humorous way than I, but that's what I was going for, albeit less effectively.
posted by horsemuth at 8:51 AM on January 5, 2007

For fucks sake why is anyone from the AEI being tapped to provide a strategy to a debacle they helped bring about? It's beyond me really to understand other than that these are some bull headed incompetent mofo's who need to be hung by the balls. Starting with the AEI and the signers of the PNAC petition and so on. Neoconservativism has been discredited as a misguided muddle-headed utopian cult that is out of touch with reality and has resulted in disaster and death and irrepairable harm to this country's stature and moral standing around the world. At what point does this administration get the memo? I'm all for the new dem controlled House and Senate to try and be bipartisan, but this is the kind of crap that just begs, literally BEGS for the investigations into the incompetence and malfeasance of the Bush/Cheney Admin to begin as quickly as possible.

I also agree that at this point they're just treading water until they can hand off this bloody abortion of a war off to whoever becomes prez in 2008. I don't know if the U.S> neccesarily past the point of being able to save this but Bush/Cheney, the AEI and the neocon hawks mean almost certain failure.
posted by Skygazer at 9:05 AM on January 5, 2007

“admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one.” ...

Surge option? So they’re going chug a Mountain Dew knock off then charge up a muddy hill at a couch?

“what happens when the first uniformed Iraqi military guys open up on a group of US troops?” - posted by bardic

Ah, don’t be ridiculous. They’d go home and take off their uniforms before they start shooting at our guys. Like they’re doing now.

“For fucks sake why is anyone from the AEI being tapped to provide a strategy to a debacle they helped bring about?”

Reminds me of my wife telling me where to put the couch. It’s all part of “decorating” and, apparently, it never ends. You see, like the ground forces, the couch really isn’t where it should be relative to the ultimate design scheme. It’s merely occupying a position of convenience now such that some day it will blend well with the drapes, carpet, and window treatment. Each of which are also in flux and also subject to the unyielding, yet incomprehensible to outsiders, laws of feng shui. Simply because one begins decorating and the house is a complete wreck does not invalidate the ultimate design scheme. Oh sure it looks disheveled now, but just because a few couch corrections seem redundant doesn’t mean the carpet is not being shopped for or the drapes are going to be eternally “on the way.”
Which is why I have to move the couch back and forth every few days within the same few degrees...or so I’m told.
And of course, once the carpet does arrive the entire couch strategy will have to again be re-thought. And perhaps a new table will influence the flow of the middle room. Doesn’t mean Rinaldo is not a fabulous genius at interior design...or so I’m told. And maybe we do need more men to move the couch back and forth. It’d make the couch easier to move and it’d sure help my back. I mean with 20 guys moving the couch, it’d go back and forth pretty easily, right? We could do that all day. That there’s strategy.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:20 AM on January 5, 2007

That there’s strategy.

Sounds to me like Samuel Beckett does your interior design. (I hear the Waiting for Godot furniture collection is pretty sweet).
posted by Skygazer at 12:11 PM on January 5, 2007

Short-Circuiting the Surge:

Biden is studying whether Congress might reconsider the original Iraq war resolution, now as out of date as the administration's prewar claims. The resolution includes references to a "significant chemical and biological weapons capability" that Iraq didn't have and repeated condemnations of "the current Iraqi regime," i.e., the Saddam Hussein regime that fell long ago. In effect, the resolution authorizes a war on an enemy who no longer exists and for purposes that are no longer relevant.

Biden candidly acknowledges that it is difficult to find precedent for reconsidering a war resolution. But his idea is not as far-fetched as it might seem, as legal scholars ...have noted that the war being fought on behalf of the Maliki government bears little resemblance to the war Congress authorized. Yet his idea of revisiting the authority granted Bush could be a forceful way for Congress to reassert itself and encourage a full-scale debate on the future of American policy in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

Go Long? Go Big? Go Back To Congress:

Although it's widely assumed that the president alone is empowered to decide what military option the United States should pursue in Iraq, that is not the case. Congress did not, as many believe, write the president a blank check in 2002 with regard to the use of force in Iraq. It still has a lot to say on the subject.
...
Congress in 2002 authorized imperfect war in approving the use of force in Iraq for specific, limited objectives. As those objectives are achieved, or different ones are pursued, legislative reauthorization will be required. Absent congressional approval, the president cannot use force in Iraq to pursue new objectives, beyond the protection of forces being withdrawn.

posted by kirkaracha at 12:40 PM on January 5, 2007

Skygazer writes "I hear the Waiting for Godot furniture collection is pretty sweet"

Are you kidding? I mean, the rock you can at least sit on, but what the hell are you supposed to do with the tree? Hat rack? Who wears hats anymore?
posted by mr_roboto at 12:48 PM on January 5, 2007

The guy's name is Brutus. You quote Latin, you use the vocative in address. Doesn't anyone take responsibility for making a mistake? Oh, we're talking about George Bush. I get it.
posted by Mental Wimp at 5:03 PM on January 5, 2007

Live From AEI: Holy Joe and St. McCain Say "Surge!"--
... 2. The surge will be sustained for at least 2 years. Timelines embolden the Enemy, and so we shouldn’t set one for withdrawl. We’ve got to stay as long as it takes to “finish the mission.”
...
4. It seems our naughty generals haven’t been doing anything to promote security in Iraq all these long years. But that’s going to change, darnit! Now, instead of playing cards and square dancing, our troops are going to get serious about bringing peace to Iraq. We’ve also trusted those hapless Iraqis and their silly government too much, Joe and John agree they can’t secure anything by themselves. So we’re going to do it for them.
5. Congress needs to go along with this, and support the President. And give him all the money he wants, for as long as he says. ...
posted by amberglow at 7:55 AM on January 6, 2007

And this, White House Chess, says that Cheney steps down "for heath reasons", Condi takes his place, making history, and Negroponte moves up to Condi's job (which is all pretty obvious if you think about it, except that Cheney hasn't secured the oil yet).
posted by amberglow at 8:02 AM on January 6, 2007

Are you kidding? I mean, the rock you can at least sit on, but what the hell are you supposed to do with the tree? Hat rack? Who wears hats anymore?
posted by mr_roboto at 3:48 PM

Well you should see the 2007 collection: They've added another rock!

Hmmm that's a great link (i.e., White House Chess) Amberglow....Cheney out and Condi VP is some pretty intense gamesmanship. It seems plausible as it did strike a discordant note when Negroponte was made Condi's deputy. It doesn't seem like a lateral move. Anyhow it doesn't matter, Bush's legacy is going to be Iraq and incompetence and corruption.
posted by Skygazer at 10:52 AM on January 6, 2007

New Bills Target Profiteering, Public Corruption
posted by homunculus at 12:51 PM on January 6, 2007

Who wears hats anymore?

This guy and this guy, for starters.
posted by homunculus at 1:12 PM on January 6, 2007

And the oil law is coming up in Iraq's parliament: ... a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.

The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972 ...
posted by amberglow at 7:34 PM on January 6, 2007

"Contrary to the bland stories in The New York Times and Washington Post of Friday, Negroponte did not go voluntarily to State from his job as director of intelligence. In fact, there was tremendous administration pressure to get him out of his current job. The chief cause of the quarrel involved Negroponte's balking at at request from Vice President Cheney to increase domestic collection by the National Security Agency on U.S. citizens. Negroponte flatly refused, Cheney bridled, and from then on the pressure built to get rid of him."
posted by homunculus at 2:09 PM on January 8, 2007

wait--Negroponte actually has some ethics or morals? Who knew? Is that true? (i believe Cheney totally wanting to spy on all of us and feeling like he's entitled to--esp his enemies, which is everyone who's ever disagreed with him, but Negroponte says no to an evil act that will hurt others? Mr. Death Squad?)
posted by amberglow at 6:27 PM on January 8, 2007

and from the comments there, Negroponte spoke up against torture???
posted by amberglow at 6:30 PM on January 8, 2007

It makes sense. It's not a lateral move for him and honestly at the McConnell announcement he looked chastised. Anyhow good for him if he stood up to Dick.
posted by Skygazer at 7:53 PM on January 8, 2007

i still think he'll take Condi's spot.

and Meanwhile: Commanders seek more forces in Afghanistan. Not only are the US and NATO forces already stretched for enough troops to deal with a resurgent Taliban, but some of the US troops already there are scheduled to be part of the "surge" into Iraq.
posted by amberglow at 8:08 PM on January 8, 2007

amberglow, check out this article: Officials believe White House chose new Intelligence chief in effort to darken Iran Intelligence Estimate, broaden domestic surveillance
posted by homunculus at 1:22 PM on January 9, 2007

ugh--i want them all impeached and removed and arrested.
posted by amberglow at 1:31 PM on January 9, 2007

« Older What if they released a movie and nobody came?... | While thinking about nanotechn... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

Et Tu Brutus? January 4, 2007 4:25 PM Subscribe

Et Tu Brutus?
January 4, 2007 4:25 PM Subscribe