Imperial Hubris

[Bikewer]

A book review of sorts:

Imperial Hubris

Released earlier in 2004, this book by “anonymous� Michael Scheuer presents some interesting and rather frightening insights into the “War on Terror�. Scheuer, also the author of Through Our Enemy’s Eyes, was a senior CIA analyst who’s primary assignment was Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, from about 1992. He has a certain credibility on the subject.
Scheuer makes a number of assertions and recommendations. The primary thrust of the book is that the War On Terror has been badly mismanaged, that “we� misunderstand the mind-set of Bin Laden and the Islamists in general, and that much of what we have done in the name of warring on terrorism is counterproductive.
He says flatly that our characterization of Bin Laden as a terrorist out to destroy Western influences out of spite for our freedoms and way of life is grossly incorrect. It is US policies towards the Islamic world that Bin Laden is against.

The political agenda of Bin Laden has been clearly laid out since 1996, and he has specific goals and demands which he has stuck to religiously. Scheuer maintains that Al Qaeda and the Islamists are waging a “defensive Jihad�, feeling that Islam itself is under attack by the West in general and the USA in particular. He says that Al Qaeda has no designs on destroying Western civilization, acquiring new territories, or imposing Islam on the West.
Bin Laden lists six specific areas of US policy that he views as anti-Muslim:
1. US support for Israel that keep Palestinians in subjugation.
2. US and other Western troops on the Arabian peninsula
3. US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.
4. US support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim populations.
5. US pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low.
6. US support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments. (Saudi, Kuwait, etc.

Scheuer has a number of recommendations, some of which will be highly controversial. (he says that analysts within the intelligence establishment are told that they do not make policy. Now that he’s “out�, he feels no such constraints as to recommendations.)

1. It’s only a war. We need to carry on in a warlike manner, instead of dithering, wringing our hands, and worrying about world opinion.
2. Stop celebrating death and defeat. He says we’re made of sterner stuff than that, and need to get down to the business at hand; killing the enemy.
3. Accept that we are hated, not misunderstood. We are hated for the above policies, among other things.
4. Get used to, and good at killing. We cannot view the war on terrorism as a law-enforcement problem. He says we must adopt a bloody-minded attitude that has served us well in other wars. Destroy the enemy, his infrastructure, his support, his supplies.
5. Stop mischaracterizing the war as a few fanatic Muslim extremists out to damage America. He cites Bin Laden using sound Islamic principals for his actions, and even seeking out religious approval for same. Disturbingly, he has sought out and gotten religious approval for the use of WMD against us.
6. Professional soldiers are paid to die. Scheuer says that our obsession with casualty-free warfare is counterproductive.
7. Others will not do our dirty work for us. He points out that the primary reason Bin Laden escaped in Afghanistan is that we did not commit our own troops, and relied on Afghan forces of dubious integrity and reliability to contain him.
8. Do the “checkables� and demand expertise. He devotes an entire chapter on the “checkables�, those things that should have been known before entering into any action. (and which he says were largely ignored)
9. Do not deal with Bin Laden as a terrorist. We must fight him as we would fight a war.
10. Demand energy self-sufficiency. Should be self-explanatory, eh? If we’d have seen the handwriting on the wall in 1976, we would not be nearly as concerned with the region as we must be now.
11. End what Scheuer refers to as the “fifth column� of senior military and intelligence retirees. In that these people tend to go directly into politics and the defense industry, perpetrating mind-sets based on self-interest.
12. Islam is at war with America. At least, some of it is, and more is leaning in that direction. Bin Laden purposes to recruit, inspire, and support such warfare. It is because of our policies, and we must do a hard-nosed assessment of those policies.
13. Discriminate US involvement in the world. He says our involvement in foreign affairs and conflicts should be determined by our self-interest. We should not be trying to “export democracy� to nations that don’t want it, or involving ourselves in conflicts that we cannot possibly hope to contain.

There are a few more, including the examination of our unquestioning support of Israel. This will be a thorn in the side of the Islamic World as long as we continue to do it. Does it serve our national interests?
Scheuer points out that all these things should at least be “up for debate�, and makes no claim to have all the answers.
It’s an interesting book, and it provides a viewpoint on the War on Terror that’s quite different from what the Bush Administration is putting out.
Worth the read.

[jay gw]

Scheuer, also the author of Through Our Enemy’s Eyes, was a senior CIA analyst who’s primary assignment was Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, from about 1992. He has a certain credibility on the subject.

Now I know why the CIA missed pretty much everything. What an idiot.

With the exception of the energy self sufficiency part, he's wrong in every way. Making it a war against Islam? Right. There are only one billion of them.

The focus should stay where it is: it's a fanatic thing. It doesn't matter if a majority of Muslims support terrorism or don't. What he's saying is that if some Muslims want to kill civilians in the US, then the army should kill their civilians. I do not agree.

And those of us that don't will make sure that Muslims know who's responsible for promoting this revolting attitude.

And by the way, you now see, very clearly, where the US army has adopted it's attitudes from. It all becomes clear, doesn't it? The United States government is absolutely full of this kind of evil.

He's lying. It's not an independent opinion. It's the opinion of most American government officials. He just took notes in the meetings and writes a book. I'm sure one billion Muslims are unaware of this. Sure they are. Just for kicks, I'd like you to name one congressman who takes a PRO Palestinian stance, and campaigns for their betterment. NAME ONE.

Yea, I didn't think so.

Even the longest of allies turn their backs. Just as they should.

It all becomes clear.

[Bikewer]

Hehe- I make no claims for the rightness or wrongness of Scheuer's positions. He was doing the talk-show circuit a couple of months ago when the book came out, and seems to be pretty well accepted as an authority on Bin Laden, at least.

The book goes into much more detail, of course; I found it an interesting counterpoint to the constant administration cheerleading on our progress in the area.
Time will, no doubt, show which version is closer to the truth.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by jay gw
Making it a war against Islam? Right. There are only one billion of them. Your comment doesn't synch with Sheuer's view. Here's an interview (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/). Better yet, read the book. If one considers this topic vital (and if you don't, wake up), this book is a must read, agree or not.
The focus should stay where it is: it's a fanatic thing. I am onboard with the concept that all fundamentalists are fanatics. If I'm correct in assuming that isn't your point, what is the basis for your opinion? Why should I give it an iota of weight versus Sheuer?

...we remain in a state of denial about the size of the organization we face, the multiple allies it has, and more importantly probably than anything, the genius of bin Laden that's behind the movement and the power of religion that motivates the movement.
...
And until we accept that fact and stop identifying them as gangsters or terrorists or criminals, we're very much behind the curve. Their power will wax our costs in treasure, and blood will also wax.
...
And the genius that lies behind it, because he's [bin Laden] not a man who rants against our freedoms, our liberties, our voting — the fact that our women go to school. He's not the Ayatollah Khomeini; he really doesn't care about all those things. To think that he's trying to rob us of our liberties and freedom is, I think, a gross mistake. What he has done, his genius, is identify particular American foreign policies that are offensive to Muslims whether they support these martial actions or not — our support for Israel, our presence on the Arabian Peninsula, our activities in Afghanistan and Iraq, our support for governments that Muslims believe oppress Muslims, be it India, China, Russia, Uzbekistan. Bin Laden has focused the Muslim world on specific, tangible, visual American policies.
...
No, I don't think they [the Muslim world] hate everything that we stand for. In fact, the same polls that show the depths of their hatred of our policies show a very strong affection for the traditional American sense of fair play, the idea of rule by law, the ability of people to educate their children. I think the mistake is made on our part to assume that they hate all those things. What they hate is the policy and the repercussions of that policy, whether it's in Israel or on the Arabian Peninsula. It's not a hatred of us as a society, it's a hatred of our policies.
...
I think we've come to the place where the military is about our only option. We have not really discussed the idea of why we're at war with what I think is an increasing number of Muslims. Which — it's very hard in this country to debate policy regarding Israel or to debate actions or policies that might result in more expensive energy. I don't think it's something that we wanted to do, but I think it's where we've arrived. We've arrived at the point where the only option is military. And quite frankly, in Iraq and in Afghanistan we've applied that military force with a certain daintiness that has not served our interests well.
...
Well, I think we made no impression on them with our military might. We are unquestionably the strongest military power on earth. And in both Iraq and Afghanistan, our opponents rode out that war.
...
We seem to have a little bit of trouble distinguishing between winning a war and winning a battle.
...
The major problem with the Iraq war is that it distracted us from the war against terrorism. But more importantly, it allowed—it made us invade, or it caused us to invade a country that's the second holiest place in Islam.
interview (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by varwoche
Your comment doesn't synch with Sheuer's view. Here's an interview (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/). Better yet, read the book. If one considers this topic vital (and if you don't, wake up), this book is a must read, agree or not.
I am onboard with the concept that all fundamentalists are fanatics. If I'm correct in assuming that isn't your point, what is the basis for your opinion? Why should I give it an iota of weight versus Sheuer?


interview (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/)

The implication from the first post is that he just wants to do is do is go out there and blast the **** out of them. You seem to be saying he is not saying that. The first post is strange, it seems to be saying that what he is asking for is not that unreasonable, but that to respond to it is totally unreasonable. that is 'here is OBL, he wants us out of his life, we must therefore do all we can to kill him'.

[a_unique_person]

RTFL



Mitchell: "You're saying that no amount of public diplomacy will reach the Muslim world and change their minds because they hate everything that we stand for."

Anonymous: "No, I don't think they hate everything that they — that we stand for. In fact, the same polls that show the depths of their hatred of our policies show a very strong affection for the traditional American sense of fair play, the idea of rule by law, the ability of people to educate their children. I think the mistake is made on our part to assume that they hate all those things. What they hate is the policy and the repercussions of that policy, whether it's in Israel or on the Arabian Peninsula. It's not a hatred of us as a society, it's a hatred of our policies."



"The American lifestyle is not up for negotiation"

Look, honestly, is it that hard to see that maybe there aren't some compromises that can be made?

[corplinx]

There are certain buzzwords that make me turn off my ears when listening to political analysts and such:

secular
humanist
extreme
emprire/imperial
hubris
tax and spend
greedy
tax cut for the rich
mean spirited

and the list goes on.

This guys big error was picking two words on my list and naming his book with them.

[AtheistArchon]

9. Do not deal with Bin Laden as a terrorist. We must fight him as we would fight a war.

- Here's one I disagree with. How exactly do you wage a conventional war against a shadow man? Launch tomahawks at any generic middle eastern nation we think might have some dirt on their hands?

- Oh wait...

[varwoche]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The implication from the first post is that he just wants to do is do is go out there and blast the **** out of them. You seem to be saying he is not saying that. The first post is strange, it seems to be saying that what he is asking for is not that unreasonable, but that to respond to it is totally unreasonable. that is 'here is OBL, he wants us out of his life, we must therefore do all we can to kill him'. Scheuer's position is more like this:

1) The islamist threat is far more serious than our leaders are aware
2) The reason war has been declared against the US is due to specific US foriegn policies
3) Discourse on certain of those foriegn policies (e.g. US position in the mideast) is bizarrely untouchable by US politicians.
4) Accordingly, the US has painted itself into a corner where the only option is force.
5) Dainty application of force makes it worse, not better.

No doubt, Scheuer offends many on both ends of the US political spectrum.

[hgc]

Originally posted by corplinx
There are certain buzzwords that make me turn off my ears when listening to political analysts and such:

secular
humanist
extreme
emprire/imperial
hubris
tax and spend
greedy
tax cut for the rich
mean spirited

and the list goes on.

This guys big error was picking two words on my list and naming his book with them. You're like an Internet filter that masks the words "snigger" and "Wessex."

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by varwoche
Scheuer's position is more like this:

1) The islamist threat is far more serious than our leaders are aware
2) The reason war has been declared against the US is due to specific US foriegn policies
3) Discourse on certain of those foriegn policies (e.g. US position in the mideast) is bizarrely untouchable by US politicians.
4) Accordingly, the US has painted itself into a corner where the only option is force.
5) Dainty application of force makes it worse, not better.

No doubt, Scheuer offends many on both ends of the US political spectrum.

I think I have come to realise this slowly, eg, the numerous references on my part to the Vietnam war.

For some reason there is a massive paralysis in the US political system. Is it that any questioning of US foreign policy makes you unpatriotic, and hence, unelectable.

Kerry was brave enough to take on the US political system when he was younger, and question that whole Vietnam war, as an adult, he tried to exploit it to get elected, a 180 degree backflip.

Bush makes a huge mistake in the WOT, and is praised for not deviating from his course.

If the US is not capable of making rational decisions in it's foreign policy, of making a self critical analysis of itself, in the long term that can only lead to disaster. There is no lack of people with the ability to do this, we can read their musings all over the internet. The political system, however, cannot do that.

Now, there are plenty of dysfunctional political systems around the world, but this one in particular is a real worry, because it has the ability to project its dysfunction around the world.

[a_unique_person]

And so then he goes on to say that since the US political system is dysfunctional, the only way to deal with it is to kill those who are subject to it's dysfunction and stand up to it.

[Bikewer]

For those of us who were around circa Vietnam, the parallels are beginning to get rather frightening.

We seem to have "liberated" Faluja, for instance, by essentially destroying it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Bikewer
For those of us who were around circa Vietnam, the parallels are beginning to get rather frightening.

We seem to have "liberated" Faluja, for instance, by essentially destroying it.

I was listening to an excellent look at the conservative 'redneck' outlook on the radio today. (I think you come from that area).

Rightly, and wrongly, they resent the educated, prosperous states looking down on them.

One line that stuck in my mind was (paraphrasing) "we are patriots, we support every war the United States has been involved in".

The link is automatic, patriotism requires the unquestioning support of whatever war the US is engaged in.

[Bikewer]

I hope you're not making denigrating comments about my neighbors, the ones who stand in the street clutching cans of Bud Light and staring at the 25-year old V-8 engine in Billy-Bob's newest used Camaro....:D

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Bikewer
I hope you're not making denigrating comments about my neighbors, the ones who stand in the street clutching cans of Bud Light and staring at the 25-year old V-8 engine in Billy-Bob's newest used Camaro....:D

The lure of the V8 Camaro is quite wide, I have been trying to explain to my second son why these cars are not cool. He loves them.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Bikewer

I hope you're not making denigrating comments about my neighbors, the ones who stand in the street clutching cans of Bud Light and staring at the 25-year old V-8 engine in Billy-Bob's newest used Camaro....:D
Support Our Tr... oops (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=366672).

[varwoche]

Here's what I don't get about Sheuer's hardline military position:

He makes his view clear that US policy is at the root, and that strong military action is necessary because the US has been unwilling to assess it's position on the mid-east and its support for corrupt dictatorships.

His view on Iraq is crystal clear -- that it was a huge mistake. (Even if done "right" -- with more decisive force.)

His primary indictments of the Afghanistan invasion are:

1) there should have been a war plan before 9/11, instead the bad guys were given ample time to disperse
2) feeble application of force
3) trying to install a democracy

Agree or not, so far (imo) he's cohesive. But then going forward, he prescribes severe Sherman-like military action, without specifying where.

Isn't this the gist of the problem with a distributed, non-state enemy? Where does he suggest the US attack? The tribal area between Afghanistan and Pakistan? Iran? Seems futile.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by varwoche
Agree or not, so far (imo) he's cohesive. But then going forward, he prescribes severe Sherman-like military action, without specifying where.

Isn't this the gist of the problem with a distributed, non-state enemy? Where does he suggest the US attack? The tribal area between Afghanistan and Pakistan? Iran? Seems futile. I think part of his message is that, if physical means alone are going to be relied on, these are the sorts of actions that will have to be considered. "Imperial" precludes niceties about "states".

Pakistan and its borders are a creation of British imperialism, and even the concept of a national border running through the tribal areas is European. It means nothing to the Pashtuns and Baluchis, except when it suits them to complain about US "incursions". And of course it means nothing to al-Qaeda, except as something to exploit.

When the tribal areas export trouble (as they have repeatedly done) the usual options are to allow one tribe to conquer you and then fight off the others, or go up there in force, kill their goats and build forts from which you can sally to kill more goats if (when) they misbehave. The latter course requires garrisons, and therefore expense, since there's no way to make money out of the place. Except via opium. In fact, you could raid the War on Drugs budget to pay the garrisons. All in all, I'm in favour.

[varwoche]

A book review of sorts: Imperial Hubris Sadly, Scheuer's predictions are holding up.

Here's a summary (http://harpers.org/sb-seven-michael-scheuer-1156277744.html) from a recent Q&A with him:

Q: Is the country safer or more vulnerable to terrorism?
A: On balance, more vulnerable.

Q: Has the war in Iraq helped or hurt in the fight against terrorism?
A: It broke the back of our counterterrorism program.

Q: Things seemed to have turned for the worse in Afghanistan too. What's your take on the situation there?
A: The President was sold a bill of goods by George Tenet and the CIA—that a few dozen intel guys, a few hundred Special Forces, and truckloads of money could win the day. What happened is what's happened ever since Alexander the Great, three centuries before Christ: the cities fell quickly, which we mistook for victory. Three years later, the Taliban has regrouped, and there's a strong insurgency.

[Mephisto]

I'm amazed at the accuracy of so many of the posts in this thread - noteworthy if you consider the date of the OP and subsequent posts. I wonder what will have changed should we dig this thread up two years from now?

[Ziggurat]

Sadly, Scheuer's predictions are holding up.


No, actually, they aren't. It only looks that way if you cherry pick or take vague enough topics (like "Iraq will turn out messy"). I'm having a hard time finding it now, but I recall a few months ago digging up an interview from early 2004 with Scheuer, where he made the claim that George Tennent had some secret dirt on George Bush, namely a memo indicating that Bush knew about 9/11 prior to the attack and did nothing, and that because of this information, Bush would keep Tennent around past the 2004 elections. Well, he was wrong. The secret memo to which he refers was the Presidential Daily Briefing, which wasn't really damning at all. It was also released BY the administration, and not by a leak or by compulsion. And Tennent left his post before the election as well. Why was he so completely wrong about such specific predictions? Was it because he didn't mind lying when he thought nobody would find out he was wrong? Was it because he was decieved by others in the CIA? Or was it because he's just a raving looney? I really don't know the reason, but I know he is not a reliable source of information.

More problems with Scheuer here:
http://newsisyphus.blogspot.com/2005/06/leftist-hubris.html

[varwoche]

More problems with Scheuer here:
http://newsisyphus.blogspot.com/2005/06/leftist-hubris.html This is so vague and so flimsy that it's just plain goofy.

[Ziggurat]

This is so vague and so flimsy that it's just plain goofy.

Kind of like your response? I'm not sure if it's available online any more, but I dug through the letters in "Commentary" magazine that post referred to at the time, and Scheuer really is an unhinged antisemite.

[Darth Rotor]

Kind of like your response? I'm not sure if it's available online any more, but I dug through the letters in "Commentary" magazine that post referred to at the time, and Scheuer really is an unhinged antisemite.
That site's dismissal of Scheuer, and your accompanying "anti semite" dismissal is based on what: his antipathy for Wolfowitz, Feith, or Perle? Is any criticism of Jewish members of the neo conservative faction -- a bloc that includes such WASPs as Cheney and Rumsfeld -- de facto anti Semitism? No. I guess the Commentary link, were it not broken for me, might clear some of this up.

You don't have to be an anti semite to find as knavery some of the stunts pulled by any number of suits, self proclaimed smart guys, in the upper echelons of the current administration. Wolfowitz' vision is being cleaned up by better men than he, however, in his defense, he was a deputy to the decision maker: Rumsfeld.

I held Leon Panetta to be a foul, non elected SOB when he was Clinton's chief of staff. (In particular over the Les Aspin affair.) Does that make me a default anti-Italian? No.

Throwing the gratuitous "anti-Semite" label at people is poor grounds for supporting your position, pro or con, on this topic.

DR

[Ziggurat]

That site's dismissal of Scheuer, and your accompanying "anti semite" dismissal is based on what: his antipathy for Wolfowitz, Feith, or Perle?

No. Rather, on a rambling, incoherent, and counter-factual letter in Commentary (which used to be available without a subscription, but apparently no longer is), plus his irrational belief that Israel somehow directs US foreign policy to our detriment through some sort of conspiracy.

Is any criticism of Jewish members of the neo conservative faction -- a bloc that includes such WASPs as Cheney and Rumsfeld -- de facto anti Semitism? No.

No, it isn't. But a belief that these people place loyalty to Israel (a country they are not citizens of) above loyalty to the US is. So is an obsession with the Jewish members of this group, when the WASPish members such as Cheney and Rumsfeld (whom you mention) are far more influential.

I guess the Commentary link, were it not broken for me, might clear some of this up.

Yes, I think it would.

You don't have to be an anti semite to find as knavery some of the stunts pulled by any number of suits, self proclaimed smart guys, in the upper echelons of the current administration. Wolfowitz' vision is being cleaned up by better men than he, however, in his defense, he was a deputy to the decision maker: Rumsfeld.

That's rather the point, isn't it? Rumsfeld always mattered more than Wolfowitz, but he's not Jewish, so Scheuer focuses on the Jew because he can claim Wolfowitz has a divided loyalty.

I held Leon Panetta to be a foul, non elected SOB when he was Clinton's chief of staff. (In particular over the Les Aspin affair.) Does that make me a default anti-Italian? No.

"default" isn't a relative adjective here. But it might make you anti-Italian if you argued he was likely part of the mob.

Throwing the gratuitous "anti-Semite" label at people is poor grounds for supporting your position, pro or con, on this topic.

DR

I understand quite well your position that criticism of Israel or Jews is not sufficient grounds for charges of antisemitism. And that's true. But Scheuer goes well beyond that, and THAT is why I label him an antisemite. And you seem unwilling to consider the possibility that criticism of people and positions you don't like CAN be antisemitic.

[Darth Rotor]

Scheuer goes well beyond that, and THAT is why I label him an antisemite. And you seem unwilling to consider the possibility that criticism of people and positions you don't like CAN be antisemitic.
I like to take each insider with a grain of salt. Each has a different axe to grind, as do I, regarding US security policy's strength and weaknesses, particularly in how the uniformed man, or the spook, has to try and implement the "good idea of the week."

Scheuer was inside the belly of the beast for 22 years. Maybe he's seen a few things that lead him to believe that Israel gets more than it gives in the security relationship she has with the US. Maybe not. Maybe he's still mad about something else.

DR

[varwoche]

Kind of like your response? I'm not sure if it's available online any more, but I dug through the letters in "Commentary" magazine that post referred to at the time, and Scheuer really is an unhinged antisemite. Inconcievable though it may be, this post is less informative than your previous one.

If Scheuer's writing is to be dismissed because he is an unhinged anti-semite, I would hope you would support the claim so that readers -- myself included -- can weigh the information accordingly. But instead you lay it out as a naked assertion here on a skeptical forum where it is customary to support one's claims. Hopefully you will understand why I don't assign any weight.

As to your first cite -- a vague, out-of-context snippet from a former GOP senator (my former senator, ugh) quoted by an anonymous blogger who provides no links -- it doesn't pass the giggle test.

[a_unique_person]

No, actually, they aren't. It only looks that way if you cherry pick or take vague enough topics (like "Iraq will turn out messy"). I'm having a hard time finding it now, but I recall a few months ago digging up an interview from early 2004 with Scheuer, where he made the claim that George Tennent had some secret dirt on George Bush, namely a memo indicating that Bush knew about 9/11 prior to the attack and did nothing, and that because of this information, Bush would keep Tennent around past the 2004 elections. Well, he was wrong. The secret memo to which he refers was the Presidential Daily Briefing, which wasn't really damning at all. It was also released BY the administration, and not by a leak or by compulsion. And Tennent left his post before the election as well. Why was he so completely wrong about such specific predictions? Was it because he didn't mind lying when he thought nobody would find out he was wrong? Was it because he was decieved by others in the CIA? Or was it because he's just a raving looney? I really don't know the reason, but I know he is not a reliable source of information.

More problems with Scheuer here:
http://newsisyphus.blogspot.com/2005/06/leftist-hubris.html

If he is wrong, does that make Bushco right? The evidence is clear, they were completely wrong. Bush is just lame ducking it out, subjecting American troops to more deaths and life long injuries, out of sheer pride.

[President Bush]

... you know, one of the hardest (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/06/five_years/main1980074.shtml) parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.
Maybe the reason they haven't attacked us again is that they figure I'm suffering enough already.

[Mycroft]

If he is wrong, does that make Bushco right?

That's way too simplistic. Life isn't black & white like that.

Bush is just lame ducking it out, subjecting American troops to more deaths and life long injuries, out of sheer pride.

Personal opinion, completely unfounded.