The "Strategy for Victory" was for Victory over that American Public..

[BrklynLiberal]

Shades of that "Twilight Zone" episode "To Serve Man"!!!!!

December 4, 2005

Bush's Speech on Iraq War Echoes Voice of an Analyst

By SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 - There could be no doubt about the theme of President Bush's Iraq war strategy speech on Wednesday at the Naval Academy. He used the word victory 15 times in the address; "Plan for Victory" signs crowded the podium he spoke on; and the word heavily peppered the accompanying 35-page National Security Council document titled, "Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq."

Although White House officials said many federal departments had contributed to the document, its relentless focus on the theme of victory strongly reflected a new voice in the administration: Peter D. Feaver, a Duke University political scientist who joined the N.S.C. staff as a special adviser in June and has closely studied public opinion on the war.

Despite the president's oft-stated aversion to polls, Dr. Feaver was recruited after he and Duke colleagues presented the administration with an analysis of polls about the Iraq war in 2003 and 2004. They concluded that Americans would support a war with mounting casualties on one condition: that they believed it would ultimately succeed.

<snip>

Based on their study of poll results from the first two years of the war, Dr. Gelpi, Dr. Feaver and Jason Reifler, then a Duke graduate student, took issue with what they described as the conventional wisdom since the Vietnam War - that Americans will support military operations only if American casualties are few.

They found that public tolerance for the human cost of combat depended on two factors: a belief that the war was a worthy cause, and even more important, a belief that the war was likely to be successful.

In their paper, "Casualty Sensitivity and the War in Iraq," which is to be published soon in the journal International Security, Dr. Feaver and his colleagues wrote: "Mounting casualties did not produce a reflexive collapse in public support. The Iraq case suggests that under the right conditions, the public will continue to support military operations even when they come with a relatively high human cost."

The role of Dr. Feaver in preparing the strategy document came to light through a quirk of technology. In a portion of the document usually hidden from public view but accessible with a few keystrokes, the plan posted on the White House Web site showed the document's originator, or "author" in the software's designation, to be "feaver-p."

<snip

In a news briefing from Iraq on Friday, Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, the top American military official in charge of training Iraqi troops, surprised some reporters by saying he first saw "Our Strategy for Victory in Iraq" when it was released to the public on Wednesday.

<snip>

more...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/politics/04strategy.html

[Goel]

1. Is Iran next?

Hello

I'm posting from Scotland, Great Britain - one of the USA's staunchest allies in the 'war on terror'.

I've signed up for this forum on account of the fact that things seem to be looking pretty bad for liberals and progressives across much of the world right now and it is important that international links for the sharing of uncensored information and opinion are established.

Hopefully, you might find a British perspective useful on the likes of such events as the recent leak of a conversation between Bush and Blair on the desirability of bombing Al Jazeera - I often suspect that information on such matters is more freely available in the UK than in the US (although I stand to be corrected on this or other matters if necessary).

The first matter that I wanted to draw to the attention of the forum was the possibility of US action against Iran in early 2006. I am hearing talk (although there is precious little information available) that Iran is planning to create an international oil bourse priced in the euro currency rather than the dollar. There is, of course, a great deal of speculation concerning the fact that one of the reasons that Saddam Hussein brought down the wrath of the USA upon himself was his same determination to start pricing Iraqi oil in a denomination other than the US dollar.

For anyone who knows anything about the international economy and the parlous state of US finances right now, the prospect of oil sales in a currency other than the dollar could be extremely bad news for America, hence the possibility of military action to keep this market closed. This link - from a site dedicated to the issue of Peak oil - has more:

Petrodollar warfare

Is this issue being discussed among US liberals? How will the American public react to military action against Iran while the situation in Iraq seems to get worse daily?

Cheers,

G.

[Lerkfish]

2. welcome to DU!

yes, the conversion to euro has been discussed here as one of the likely causes for invasion of Iraq and then eventually Iran.

but DU is unique, our shackled corporate media ignores any item that is contradictory to the Bush administration. At DU, we are probably one of the last areas of enlightenment on what the heck is going on.

you came to the right source, but don't think the rest of the country is exactly as informed as we are -- keeping the populace uniformed is priority for republicans.

[liberal N proud]

3. Welcome to DU Goel

Is Iran next?
Iran, Syria, North Korea, it is anybodies guess at this point. One thing for certain, the PNAC has an agenda that includes attacking other sovereign nations.
You being in Scotland, may provide you with more information than those of us here in the US, we have the "liberal" media to deal with.

[Kolesar]

6. Sy Hersh said the US was planning to attack Iran in May 2005

US military or intelligence staff leaked the Bush plans to Seymour Hersh in order to prevent it from happening. I am sure the plans are still there. Bush* attacking Iran during mid-term elections would be as politically stupid as Nixon invading Cambodia. Hersh is an unassailable writer with great sources. He busted the Mai Lai massacre in our Vietnam War.

Welcome the new guy :party: :bounce: :toast: :bounce: :party: Hi Goel!

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Welcome, Goel!

There are several British DUers, but not many Scottish ones, I think. There is a forum for UK-specific threads: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=191 ; but we all contribute elsewhere on the site too (there is also a Scottish group (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=321) for more informal Scottish-related talk, but you need to eb a donor to post in it).

The Iranian oil bourse gets occasionally mentioned here - we suffer from the patchy coverage of it in the news like everyone else. However, someone picked up this interesting pres release from Iran this morning: Preparatory measures taken to sell oil in euros. Still no clear date for when this would happen - which may be the Iranian strategy, ie keep the Americans worried. A high risk straegy for them, though.

[newyawker99]

9. Hi Goel!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Goel]

10. Thanks

Thanks for the warm welcome to the board.

Glad to hear the Iranian issue is already under discussion. My take is that the US, under current circumstances, may be unable to take much action on this (although an airstrike - possibly from Israel - is a real possibility).

I will look out for anything else on the issue.

Rgds,

G.

[mhr]

4. Why Should Anyone Be Surprised To Learn

That Bush et. al. totally manipulated Public Opinion based on opinion poll research.

Further who will care at this late stage.

The media - nope.

The deceived - nope.

The political opposition - nope.

[salin]

5. the public seems to finally get that this is sheer propoganda

the more bushco does it - the more transparent it gets - the more the public shifts from...

there must be WMDs, we just haven't found them yet, to

there are no and were no WMDs, maybe they were moved, to

there are no and were no WMDS, bad intelligence (but why aren't they firing these folks who gave the bad intel?), to

(note the last one was a major public shift - as it gave an acceptance that the prewar talk was bogus - that was a big shift as folks didn't want to believe it... and it laid the ground work for the more recent shifts), to

they lied to us, to

they lied to us intentionally.... , to

they are lying to us about other things, to

the nerve of these folks... they really hold us (the public) in contempt if they think this will keep working...

And such is where we are today - with the GOP on the Hill worrying about three more years, and whether or not the generalized anger at the dishonesty of the admin will spread onto them - hurt their reelections and bring crashing down their dreams of 50 years of one-party rule.

[BrklynLiberal]

8. kick

[BrklynLiberal]

11. .