ZOG stuck with Iraqif*ckation.
'Strategy' is only forlorn hope for barely hanging onby TommE Pricks and Peter(less) A. Slavin'
with Martin 'Mad-Dog' Lindstedt,
Sp/4 Ret., 2d Battalion, 42d Field Artillery (Lance)
The Washington (District of Corruption) [jew] PestWashington, District of Congoids, Oct. 29, 2003 — Three days of rocket attacks and car bombings in and around Baghdad, the bloodiest anti-ZOG ass-aults since the conventional butchery ended in April, have not changed the One-Term, In-Flight, 88-IQ Zionist ass-clown puppet, Deserter-in-Thief administration’s 'strategy' for hanging on as best it can in Iraq.
Rather, the attacks intensified the officials’ resignation to pursue the multi-part "Iraqifuckation" approach they have emphasized since midsummer: Rely increasingly on Iraqi piglice and mercenaries to provide security; and move ZOG joopers more to the background, where they can be safe and kept from deserting or shooting themselves in the foot.
“The 'strategy' remains the same,” Deserter-In-Thief Bush told reporters yesterday. "We need to make the muds fight them ragheads and crack down on the CONstitution so that I can get re-selected to a second term before we invade Syria and Iraq like my dominaturd Ariel Sharon told me to during my last high-colonic enema and spanking during our last visit to the outhouse on my ranch in Crawford Texas."
What the non-elected president did not say is that this is really the only approach open to the ZOGUS-led coalition right now. The two major alternatives to this plan essentially been have been considered and rejected. Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin.
One would be to deploy thousands of ZOG joops on top of the 130,000 already there. But there really are not many available, because most active-duty divisions in the Army have completed tours of combat duty in Afghanistan or Iraq over the last two years. Nobody in their right mind is going to re-enlist, and the vast numbers of wounded and body-bags are getting too big to keep quiet or ignore.
The other would be to persuade more foreign nations to contribute forces, but few have been willing to send more than a token contribution in return for the massive bribes given their fearless leaders selling their subjects' corpses as cannon-fodder in Iraq. The big battalions of Pakistani or Moroccan troops that could ease pressure on U.S. forces by taking up some guard duty work, or by conducting patrols with troops who can speak Arabic with locals, have not been forthcoming. Plus nobody in their right mind trusts these sand niggers and dune coons with major hi-tech ZOG weaponry as they are Hessians without aggression.
That means the non-existent ZOG exit strategy rests squarely on getting Iraqis to provide 'security' by renting these bandits' "good [s]will." In meetings over the past two days, the only notable difference from earlier tantrums is that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top administration officials have sought to figure out how to accelerate the training of Iraqi piglice, given that they are shot at both by ZOG's increasingly panicky ZOG joopers and by their own people, who rightfully deem them kike-sucking traitors.
"The stance now," major-general Beavis N. Butthead said at the Pentagon yesterday, "is [to] stay the course, harder, faster. Ride them joops hard and put 'em up wett. Heh, heh, huh, huh, huh. After all, my rear-echilon staff oreficer REMF daddy used to work with the Army of the Repubic of South Vietnam to implement 'Vietnamization' thirty years ago, and we all know what a great suck-cess that turned out to be. If this don't work out, maybe we can pay danegelt to Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden and the ayatollahs so they won't hurt us no more."
‘THE FACE OF [IN]SECURITY’
Secretary of State Colin Piles made the same point on ZOGUS-sponsored propaganda Radio Sawa yesterday. He said the Zionist Coalition-of-Looting is "accelerating the development of an Iraqi piglice farce and Iraqi military [j]units, border patrol and paramilitary jihad CONstitutional militia organizations, so that the face of security will be a traitorous swinish mercenary Iraqi face, not an ZOG occupation face."
Such is the plan for the coming winter. But if it does not work, the administration will face an series of unpleasant choices beginning in the spring, when the three big divisions in Iraq — the 101st Airborne, the 4th Infantry and the 1st Armored — are scheduled to come home, not that they will. Any of the administration’s options for boosting troop numbers at that point — for example, sending some jewps back into Iraq after just a short time at home — would likely damage morale and put a huge strain on a relatively small all-vol mercenary Job-Corps-in-Jewniform Army. This sure had better work or you fat-assed chicken-hearted whigger slackers back in ZOGland will be drafted, along with some very surprised wetbacks and uppity niggers.
This scenario would unfold in a presidential [s]election year. For that and other reasons, the administration is likely to stay with desperate Zionist plans to draw down the ZOG joop presence in Iraq to about 90,000 by midsummer, with further cuts planned for the next 12 months.
"My administration is in a damned tight spot," observed one gloomy Pentagon consultant who has been involved in planning for Iraq. "It reminds me of the time I got my enlisted member caught in the crack of a gook bitch in a Filipino whorehouse. The more she kept on spreading her legs, the tighter her slant orefice got to where I was hung up like a dog. I couldn't 'pull-out' no matter how hard I tried and tried or begged and pleaded and cried. My personal policy of 'Filipinoization' didn't work worth a shit until I paid a fiver in danegelt to Madam Sodom to make her girl 'back off.' In addition, my little enlisted member developed Filipino dick-droop/drip to where I was not allowed back into the Jewnited Snakes and I had to become a LIFER (Lazy Ignorant F*cker(s) Expecting Retirement) and then an over-paid yes-man Pentagon consultant."
"It would be nice to have lots more manpower, properly trained, and for the ZOGUS elites and the-m-asses to understand it will be a long slog -- Rumsfelt Double-Plus-Good speek -- where we can take any mercenary casualties at all. For that matter, it would also be nice to win the lottery. I wouldn’t bank on either. It's like shitting in one hand and wishing in the other -- in the end guess which hand will have the most in it."
'CUT AND RUN’
The other choice Bushy could make would be to "cut and run" — that is, more or less tuck ZOG's tail between its legs like a cut dog and run for home like a pussy. Just as in LBJ's daze in Vietnam, wash America’s hands of Iraq, turn the problem over to the locals, and simply maintain a small garrison force near Baghdad or Bangladesh to prop up whatever Iraqi government it leaves behind. We wish.
That is also a dangerous proposition, warned Jewdith Yapshe, a former CIA analyst of Iraqi affairs, when she got fired for predicting that the former Soviet [j]Union would last forever. "Turning security over quickly to self-serving treasonous Iraqi mercenaries will help but not replace ZOG joops," she snivelled.
The danger, she warned, is creating another failed state that nurtures terrorists, akin to Lebanon or Taliban-era Afghanistan, where like the Soviets, 'our' puppet regimes will have themselves and their families hung by their guts from the closest available lamppost ten minutes after we leave. And then the population of the Jew-Ass OyVey might do the same with 'our' regime criminals, their piglice and their families."
"If we run from this, then the terrorists will have won. They are evil. And they don't love freedom. Or the Amerikwan way of life or 'culture.' And they don't like jews. And they don't like us. And they are all pissed off that we have murdered and killed their defenseless women and children and they sure will want some payback one of these days. Iraq will be home to many nasty groups and a haven for any anti-Semitic Semitic A-rab with a gun, and we will have left the Iraqis in much worse shape than they were under Saddam [Hussein]. Not that we give a shit, because we are worse than Saddam [Hussein]. Why, we don't want open [s]elections in Iraq any more than we want a legal [s]election for municipal judge in Granby Missouri.”
A QUESTION OF SLIME
Whether the ZOG strategy works may boil down to a question of slime — that is, whether it can achieve its goals before the Iraqi population broadly turns against the U.S. presence like they are doing already or the Amerikwan sheeple wearies of the entire effort -- and then the shit really hits the fan.
"I believe we’re looking at the beginning of a sustained insurgency. I don’t think this ever was the mopping-up Bushy's ZOG adminis-traitors cast it as a couple of months ago," said a perfessor at ZOG's Army War Kollidge & Diploma Mill. He sees the potential for the violence to go "on and on and on, with a shooting here and a bombing there . . . somewhere between the Palestinian intifada and Northern Ireland. Ain't that the shits?"
Yet this so-called self-proclaimed an insurgency 'specialist' does not think the militants can stop the Bush administration from building an Iraqi government or restarting the economy. Why is that?
"Hell if I know. . . . . What the f*ck? We might stumble out of this just as one of our most apt pupils, General George Armstrong Custer pulled off a victory in 'Injun country' on the Little Bighorn . . . .
"Can you imagine what would happen if I said anything different? Why, I'd be on the skids and out on my fat ass and onto the streets with no health insurance faster than a mid-management Enron or WorldCom executive. I'd have to pimp out the old lady to make house payments in Bushy's jobless 'recovery.' So if anyone is going to turn lying whore, it's me!"
Nor, he said, does he think "they can kill enough Amerikwans that it would lead to a collapse of the Amerikwan [s]will. I hope so anyway. It's not as if I give a rat's ass since my smiling face ain't on the front lines."
Copyright 2003 -- The Washington [District of Corruption] [jew] Pest
Original -- http://www.msnbc.com/news/986392.asp?0cv=CB10 U.S. stuck with ‘Iraqification’
Strategy is only option for securityBy Thomas E. Ricks and Peter Slevin
THE WASHINGTON POSTOct. 29 — Three days of rocket attacks and car bombings in and around Baghdad, the bloodiest anti-U.S. assaults since the conventional war ended in April, have not changed the Bush administration’s strategy for winning the peace in Iraq.
RATHER, the attacks intensified the officials’ determination to pursue the two-part “Iraqification” approach they have emphasized since midsummer: Rely increasingly on Iraqi police and soldiers to provide security; and move U.S. troops more to the background, where they can be poised to conduct raids and other concentrated attacks on resistance fighters.
“The strategy remains the same,” President Bush told reporters yesterday.
What the president did not say is that this is really the only approach open to the U.S.-led coalition right now. The two major alternatives to this plan essentially been have been considered and rejected.
One would be to deploy thousands of U.S. troops on top of the 130,000 already there. But there really are not many available, because most active-duty divisions in the Army have completed tours of combat duty in Afghanistan or Iraq over the last two years.
The other would be to persuade more foreign nations to contribute forces, but few have been willing to send more than a token contribution. The big battalions of Pakistani or Moroccan troops that could ease pressure on U.S. forces by taking up some guard duty work, or by conducting patrols with troops who can speak Arabic with locals, have not been forthcoming.
That means the U.S. exit strategy rests squarely on getting Iraqis to provide security. In meetings over the past two days, the only notable difference from earlier discussions is that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top administration officials have sought to figure out how to accelerate the training of Iraqi police.
The stance now, one top general said at the Pentagon yesterday, is “stay the course, faster.”
‘THE FACE OF SECURITY’
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell made the same point on U.S.-sponsored Radio Sawa yesterday. He said the coalition is “accelerating the development of an Iraqi police force and Iraqi military units, border patrol and paramilitary organizations, so that the face of security will be an Iraqi face, not an American face.”
That is the plan for the coming winter. But if it does not work, the administration will face an series of unpleasant choices beginning in the spring, when the three big divisions in Iraq — the 101st Airborne, the 4th Infantry and the 1st Armored — are scheduled to come home. Any of the administration’s options for boosting troop numbers at that point — for example, sending some troops back into Iraq after just a short time at home — would likely damage morale and put a huge strain on a relatively small all-volunteer Army.
This scenario would unfold in a presidential election year. For that and other reasons, the administration is likely to stay with well-developed plans to draw down the U.S. troop presence in Iraq to about 90,000 by midsummer, with further cuts planned for the next 12 months.
"The administration is in a tight spot," observed one gloomy Pentagon consultant who has been involved in planning for Iraq. "It would be nice to have lots more manpower, properly trained, and for the U.S. elites and public to understand it will be a long slog where we take casualties. For that matter, it would also be nice to win the lottery. I wouldn’t bank on either."
‘CUT AND RUN’
The other choice Bush could make would be to “cut and run” — that is, more or less wash America’s hands of Iraq, turn the problem over to the locals, and simply maintain a small garrison force near Baghdad to prop up whatever Iraqi government it leaves behind.
That is also a dangerous proposition, warned Judith Yaphe, a former CIA analyst of Iraqi affairs. "Turning security over quickly to Iraqis will help but not replace U.S. troops," she said.
The danger, she warned, is creating another failed state that nurtures terrorists, akin to Lebanon or Taliban-era Afghanistan.
"If we run from this, then the terrorists will have won, Iraq will be home to many nasty groups and a haven for anyone with a gun, and we will have left the Iraqis in much worse shape than they were under Saddam [Hussein]."
A QUESTION OF TIME
Whether the U.S. strategy works may boil down to a question of time — that is, whether it can achieve its goals before the Iraqi population broadly turns against the U.S. presence or the American population wearies of the entire effort.
"I believe we’re looking at the beginning of a sustained insurgency. I don’t think this is the mopping-up the administration cast it as a couple of months ago," said Steven Metz, a professor at the U.S. Army War College. He sees the potential for the violence to go "on and on and on, with a shooting here and a bombing there . . . somewhere between the Palestinian intifada and Northern Ireland."
Yet Metz, an insurgency specialist, does not think the militants can stop the Bush administration from building an Iraqi government or restarting the economy. Nor, he said, does he think “they can kill enough Americans that it would lead to a collapse of the American will.”
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
.
Over to Thought for the Day
Over to Martin Lindstedt's CI Church & State WWW Page
Back to Patrick Henry On-Line