Bush's blunder of "Hitlerian proportions!"

I had a hell of a time finding this article that seems to be hidden from all the search engines.  It quotes a retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor describing Bush's execution and expansion of the WOT into Iran, as a "blunder of Hitlerian proportions."

Macgregor likened the policy of fighting all three Iraqi anti-occupation forces at once to Adolf Hitler's insistence on continuing a two-front war against the Soviet Union and the Western powers during World War II, which is widely regarded as having ensured the defeat of Nazi Germany.

More below...

A funny thing happened on the way to the front...
Bush and his Right Wing Media machine of course have been banging the war drum about how bad and dangerous Shi'ite Iran is, yet the insurgents are aligned with... Sunni?  Is Bush now to have us believe that Shi'ite Iran is supporting Sunni insurgents? And this helps Iran and the flow of refugees into Iran how exactly?  Is this the same Shi'ite Iran that is aligned with the Mahdi Army which is represented by at least 30 members of the Iraqi parliament???   That we put in power????

"It is ideology pushing violence to extremes," Macgregor says of the latest turn in Bush's Iraq policy. "They are trying to reverse the damage they have already done to themselves by having built up a Shi’ite state and army. But it is too late and it is bound to be counterproductive."

So if we are fighting Sunni, even though they have turned against al-Qaeda, and threatening Iran which is  Shi'ite, and the Mahdi army, also Shi'ite, which is now "much more than just a force, it's a movement. And it has mobilized the great disenfranchised, impoverished Shia population." Who by the way are "also violently opposed to al-Qaeda," then whose side are we on?
And if we are not with the Mahdi army who fights al-Qaeda, then doesn't that make us on the side of the terrorists?

Bush has created a "War on all fronts" and as Macgregor states:

The Sadrist "genie is out of the bottle", he warned, and "it can't be put back in".

Not to go all heebie geebie on you, but it looks like Nostradamus may be right again, and WWIII is on the way. Fortunately he says that after all is said and done, the Western powers come out on the "winners" side. Unfortunately I think Bush's idea of winning is living on a planet with global nuclear fallout, as long as the bomb didn't go off on our side.

•  Well...

  Macgregor likened the policy of fighting all three Iraqi anti-occupation forces at once to Adolf Hitler's insistence on continuing a two-front war against the Soviet Union and the Western powers during World War II, which is widely regarded as having ensured the defeat of Nazi Germany.

  Comparing Hitler's war against united groups of nation states which involved conventional fronts and millions of uniformed soldiers to this insurgency in Iraq is, imo, a poor analogy. Perhaps it could be compared to Hitler's occupation of the USSR where his forces had to suffer under the constant attacks of relentless partisans.

  I myself would compare the US occupation of Iraq to the British occupation of Iraq after WW1. The British also arrived offering promises of liberation and eventually left after thousands of their soldiers were dead.

  by assyrian64 on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:59:09 AM PDT

  •  Kinda like France & Viet Nam, eh? n/t

    by Sigrid of Horg on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:20:42 AM PDT

  •  Iraq was occupied in ww2.

    The British are always doing the old 'in out' in Iraq.

    by Salo on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:39:49 AM PDT

    •  Like, in the sense of Clockwork Orange?

      After all, rape is essentially what we did to that country.

      by metal prophet on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 06:18:15 AM PDT

  •  The Hitlerian...

    referes to attacking everyone at once. Two front or three front battles.

    by Salo on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:40:34 AM PDT

  •  I think the basic point of comparison,

    that Bush decided to open up a second and even more difficult front when he had not secured the initial war zone, is right on.

    by epppie on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:57:44 AM PDT

    •  Well...

      I think the basic point of comparison, that Bush decided to open up a second and even more difficult front when he had not secured the initial war zone, is right on.

      The argument that a nation cannot win a two-front war is quickly disproved by example of the United States in WW2 which defeated both Japan And Nazi Germany, literally on opposite sides of the globe.

      Bush is not losing the war in Iraq because he didn't secure the "initial war zone", i.e., Afghanistan. He is losing there today for different reasons.

      If, e.g., the attacks on 9-11 hadn't occurred, and the US didn't attack Afghanistan, but did go ahead and invade Iraq, I believe Bush would still be losing the fight there, due to (1) Incompetent leadership, (2) Lack of national and international support due primarily to the immoral reasons and lies used to start the war, and, (3) A determined local insurgency willing to fight to the death.

      by assyrian64 on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 02:19:17 AM PDT

      •  Japan and Germany...

        ...took on China, UK, USSR and the US, They were both completely encircled by enemies.  Germany buried their army into Russia. The Japanese bureid their army into China. The US wasn't fighting a two front war per se.

        by Salo on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 02:23:09 AM PDT

  •  (Belated TIP JAR! ) The Hitler reference

    is to opening a war on two fronts that split his forces... ya know "divide and conquer?"  Looks like he did it to himself... just like Bush.

    by Fireshadow on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:09:10 AM PDT

•  Are you trying to be logical?

  Good luck with this group of Neo-Cons.

  Great diary. Nothing the Bushies are doing makes any sense. Their thinking is too muddled to try to figure out.

  They just need to be stopped...and jailed

  by offgrid on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:09:03 AM PDT

  •  NeoConservatives

    Are you trying to be logical? Good luck with this group of Neo-Cons.

    Neocons, by definition, value ideology over truth, similar to cultists. Like religious fundamentalists they are anti-reason, anti-Enlightment, anti-science. Of course like other irrational cultists, they conveniently utilize the fruits of scientific method when it comes to the creation of their weapons.

    by assyrian64 on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:30:59 AM PDT

    •  Actually

      They value the truth, but only for themselves. See Strauss, Leo.

      by northsylvania on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 02:19:47 AM PDT

•  If Bush was really "Hitlerian"...

  ...He would have attacked Iraq the way Hitler attacked Russia. Army Group North with 50 divisions securing the oil fields and the Kurds. Army Group Center with 50 divisions securing Baghdad. Army Group South with 50 divisions securing southern Iraq. BTW The russian winter defeated Hitler and the fact the Japanese didn't attack russia's eastern front freed-up hundreds of crack divisions Stalin used for reinforcements. Otherwise Hitler kicked their ases.

   Hitler had the Death's Head SS Divisions of the Waffen SS. Anyone who opposed them was summarily shot! Anyone who looked they they opposed them was summarily shot!

   No. Bush has enough problems being "Bush" much less "Hitlerian".
   

  by ImpeachKingBushII on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:34:44 AM PDT

  •  Instead he attacked it

    like Hitler attacked his neighbors, Rush in take the capital and the rest of France, Austria, Holland etc will fall

    by princess of puters on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 03:07:10 AM PDT

  •  Not just the winter...

    There were many things that led to the defeat of the Germans and it started before Barbarossa even got started with the Yugoslavs providing a much greater fight than the Germans expected and thus holding up a great deal of manpower until they had the Balkans secure.  Getting a later than expected start while waiting for the forces from the Balkans meant they had less time to take Moscow and Peter before winter would settle in.  Further, it was a late year for the spring thaw meaning transport was more difficult in the initial phases and the fall rains came early meaning more mud at that time.

    In any event, yes, winter arrived a bit earlier and stronger that year but there were other events that fed the defeat that was fairly well set in motion within two months of the start of Barbarossa.

    The Russians threw forces into the initial battles  and allowed attrition battles to wage in some places (e.g., Smolensk) in order to hold up foot soldiers of the Reich.  At the same time, they mobilized about twice as many ready reserves as the Germans thought the Soviets had overall and regrouped farther back with more modern air forces and artillery that hadn't been utilized in the beginning.

    As the Germans continued to push, they overextended themselves.  When they finally had control of those insurrection zones farther back, the foot soldiers finally came forward but were constantly picked at by partisans.  In general, many of the border towns allowed German passage and welcomed their liberation from Stalin.

    Before the foot soldiers could arrive at the front, the Soviets began to attack German forward lines, which were mostly light armored forces, with air and artillery.  This was not in friendly terrain for maximum mobility and air back up was difficult because they had few forward air bases suitable to handle the necessary aircraft (mostly partisan activity - in its initial stages at that point - prevented this but it was also the terrain itself and the lack of compacting equipment, joined by the scorched-earth policy of the Soviet organized forces in retreat).

    By August, the Germans were severely stretched and they found partisan activity increase on their supply lines all throughout that year as more and more locals revolted against the Germans in light of the harsh tactics of SS forces...in severe contrast to the regular army troops.  These partisan attacks made the situation with the supply line and the stretched forces up front even worse.

    Now, almost two months to the day after the start of Barbarossa, with the Southern Front moving a bit more slowly than they thought it would and the Northern Front slowed in approach to Peter by a severe and strong Soviet organized military resistance (basically throwing a bunch of bodies with guns at the Germans but, given the manpower on hand, not ineffective), Hitler decided that much of the air support and many foot soldiers should be supplied to the North and South to finish those areas off before the push to Moscow.

    Since Soviet strength was concentrated in the Center, they were able to attack a weakened line until the Germans regrouped in muddy October to make the push for Moscow.  By then, the Germans were tired (foot soldiers by non-stop fighting) and more depleted (armored units in the center through constant attack while air and foot resources had been deployed north and south).

    They made the push but it was too late.

    So, to recap:

    • late start in a later than average muddy season with reinforcements coming from already tired Balkan campaigners
    • mixed tactics by the Soviets (not planned that way but effective) that forced supply lines to move forward more slowly than the battle
    • double the mobilization of Soviets vs. German planning
    • lack of foot and air support to forward lines and a difficulty with transporting available foot soldiers
    • Hitler spreading out the German strength even more to support north and south operations
    • early rains in the whole region meant more health problems for unprepared Germans and more supply line and mobility problems
    • early winter, which was the final nail as the Germans were wholly unprepared for a battle that would go that long

    Their industry was unprepared for a sustained campaign, their troops were already over-tired and over-stretched, they did not have adequate heating units for equipment or clothing for troops to ensure sustainability through winter, and the local populations turned against them, thanks to the SS, which meant even more morale loss among ordinary troops about to be stuck in frozen, lonely, vast plains across the Soviet Union.

    by lgrooney on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 07:55:12 AM PDT

    •  I looked at your sig line...

      ...and couldn't find anything in your lengthy but brilliant analysis "to hang him". Very good! Thank you. I don't know how many read it but it brought back many fond memories. Studied the Reich over 40 years since childhood. Hitler was complex. Bush a "private in the Wermacht" by comparison. Bush had the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and if he studied history at all would have known he didn't have enough troops on the ground to both conquer and hold Iraq. No way Hitler could hold russia with his millions-a land that dwarfs Iraq by comparison. And Bush won't win his war with a mere fraction of what Hitler had. Bush I was smart enough not to try holding Iraq and he had the manpower to do it! Now we're stuck in the middle of a civil war by his son's fatal blunder. And even now he doesn't have enough horse sense to "retreat". Hitler had his Stalingrad because he stubbornly refused to face the reality of his own defeat there and Bush has his Iraq. Both men thought they could win by the sheer force of their will. And I fear that many more of our troops will pay the price for his arrogance.

      by ImpeachKingBushII on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 09:29:18 AM PDT

      •  I'm actually a Russian lit person cum MBA Finance

        but certainly had to do my fill of Russian history.  I am much more knowledgeable of the economic/political/ social movements in Russia and the FSU but since there is such emphasis still placed on WWII everywhere in the FSU, only to a bit less of a degree in Central and Western Europe, one has to know about it to understand their frame of mind...especially if one were studious about the Cold War and is interested in the Russian mindset today.  It still has a very profound effect on them even if the few veterans left don't get the same respect they once did.

        Interesting, however, that their Vietnam - and one of the most divisive issues to froth up during glasnost and help weaken the Communist Party, the War in Afghanistan, doesn't hold the same sway.  Perhaps it is the lack of official memorials, perhaps it is the fact that they barely brush it in schools, perhaps as one of the signifying moments in the downfall of the FSU it is still painful for too many (yes, many of those in the age ranges of 25-30 and over 60 pine for the Soviet Union at times...the younger ones because they remember the nobility on which they were educated and the together they felt with all parts, the older because it was all they knew and now there is too much chaos, too much uncertainty, too much freedom - at least compared to that available during Soviet days - and they're not equipped to deal with it; of course, the old during Brezhnev's day thought there was too much chaos and freedom as well).

        One major point to be made about Stalingrad is that Hitler intervened at every level.  The Germans had a breakout plan that may have been able to turn the tide (for a time as the Germans, I believe, would have ultimately had their ass handed to them by the US) but it would have involved giving ground initially and Hitler issued the order that any man falling back was to be shot.  So, they stayed, got captured, lost.

        Now, had they done what the generals wanted to do...who knows?  And would that have been a good thing?  I generally think not for while Stalin's body count was probably higher (depends on how you want to count things and where you want to lay responsibility for the various atrocities committed by either one) he had less implicit support from the people, even at the very beginning.  Yes, Hitler too used terror and fear to develop his power but it was not the direct application of it that created his base of power as with Stalin.  Hitler used it more at the margins...at least with his own people.

        So, I think if it comes down to a Stalin victory or a Hitler victory on that front, I think it better Stalin won because the weaker support from the people meant an eventual downfall of that empire (and DIA called it as early as the 60s, i.e., from that point forward, the Soviet Union was weakening every year and Reagan had little to do with it).  Had Hitler won and expanded the territory for the Germans of that day, the Reich may have been able to continue for quite some time.

        by lgrooney on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:58:00 AM PDT

        •  Your...

          ...analysis is again brilliant and refreshing. Have you considered a diary delineating the differences between the USSR and present day Russia? Also, the effect of Afghanistan on the fall? I for one would eagerly devour it! Also, I agree with you that Reagan gets far more credit than he is due on this subject and on many other levels.

            I only found one point I would expound on your otherwise thorough assessment of Hitler v. Stalin. As you know both had terrible male role models. Stalin's father regularly used him for a punching bag during one of many of his drunken stupors. Hitler's father was more abusive emotionally and the only love or positive feedback he ever got was from his mother. As far as terrorism goes Hitler had his SS, the Gestapo, and 14 working guillotines that lopped-off the heads of anyone who even thought of opposing him. Stalin eliminated everyone that appeared a threat or had more popularity or a greater IQ. He was extremely paranoid. His mantra was, "No man. No problem." They both were mass murderers. The world is better without them!

            Please seriously consider if you have the time a diary on my previous request. I thank you and greatly enjoyed your thoughts!

          by ImpeachKingBushII on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 01:30:44 PM PDT

•  Bush's blunder has cost America deatly.

  America has lost its allies and influence in the region. Arabs no longer trust US.

  US : Iraq is your problem, not the problem of the Arabs.

  Munaeem's Blog

  by munaeem on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 03:28:09 AM PDT

•  America is stuck in quagmire.

  The truth is that America is stuck in quagmire. Allies are not willing to help. Because American arrogance have alienated them.

  by munaeem on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 04:28:03 AM PDT