The Nightmare the Left and Democrats Have Been Dreading: The Tide of War in Iraq Might be Turning in Favor of the U.S.
By Mediahawk Posted in Elections — Comments (110) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
It's certainly premature to make any hard and fast predictions at this point, but could it be that the tide of war in Iraq is turning in favor of the U.S. and the Iraqi military and that the nightmare that the left and the Democrats have been dreading --- defeat of the insurgents and terrorists --- is about to be visited on them? As observed by William Kristol in the Weekly Standard and Michael Barone in the political website Realclearpolitics.com, some recent developments seem to point to a positive turn in the war for the U.S. and the Bush administration. One of the most significant, as noted by Kristol is the fact that two leftist scholars who are no fans of Bush, Michael O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack of the Brookings Institution, recently penned an opinion piece in the New York Times in which they expressed guarded optimism that the war might after all be winnable . Kristol's piece is particularly noteworthy. He was one of the neo-conservatives who strongly pushed Bush to topple Saddam Hussein. However unlike many other neo-cons and initial supporters of the war he did not break away from Bush when his administration seemed to be botching the prosecution of the war. Neo-cons like Richard Perle were some of the most aggressive advocates of the Iraq invasion. But no sooner did the war seem to be a lost cause or another Vietnam than they turned against Bush and practically joined cause with the anti-war left to undermine him at his most weakened moments. Talk of fair-weather friends and allies. But Kristol faithfully stayed the course. He continued to back the war to the hilt and very importantly and beyond that, served as one of the most positive critics of the administration's prosecution of the war, rightly warning Bush against any attempt to retreat before the job was done. The consequences of retreating in defeat would haunt the U.S. for decades, he kept stressing. The only course was to stay the course, as difficult as it might be, until an honorable conclusion was arrived at. So given his consistent defence of the war and the possibility that history might ultimately vindicate his judgment, it's necessary to hear what Kristol has to say in regard to the recent events.
Hot July brings cooling showers, / Apricots and gillyflowers, as Sara Coleridge's doggerel has it. But for the American antiwar movement, this July brought only a cold drizzle, wilted blossoms, and bitter fruit.
For the Iraq war's opponents, July began as a month of hope. It ended in retreat. It began with Democratic unity in proclaiming the inevitability of American defeat. It ended with respected military analysts--Democrats, no less!--reporting that the situation on the ground had improved, and that the war might be winnable. It began with a plan for a series of votes in Congress that were supposed to stampede nervous Republicans against the continued prosecution of the war. It ended with the GOP spine stiffened, no antiwar legislation passed, and the Democratic Congress adjourning in disarray, with approval ratings lower than President Bush's. It began with Democratic presidential candidates competing in their antiwar pandering. It ended with them having second thoughts--with Barack Obama, losing ground to Hillary Clinton because he seemed naive about real world threats, frantically suggesting that he would invade Pakistan.
July also began with the liberal media disparaging the troops. It ended with the liberal media in retreat. The New Republic had to acknowledge that its pseudonymous soldier's account of an incident purportedly showing the dehumanizing effects of the Iraq conflict was a lie: It had taken place in Kuwait (if it happened at all), before this imaginative private ever saw the horrors of war. The New York Times was so shocked to discover in late July that public opinion hadn't continued to move against the war that it redid a poll. The answer didn't change.
This last incident, though minor, is revealing. On July 24 the Times reported that a new survey had found an increase in the number of Americans retrospectively backing the liberation of Iraq:Americans' support for the initial invasion of Iraq has risen somewhat as the White House has continued to ask the public to reserve judgment about the war until at least the fall. In a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted over the weekend, 42 percent of Americans said that looking back, taking military action in Iraq was the right thing to do, while 51 percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq. . . . Support for the invasion had been at an all-time low in May, when only 35 percent of Americans said the invasion of Iraq was the right thing and 61 percent said the United States should have stayed out.
In the Times's view, as explained on its website, this result was "counterintuitive"--so much so that the editors had the poll repeated to see whether they had "gotten it right." Turns out they had.
Kristol pointed out correctly that there is indeed very deep opposition against the war across the country. However, as he noted, recent opinion polls seem to indicate that the opposition may be softening.
In the real world, the public is skeptical of the administration's stance on Iraq--but not overwhelmingly or irretrievably so. Here's what a new Rasmussen poll says: "Twenty-five percent of voters now say the troop surge is working and another 26 percent say it's too soon to tell. A month ago, just 19 percent considered the surge a success and 24 percent said it was too early to tell." This means that 51 percent are now at least open to giving the policy more time. That's up from 43 percent a month ago.Given the mistakes the Bush administration has made over the past four years, given the real challenges still ahead, given mainstream media bias in general and the lag in public understanding of what has happened in the last three months on the ground in Iraq in particular, these numbers aren't bad. And they're moving in the right direction. The public remains more sensible than much of elite opinion--and more open to new facts. That's good, since progress on the ground in Iraq is likely to continue. It can't be taken for granted, given the nature of a war against a ruthless and adaptable enemy. Still, one British general--no cheerleader for our conduct of the war in the past--told me in Baghdad last week, "It's getting better--and I don't see why it shouldn't continue to do so." And, despite the mainstream media, reports of that progress should continue to seep into the American public's consciousness. "This war is lost," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stated without qualification a few months ago, adding that it required "blind hope, blind trust" to believe in progress of any sort. But Reid is now in the position of holding blindly to his embrace of defeat. He has to deny facts in order to sustain his bleak judgment.
Columnist Michael Barone made similar points in an article in the political website realclearpolitics.com. He noted O'Hanlon's and Pollack's break from the gloom and doom forecasts of their fellow leftists and expressed the belief that after so many months in a seemingly endless long night of defeats, victory might just be possible . Barone went down the lanes of history to remind Democrats and the left that war is in a way like the wind. It's unpredictable. Now it it blows for you. Now it blows against you.
Wars don't stand still. In June 1942, the House of Commons debated a resolution of no confidence in Winston Churchill's government. Four months later came the war-changing victory at El Alamein.
For a long while now the winds of war have been blowing and blowing very strongly against the U.S. troops and the Bush administration. But may be, just may be it's just beginning to blow for the White House and General Petraeus and his men in Baghdad, Tikrit, and other theaters of war in Iraq. If that is the case, then may be the nightmare the Democrats have been dreaming and dreading has become a living reality that will pursue them right up to election day in November 2008.
Gen. David Petraeus, the author of the Army's new counterinsurgency manual and the commander in Iraq, is scheduled to report on the surge in mid-September. The prospect of an even partially positive report has sent chills up the spines of Democratic leaders in Congress. That, says House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, would be "a real big problem for us."
The Democratic base has been furious that Democrats in Congress haven't pulled the plug on the war already, and Democratic strategists have been anticipating big electoral gains from military defeat. But if the course of the war can change, so can public opinion. A couple of recent polls showed increased support for the decision to go to war and belief that the surge is working. If opinion continues to shift that way, if others come to see things as O'Hanlon and Pollack have, Democrats could find themselves trapped between a base that wants retreat and defeat, and a majority that wants victory.
President Bush made a blunder by prematurely and triumphantly declaring victory aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003 just after the U.S. troops swept Saddam's forces aside and captured Baghdad. But may be the Democrats have made an even bigger blunder by calling the war a lost cause and demanding retreat in defeat. In April, the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D - Nev.) practically declared the war as lost . Here are his exact words:
"Now I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows: that this war is lost, that the surge is not accomplishing anything."
Up to now because of the great cost in blood and money the public's opposition to the war has been growing. But if by a favorable confluence of factors the war shifts favorably for the U.S. around election time next year, then the Democrats might pay a heavy political price --- and be made to understand that it never pays to wish defeat on your own country for partisan political gains.
As you rightly said, Volpe, we will see. And as pointed out by Michael Barone in the article, war is like wind. Largely unpredictable. Anything could still happen to blow the course of the war in one direction or another. Al Qaeda, if they feel the U.S. is beginning to win it militarily and politically, can try to scuper things by doing another Samarra-like bombing to provoke another mini or major civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites.
However, for now, as you said the tide seems to have made a definite turn in favor of the U.S. Let's hope it stays that way going forward.
Depends on what war you are speaking of.
We never were losing the Iraq War. Ever. for the tide to turn there would require us to suddenly Start losing (as would be the case with a declared surrender/withdrawal).
However, if you mean the local Political/Propaganda War, then, yes. The tide might just Be turning.
This is the war we have been losing and may, yet be able to win...
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
I have to concur with you, Raven, in some areas. The left and their media have been so good at using propagandist methodists to define the language used in talking about the war that some of us, including myself, often fall into the trap of mistaking what they report and analyze about the war for fact and reality.
And where they seem to have succeeded to a large measure is convincing a lot of folks that the political/propaganda war here and especially in the Beltway is the same as the actual war happening on the ground in Iraq. And I think that even two of their own, O'Hanlon and Pollack of Brookings Institution pointed this out in their much talked about op-ed in the New York Times.
But we need to also remember that the propaganda war can be just as important as the actual war. Many a war that could have been won was lost because the propaganda war was lost.
Thus far the liberal MSM and their political/media/academic allies appear to have been winning the propaganda war. But with the recent "defection" or at least momentary shift away from their camp of two of their most respected analysts (O'Hanlon and Pollack) perhaps a small but significant shift in the propaganda war is happening....
War is a game with (at least) two players. As you suggest, AQ will likely attempt another surprise. Blowing up the two mosque towers may have been a try. Little success. Expect something else just before the Sept report. Something splashy enough to let the Dems say, "See, we haven't stopped all the violence. Let's quit." If it's obvious from here, it must be moreso to all intel assets in Iraq. If our interdiction results in no big splash by mid Sept, it will move things from "may be winnable" to "winning is inevitable." Think Midway or Gettysburg.
Most definitely, Al Qaeda will try something huge, bloody and very messy before Gen. Petraeus reports in Sept and before Nov. '08. They know Congressional Democrats are the soft belly of U.S. foreign policy (and domestic), especially as it concerns the war on terrorism. And knowing this they will let all hell loose in Iraq prior to Sept and Nov '08 to further provoke the Dems into whining that we must withdraw immediately because it's hopeless.
All the more reason, why no matter how things improve militarily in the interim, the Bush administration must anticipate such an AQ mayhem strategy, hold steady the course and not buckle under the barrage of pressure the spineless Dems will subject them to when all hell breaks loose over there again as it surely will.
I think they may not have much hell left to loosen.
They've done a pretty good job thus far in caving in the left and even had the country much closer to civil war than today through some pretty barbaric acts.
These have been slowly backfiring in their face as the people tire of them.
They will continue to blow stuff up and will still have some horrific successes, but I think if they could have done worse than what they have done, they would have already done so.
Gentlemen, let's not lose sight of the big picture. There has been ZERO progress on key aspects of political reconciliation, nor any sign of a good-faith effort by most Iraqi leaders, particularly the Shiites. O'Hanlon emphasized that important point along with his observations of military progress and gaining cooperation on the local level in some areas. Without political reconciliation the whole effort is pointless. We need to pressure the Iraqi Shiite leaders to give a little to the Sunnis or full-scale civil war will occur sooner or later. http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brooksrob/2007/aug/02/a_common_sense_iraq_...
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brooksrob/2007/apr/29/iraq_strategy_a_sens...
as there has been in the u.s., and in the u.s. we deal with much smaller legislative questions than sharing oil revenue.
Join the Win the War campaign, joshlevy@yahoo.com, www.win-the-war.com.
Our leaders waver, but we can give them the courage they need.
If you think the Iraqis, particularly the Shiite leaders, have made any real progress toward political reconciliation, or have even taken steps toward such progress at anything close to a reasonable pace, or have shown anything resembling a good-faith effort toward such progress, I'd like to know on what basis you say that, or did it come straight out of your butt?
You're making it look as if you're incapable of having a respectful disagreement.
In any case, I didn't say they've made real progress on their legislative issues. I said we haven't made real progress, either, on most of our issues, and ours are smaller. The point is that we should adjust our expectations.
I see the political side as the least important. Defeating AQ has very little to do with whether or not there is an oil sharing law. The political end of it will decide if Iraq becomes a wonderful, progressive, vibrant country or just another poor country in the Middle East. That is something for much further down the road. Right now, the violence needs to be minimized. Michael Totten had a very interesting piece. Here it is...
He interviews as interpreter and the guy says that if we can get power and basic functions going within Iraq that will greatly lessen the violence. No one is talking about the Economic end of things. How is that going?
I'm not saying the political side isn't important. It's ultimately decisive. We need to realize, however, how long political development takes, even in the best circumstances.
Totten's reports are excellent. Thanks for pointing them out to everyone.
is the most interesting part of the interview...
"f you give average Iraqis electricity right now it will be enough. This is the most important thing. Give them power for seven days in a row and there will be no fights.
After the US came and Saddam fell they earned 3 dollars a month. Now they earn between 100 and 700 dollars a month.
Giving them electricity would reduce violence. If you don’t believe me, ask yourself what would happen to this Army base if the power was cut off forever and the soldiers had to spend the rest of their lives in Iraq. Do think think these soldiers would still behave normally?
Iraqis are paid to set up IEDs. They do it so they can buy gas for their generator and cool off their house or leave the country. Their hands do this, not their minds.
TV is the most interesting thing to Iraqis. They learn everything from the TV. Right now they only have one hour of electricity every day. Do you know what they watch? Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera pushes them to fight. If they got TV the whole day they would watch many things. Their minds would be influenced by something other than terrorist propaganda.
Right now they have no electricity. They have no dreams. Nothing. And Saddam messed with their minds. For more than 30 years he poisoned their minds."
I think this is simplified. It is difficult to get electricity with a raging insurgency that sabotages all infrastructure, however I do believe the Hammer, the Iraqi, is right, if there is enough electricity to get television and internet working then the Iraqis can actually start to enjoy the benefits of freedom and that will go a long way toward winning the war.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
ok, you're right -- in this case I should have expressed myself more respectfully.
As for the topic, here's my point:
1. A substantial degree of political reconciliation at the national level is necessary if we are to avoid eventual full-scale civil war. We can try to continue keeping a lid on it, perhaps with some success indefinitely, but ultimately we will have to draw down our forces (or face very bad options to maintain a large force there for decades, diverting resources from Defense that are needed to deter threats elsewhere or substantially increasing the military budget as we face the cost of baby boomers retiring and a large and expanding national debt), and when we draw down, if there has been little or no reconciliation, the whole thing blows up and our efforts (and cost in lives and dollars) will have been for nothing. The central idea of the surge was to reduce the violence to creating "breathing room" for political reconciliation (although I never totally bought the idea that a bunch of Iraqi politicians in the Green Zone needed there to be less violence outside the Green Zone to reach deals on oil revenue sharing, etc.). The surge is, therefore, largely a means to the end of political reconciliation.
2. The Iraqis, particularly Shiite leaders, have not met REASONABLE expectations in terms of both results and efforts at reconciliation. I'm not saying the issues they are dealing with are so simple they can be sorted out over lunch. I'm saying that, based on everything I've heard and read from a broad variety of sources, these guys are not making a good-faith effort. They seem content with letting our forces continue to serve their ends as long as we're willing to do so, and then ultimately to wage civil war to devastate the Sunnis.
3. We may have enough leverage now to get the Iraqis, particularly the Shiites, to make a good-faith effort at reconciliation because they probably want very much the continuation of our full support (military, financial, other) at this time. Making our continued FULL support contingent upon at least a good-faith effort at such political progress would provide the best chance at achieving these critical results. We should assure them that if they make a real effort at reconciliation, they can count on our continued full support indefinitely, but if they continue to blow it off, we'll narrow our objectives and role to fighting al Qaeda (not other Sunni insurgents) and preventing a regional war. See links to my two posts for elaboration and some supporting information.
4. Political reconciliation will help us fight al Qaeda. If Sunnis feel reasonably well represented and protected by their government (as opposed to seeing the Shiites as a mortal and economic threat), they will be less likely to think (per the Arab expression) "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and more of them will turn on al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is already alienating many Iraqi Sunnis as we have seen, but even greater numbers of Sunnis will oppose al Qaeda if the former start viewing Shiites as less of a threat.
I want to add that when I say "reconciliation at the national level", such reconciliation can include an agreement on a federalist, "soft patition" structure in which a substantial amount of power is devolved to regions along ethnic lines (and dividing Baghdad if necessary), combined with assisted population transfers (ugly yes, but it may turn out to be the least of the evils). I wasn't suggesting that Iraq needs to have a strong central government.
The Iraqi's need to learn to govern together and they need to learn to disagree without bullets being involved. If we can stop the violence on the battle field and their military is progressing to the point that they can take over the fight, that is all we should care about.
We can stand around shaking our heads watching them disagree and have a political stalemate so long as the violence is stopped, their military is handling it, and they are only throwing words at each other.
However, if you disagree, may I ask why you didn't demand a troop withdrawal from the United States territory when Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich shut down the government in their political "they can't get along" fight over the budget?
The government in Iraq learning how to be a government is only a Red Herring for the demand for defeat.
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
Just to be clear, while there are some folks who use the lack of political progress as an argument for withdrawal ASAP or according to some timeline, that's not me. I'm saying that
(1) political reconciliation is necessary if we are to prevent an eventual full-scale civil war or mitigate its consequences (rather than just delaying such a civil war and losing lives and dollars in the meantime),
(2) without the threat of less support reconciliation is much less likely to occur,
(3) if the Dems had their way and we said we were definitely leaving soon regardless of what the Iraqis do re: reconciliation, reconciliation would be EVEN LESS likely to occur (plus complete withdrawal would make us unable to pursue other important goals, most notably fighting al Qaeda and preventing a regional war),
(4) so the best approach is to ensure continued (indefinitely -- for as long as needed) full support if they make progress (or at least a good-faith effort) toward reconciliation, but to narrow our objectives and goals if they don't, per my comments above and per my posts at the links I've provided.
I guess if you reject the premise that political reconciliation is necessary to avoid an eventual full-scale civil war, then we just disagree on assumptions. I think that without such reconciliation, we will at best continue to keep a lid on things, that we cannot (or would not want to) do so for decades with the level of forces necessary, and that once we draw down our forces full-scale civil war will break out and we'll face roughly the same consequences we'd face if we left now. Therefore, I see political reconciliation as key, and I'm hardly alone in that view among conservatives and non-partisans.
Below is from Hugh Hewitt's blog. http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/06ae3d3e-5267-403e-a5d3-1c64a33a4968
Everything below this point is from Hewitt's post. Following Hewitt's "UPDATE" comment I skipped to the excerpted part.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
General Petraeus On Alan Colmes Show
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 8:56 AM
General David Petraeus appeared on Alan Colmes' radio program yesterday.
That's a smart move by the general, and Colmes is a fine host, though his site doesn't provide transcripts.
The folks who slandered the general for appearing on my show will now be writing what?
UPDATE: Here's a transcript provided by a reader. I can't vouch for its complete accuracy, but I trust the sender:
COLMES: You know, Admiral Mike Mullen who is testifying before Congress as he is up for chairman of the Joint Chiefs said no amount of troops, no amount of time will make much of a difference in Iraq. Do you concur with that?
PETRAEUS: I think he said something beyond that. Could repeat that.
COLMES: No amount of troops in no amount of time will make difference in Iraq, and I think he's talking about unless you have reconciliation.
PETRAEUS: I think he said no amount of troops in no amount of time will make a difference if there is not commensurate progress on the political level ...
COLMES: Right. It was reconciliation.
PETRAEUS: To eventually lead to national reconciliation. And I have said the same thing. I have said repeatedly that military action is necessary, very necessary but it is not sufficient and I think he is absolutely right.
Long term national reconciliation, the achievement of what we term sustainable security, is only possibly if the Iraqi national leaders can resolve some of these really tough issues with which they've been grappling, issues like the reform of the de-Baathification law, the oil revenue sharing law, provincial powers and provincial elections and so forth.
He also has talked of it needing years. In any case bench marks to me means withdrawal dates. What else can you threaten them with?
As I've said in my posts and repeated in my comments, I'm talking about narrowing our objectives and role, getting away from policing sectarian violence in Baghdad and elsewhere and focusing on al Qaeda and preventing regional war and infiltration by outsiders (from Iran, etc.). It wouldn't even mean necessarily fewer troops than otherwise, just focused differently (on our most important security interests). Under no circumstances should we withdraw and let al Qaeda build and maintain operations in Iraq or remove our ability to deter military intervention by Iraq's neighbors.
Maybe there's hope for this "city boy" after all.
the sectarian violence will be a small fraction of what it is now once the foreign influences are removed, both from AQ and neighboring powers.
Before I get a lecture on my spelling. Dead horse and dead horse.
I use graphics whenever possible.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Becksterrino,
Just curious, have you seen the original version of that image? Not sure if you'd like it. Might be from a liberal/Dem cartoonist. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://borgman.enquirer.com/img/d...
I came across it while looking for my own "dead horse" image.
I just google, and check "images" and use what appeals to my warped sense of humor at the time.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Or are you secretly promoting the work of a liberal lefty commie cartoonist? I'm calling for a special prosecutor.
I like this one (if the animation works)
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Here's a link to that image so you can use it against me sometime soon http://vaultmedia.ign.com/vnboards/2006/other_beatingA_DeadHorse.gif
I want a Franz calendar in return.
The Prince does not lower himself to "calendars".
I have some stills and some video of him killing a couple of ax murderers who did a home invasion and went after Mrs908. Only toenails were left when the boy got done with them.
Little known fact... Maltese have extremely long eyelashes. The purpose is to keep the blood from splashing in their eyes when they attack.
Those stills and vids will be sold as campaign fundraisers. They make great T-shirts too.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
gotcha. Looking forward to the vids and the campaign. Getting a little impatient waiting for the announcement.
Fred and Newt. Franz will have such overwhelming appeal, he'll sweep the field. We don't even need to raise much cash. The very thought of foreign leaders and Members of Congress having to sniff the President's butt will put us immediately over the top.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Yeah, especially Ahmadinejad. He's partial to goats.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Excuse me? "Who is Franz?" !!
He's the political equivalent of the Second Coming. He's the savior of the human race and then some. He's the greatest thing since sliced bread. He's the Democrats' worst nightmare (and will be no picnic for other Republican primary candidates either). He's the kind of leader we've been longing for, an answer to our prayers (ok, I'm an agnostic, but I'm being figurative).
Franz, where are you? Show up and set this guy straight!
a birddog...feathers would be fly'n!
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
truthfully relates what they really believe in public.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
but my understanding is that he will make them into a picnic.
good point -- a very messy picnic.
Sheesh. (The fuzzy guy taught me that one) You are dumb. And out of touch.
I am Franz. I am the Prince of Dogness. I am POTUS! (Pooch of the US) And I will be President.
Gamecock. Heh. What a dumb name. Sounds like a nasty name that Moe guy should harpoon.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Woof.
Franz' 11th Commandment: If anybody messes with you, kill them and eat them invite them to a State Dinner at the White House.
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roots:_The_Saga_of_an_American_Family#Plot_...
George is raised like a typical field hand. In his spare time, he enjoys hanging around the gamecock pen and Uncle Mingo, the gamecock raiser, who brings in a tidy sum for Massa Lea each year in cockfighting revenues. George instantly takes an attraction to the fighting roosters because of their noble stature. Later he becomes apprenticed to Uncle Mingo and proves himself a quick learner in feeding, capturing, cleaning, and fighting gamecocks, earning himself the nickname, "Chicken George."
After George starts full-time rooster duty, there is a noticeable improvement in Massa Lea’s winnings. Chicken George attends his first cockfight at the age of 15. As the years pass, he continues to go to tournaments and backyard fights, wins money, and saves it in order to buy freedom for himself and his family. He and Massa Lea become very close. Much of the time, Massa treats Chicken George like a partner, not as a slave, thanks to the latter's skill with the gamecocks.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Howdy there, partner. Glad ta' see ya'. I can always count on you to show up and drop some critical comment with no substance whatsoever. I've grown to find it amusing rather than annoying. But I'm disappointed you haven't accused me of being some liberal lefty city boy lately (I am a confessed city boy, so that part is true). Later, partner. Yeeeehaw!
I have read these links (several times) and actually agree with some of it. I'm just pointing out that you have posted these several times and seem irritated that a bunch of people, including Bush, haven't jumped on board. IMO it looks like you would set a pull out date. Hey, you have some good ideas and some good arguments. It's your condescending attitude that's hard to get past. Yeeeeeehaw! Pardner
well, thanks. I'm quite surprised at your comment, given all the comments (and all your name calling) in the past going all the way back to the one on treatment of animals in factory farms (remember that doozy?). Anyway, yes you are correct that I've posted those links to my posts several times and probably will so again in the future if relevant. What I don't get is why you would think I "would set a pullout date". I've never said that, and in fact I explicitly argue against it every time. That would be the worst policy imaginable at this point.
meet the bench marks? In redneck speak, what stick are ya gonna beat em with?
You said you read my posts (and more than once)? The threat of reducing our support (military, financial, etc.) is the "stick".
I want to stress that the benchmarks should be reasonable in terms of what is expected within what time frame, and also that if a good-faith effort can be demonstrated, that may suffice to retain our full support. If the Iraqis, particularly the Shiite leaders, simply have no interest in political reconciliation, we may as well narrow our objectives and role anyway (focusing on fighting al Qaeda, preventing a regional war, and probably also minimizing infiltration and arms shipments from Iran and other neighbors), because without political reconciliation, full-blown civil war is probably inevitable whether it happens now or years from now when we eventually draw down.
Also, I'm aware of the political danger here, that politicians in the U.S., Democrats AND Republicans (the latter feeling like Iraq is hurting them politically) might use contingency on benchmarks as simply a means of blaming the Iraqis and substantially reducing troop levels. But I think it's worth the risk, and anyway it looks like Bush will call the shots for the next year and a half (the Dems seem too whimpy to cut off funds despite all their rhetoric). He should have adopted this policy a long time ago, but it still would be the best policy to adopt today.
Also, just to repeat, under no circumstances am I suggesting anything close to a complete pullout. I'm talking about narrowing our objectives and role (not even necessarily a reduction in force levels, although that seems like it's going to be necessary for practical reasons at least in the short-term), no longer policing the civil war in Baghdad and elsewhere but focusing on al Qaeda and the other objectives I've mentioned.
Check this out too http://www.redstate.com/blogs/mediahawk/2007/aug/08/the_nightmare_the_le...
Simply assures any Iraqi that is wavering on whether or not to support the Americans that there is a very good chance if the American leftists have their way; that anyone supporting the Americans will end up dead. Killed by the terrorists, after the Americans pulled out, just like millions of Vietnamese that supported America because we (the US military) assured them that America would stand by them. But the American leftists felt their promises to America's enemies were more important. The American leftists won, defeated America and caused the deaths of millions in SE Asia.
The American left can't wait to repeat their success in helping the terrorists.
mark is that we don't leave until the whole world realizes we are leaving in triumph, with the bad guys and any potential bad guys deterred by the sight of the USA.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
my latest. I mentioned you, but I spelled friend incorrectly. Oh well.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/pilgrim/2007/aug/08/calling_things_by_thei...
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
First, I'm not talking about anything resembling a pullout. Second, if we don't get the Iraqis moving on reconciliation, we won't accomplish anything anyway (we'll only be delaying an eventual full-scale civil war rather than preventing it). Third, if we continue on our present course and allow the Shiites to continue balking on reconciliation, eventually we'll end up either moving to the policy I advocate or very likely drawing down and largely pulling out simply due to political pressure at home. We need to assure the Iraqis that our full support will continue if they meet clear, reasonable benchmarks within a reasonable time frame, or at least demonstrate a good-faith effort toward doing so. Otherwise all our effort and losses will be for nothing.
outside forces that could overthrow the freely elected government, and I don't think it would be betrayal to take the side of the majority in a civil war if a minority made up of deadender sunnis forces the majority to crush them. Before we invaded we had tacitly backed a brutal monority. If a real civil war develops, then we have a stake in who wins it. I favor backing the majority.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
There's more to liberal democracy than being elected. And by "liberal" democracy I don't mean "liberal" as in politically left, I mean in the sense of rule of law and respect for human rights and minority rights. So I don't think "freely elected" should be thrown around as some automatic badge of full legitimacy and respectability for a government.
As for backing the Shiites against the Sunnis (and by the way, most Sunnis are not al Qaeda nor supporters of al Qaeda's goal for Iraq) if we're backing the Shiites amid mass slaughter of Sunnis it will have a very bad impact -- lasting for decades -- on our relations with Sunni governments, may destabilize "moderate" Arab governments as their populations go nuts over it, and on our hopes for changing hearts and minds in the Arab and broader Muslim world to reduce support for Islamic terrorism against the West and gain cooperation in anti-terrorism. Also, if Shiites crush the Sunnis rather than reconciling with them and giving them some power, Iran will expand it's power to an even greater extent via a completely dominant Shiite government.
Given all that, I'd much rather adopt a policy that has the best chance of preventing a full-scale civil war.
Just to avoid any misunderstanding over my use of the term "liberal democracy", if anyone is unfamiliar with the term, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy
I'll never forget a barber I saw on the news whose shop in gaza was bombed that said that nxt election he would vote fo candidates that would make peace with Israel.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
than an elected government. It is important to have an elected opposition too. Too much 'reconciliation' is damaging. If all the parties are part of the government the opposition will be extra-constitutional.
Now, I would agree it might be a bit early for that to be a worry in Iraq. South Africa still has single party dominance and it is now looking for its third President.
Also, political institution building is important, but it is not the horse that pulls the security cart. Arguably, it is the other way round. You need a reasonable degree of stability to build liberal democracy.
Economic growth will follow from that too. There is far too much focus in examinations of the Iraqi economy on the oil/energy sector. This is a) very vulnerable to terrorist sabotage and b) a source of power and wealth for the government, not the people. If Iraq can control its security situation one of the main sources of wealth will be tourism. Turn 100 of Saddam's palaces into museums and the other 100 into luxury hotels.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
The stick that you say you would beat them with if they don't meet your benchmarks is a reduction in military presence. How is that not a pullout?
It may be an incomplete one, but that kind of thin only increases the exposure of the troops we leave there in Addition to increasing the danger and exposure of the Iraqis themselves.
Last year this site was calling that style of surrender the "Slow Bleed Plan"
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
Read what I've said and think about it rather than reflexively throwing out a talking point where it doesn't fit. What I'm advocating, IF the Iraqis don't respond by showing at least a good-faith effort at reconciliation, is a narrowing of objectives and role. It doesn't necessarily mean lowering troop levels, although if we did lower troop levels, it would be because fewer troops are needed to accomplish our narrower objectives. Get it?
You have no stick...
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
If I literally had a stick, I'd swat you with it for not paying attention and thinking. I don't know if you've even read what I've written, but the stick is that -- for the zillionth time -- we would narrow our objectives and role (see my posts and other comments for elaboration), so we would not be supporting them in a broad a manner as currently. We'd stop our reduce our policing of the sectarian violence in Baghdad and elsewhere, and also perhaps reduce economic support and/or other forms of assistance that don't interfere with our goals of fighting al Qaeda and preventing regional war and infiltration by neighbors. Please don't make me repeat what is very clear from my posts and other comments.
In this thread.
And now you have finally included a Stick.
Reducing, or eliminating our policing of Sectarian violence IS a neccessity in our fight against Al Qaeda. Remember them trying to start a civil war via said violence? No stick there.
However, reducing economic support and other forms of monetary aid would just so happen to be a stick. Not much of one, IMO, but at least you have something.
You have a tendency to be vague and make unwarranted assumptions with your posts. Please be clear and succinct for those of us who don't memorize every post you've every made.
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
I really don't know why you're confused. How you could say that I've "finally included a stick" when my whole point from the beginning was to add a stick is beyond me. In my posts and comments it's as clear as can be. I don't want to repeat everything just because you are not reading what I've written or somehow you're just not getting it.
And as for sectarian violence, while al Qaeda is responsible for a higher death toll that is disproportionate relative to their numbers, most Sunni insurgents are not al Qaeda and they, along with Shiite militias, police and others are also involved in sectarian violence in Baghdad and elsewhere, and that's what we'd step back from to some degree if we had to follow through on our threat. We would reduce the extent to which we police and suppress that sectarian violence on the streets of Baghdad, etc., and would focus our forces on attacking al Qaeda targets, reducing infiltration of men and arms from Iran and other neighbors and deterring regional war.
I merely stated that you left most of the content of this post and the immediately previous one out of the rest of your posts on this thread.
And as for your position on monetary aid, I agree. However, no matter how you finesse it, preventing sectarian violence is a neccessary piece of Our fight against Al Qaeda.
We must maintain a stable, safe environment for the average Iraqi to go about his life. Should we cease our policing of sectarian violence, it would be only a short trip from its current levels to potential civil war. Again.
And even a low-grade civil war is a major failure on our part and a prime opportunity for Al Qaeda to regain some of the ground it has lost and is far too close for comfort to a Failed State in Iraq.
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
As I've written repeatedly (and Petraeus seems to agree, as do most analysts and other informed persons), if there is no reconciliation, full-scale civil war is probably inevitable anyway. Therefore it makes sense to use our leverage to pressure the Iraqis toward that reconciliation. Otherwise we are not preventing full-scale civil war, just delaying it, losing lives and dollars in the meantime. And as for al Qaeda, we would still be there fighting them, perhaps even more intensely since we'll be more focused on them rather than on Baathists or Shiite militias in addition to al Qaeda.
You can't build a government or a nation from the top down. Remember Yugoslavia?
We have to keep the peace on the streets without the oppression that some seem to think neccessary so that the ordinary Iraqis get used to working together as fellow Iraqis.
They will vote in the representatives to their government who actually represent them. And the government will change inn that way.
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
I disagree with your premise, but we can agree to disagree.
You and me. Our biggest issue is comunication.
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
threaten to swat a lady. Especially with an imaginary stick I invented.
Raven, didn't know you were a lady. Wouldn't have even joked if I had known.
Cowboy, please put away your six-shooter.
Um, what?
I need to pop on over to the latrine real quick. Gotta check the plumbing...
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
Cowboy said you were a lady and I shouldn't have threatened to swat you with that stick. Sounds like he questioned your manhood/manliness. Them's fightin' words. Looks like a shootout's a comin' at high noon. Watch it -- he's a quick draw.
What we've finally recognized in the surge is that we first need to enlist buy-in at the family and clan level. As that buy-in spreads, a workable government will follow. Trying to start with an overarching government and working downwards will not succeed, as the latest boycotts, etc. are proving. We need the current shell of government as cover, but the real work of nation building is at the lower levels.
We are finally getting the locals to tell us the guys hiding in the building down the street don't belong here.
Political reconciliation is a process that commences with establishing a free and sovereign government. Now if you are willing to provide a relevant analogy comparing the creation of any sovereign Middle Eastern, democratic government (with the political, infrastructural and societal complexities of Iraq) against the progress made to date, it might provide some basis for your opine. However, I strongly suspect there is none.
Why is it that some dismiss our own inability to politically reconcile certain issues or use governmental process to obstruct policy with which we disagree as the workings of democracy, yet we set a different standard for others? Even in this forum we speak of grass roots organizing and the importance of happenings on a local level to build national importance, yet that is dismissed in Iraq as insufficient? There is plenty happening in Iraq that provides hope. Do we want faster progress, more sacrifices from their leaders and more arduous attempts at building a government with longevity? Well that’s an easy answer; yes, especially since that is why we are there in the first place. Conclusively, only an idealist would claim all is perfect and there is no room for improvement. However, I have yet to see that posture taken or articulated by anyone in this administration. Propagation of that notion is an absolutely misleading falsehood.
Read the latest Benchmark Assessment Report and other relevant documents, there is plenty to be hopeful for. I realize it will be the new tact of Democrats to now attack the political progress in the face of coming reports of military success. However, the record will show those attacks are just as ill founded as their “war is lost” theme. Progress is only a matter of time, it is once again our own will that is central to successful achievement.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
I want the first question Tim Russert asks Barack Obama to be:
"Do you understand why we're in Iraq?"
I know that Barack does not. Which is one of many reasons why he has always been unfit to be a leader.
Romney/Thompson 2008
[*Retread. Disregard. - Moe Lane]
and Pollack wrote a book before the 2003 invasion titled "The case for invading Iraq".
These are no liberals, same as writing for the NY Times doesn't make David Brooks a liberal.
and while they supported the initial invasion, they soon grew frustrated with the execution. Within a couple years, they went from supporting the invasion to heavily criticizing the execution. Get your facts straight. The Brookings Institute is a left of center think tank, not far left, but left of center.
Or were they like everyone else and switched in just months?
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
Sounds like Viet Nam '66 -'67...give us some more troops and a little more time and we'll win this war...we beat 'em every time on the battlefield...they can't stand up to U.S. power...if we lose this war, the American way of life is threatened with extinction...I guess it is true - those who forget the past are condemned to re-live it...
lucslawyer
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Here's another blast from the past:
Turn on, tune in, drop out
If you would, please focus heavily on part three.
the immediate aftermath of our "withdrawl" from VietNam™ is too stupid to be of any consequence.
Enjoy your brief stay at RedState - rest comfortably in the knowledge that your departure will be unlamented.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
It's not often I've really been sad that I don't have a blamming stick. I would pay to blam this one.
Hey Moe, I've got a bottle of 18 year old single malt scotch that was supposed to go to Jeff as a homecoming gift. I'll UPS to you bright and early if I can blam this idiot. And I'll not only replace the gift for Jeff, I'll make it two.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
... or Bull Run '61, or Valley Forge '77, or N. Africa '42, or Guadalcanal '42.
We're just a bunch of f'ing hopeless losers, huh?
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins
Is that why the Kos punks are around so often now?
I guess they went there to get laid, and it didn't work out, and we are seeing the frenzy that results. Just hold on guys - there's always next year...
I've got to know what my enemies are thinking...and Vladimir...as to Bull Run '61 - there are those who still believe the South had the right to secede...as to Valley Forge '77 - those Americans were sure a dissident lot, weren't they? - I mean, disagreeing with the King...the gall of those people... as to N. Africa '42 and Guadalcanal '42 - Hell, it took an attack on Pearl Harbor to get the republicans off their asses and into the war...(you see, republicans were among the leaders of the "America First" committee, dedicated to keeping America out of the war)...and that attack was carried out by the organized armed forces of a sovereign nation...aww, enough of the history lesson...go read it for yourself....
Your version of the history of the run-up to WWII in particular is, well, rather skewed. No matter.
Adios, dope.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
The trend in American History is to use only one name for each of the Civil War battles. The new practice is to only use the name the side that won the battle ascribed to it. In consequence, the First Battle of Bull Run is now pretty much only called the First Battle of Manassas in textbooks.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
File him under "Can't make it past free legal defense attorney".
Are they now giving law degrees online? Is he between classes, and that's why he's here?
"Oh, I'm not going anywhere..."
I have two words for you, dipstick: "Joseph Kennedy".
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins
BrooksRob and others have a pretty interesting debate above about Iraqi political reconciliation and so forth. The point that BrooksRob seems to keep making (and Gen. Petraeus made the same point) is that all the troops in the world isn't going to be enough without political progress between the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites in Iraq.
Okay... so... don't we have to do something about Iran if we're going to allow for a legitimate effort on the part of Sunni & Shi'a in Iraq to get together to reconcile?
I mean, isn't the whole analysis possibly missing the impact of Iranian meddling in the affairs of Iraq by leveraging their Shiite puppets inside Iraq? Granted, Moqtada has fled to Tehran, but his people are still in the streets. I can't imagine that Iran would see a unified and reconciled Iraq as a benefit to its ambitions for regional domination.
So, I come back to this. If we are to have true unity within Iraq, true political progress on all sundry things from oil revenue sharing to seats in parliament, aren't we going to have to do something about keeping Iranian fingers out of the Iraqi pie?
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
Minimizing Iranian infiltration (weapons and trained men) would certainly be helpful in achieving reconciliation. I have to assume they are aiding and strengthening the most radical elements, the least likely to be interested in reconciliation and the most likely to threaten fellow Shiites that do seek reconciliation. We should seek to minimize Iran's influence now, and should (as I've stated) even if we adopt my approach and the Iraqi Shiites balk at reconciliation.
As they say, the devil is in the details.
Of course we all can agree that we should "seek to minimize Iran's influence". Question is how.
Talking isn't doing much of anything. And I'm assuming we're "talking" to them, or at them, or in their general direction. But talking in this instance seems particularly... inappropriate. I mean, what would we possibly say to them? In any sort of "talking", there has to be either an incentive or a disincentive.
What's our incentive? "Hey, if you let Iraq alone, creating a substantial barrier to your regional domination plans, then we'll let you have... ???"
And of our disincentive, apart from, "Lay off, or we invade" (which, given our political climate, sounds suspiciously like empty saber rattling even to me)... what else do we have?
It's a real doozy, this one. And of course, once Iran acquires nuclear weapons, then we must gracelessly concede the battlefield and come home to hunker down to a new Dark Ages....
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
We should continue to strike targets related to weapons infiltration and training from Iran, including training camps inside Iran if the targets and/or the "message" would likely be a net benefit (considering negative repercussions such as possible Iranian retaliation in Iraq or against Persian Gulf shipping, and potential for rallying the Iranian population behind their leadership).
We can seek tougher economic sanctions and broader participation in them by other nations (I don't have specifics on this, but maybe others do)
We could even hit their very limited oil refinery capacity, again if it would be worth the potential consequences to us. I think they already have to import a large portion of their gasoline due to this limited refinery capacity, and prices have been going up and/or rationing taking place, angering the population.
Also, again we have leverage to use to apply pressure for reconciliation directly upon the Iraqi leaders, particularly the Shiites, as long as they very much want our full military and economic support, so Iranian meddling need not prevent reconciliation, although I agree it's not a positive influence.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
in a very long time on how we might handle the Iran problem. Thank you for that.
But we really have to stop the nuclear weapons program; otherwise, that neighborhood gets entirely too nasty to park tens of thousands of our best and brightest in....
I hope they're doing some crazy planning over at the Pentagon and elsewhere.
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
Thanks, and you're absolutely right re: nukes. In fact, it occurred to me since my last comment that all the potential steps I listed would have to be considered anyway because of the nuke issue (and even more so, since that's an even greater threat than their meddling in Iraq, although the latter is no small matter).
I have to assume the Pentagon is gaming out scenarios (but then again, they didn't start planning the occupation of Iraq until 60 days before the invasion, and got a very slow start even at that point. The State Department had developed substantial plans, but the Pentagon was put in charge of the occupation and they -- specifically Rumsfeld and a couple of other individuals -- chose to disregard those plans).
however I would just like to make one small correction,
it isn't that the tide maybe turning but that it is turning. That doesn't guarantee success or victory or anything, but the O'Hanlon and Pollack absolutely turned the tide if it wasn't already turning. This momentum must be carried if we are to see success. It would be really nice if we heard about an Al Masri death for instance. If civilian deaths took a dramatic turn south this month, that would be good? If military deaths went down that would be good also. We will see.