A good read from Jed Babbin, on Harry Reid's corrosive impact
By smagar Posted in Congress — Comments (88) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
This Human Events article by Jed Babbin is a pretty good roundup of the arguments against Harry Reid. If you're looking for something to forward/share in your discussions with liberals & moderates on the Iraq War, consider sharing this.
Here are, IMO, some of the power takeaway quotes Babbin makes:
On Harry Reid's and the Democrats' dishonesty over how they'd handle the current war effort:
Last November, the Democrats seized control of Congress on the pretense that they wanted to change our policy regarding Iraq but not -- as they, to a man (and a woman) insisted -- to merely cut and run. We knew they weren’t being truthful then, but too many people were taken in. Now all pretense is dispensed with: we can see the man behind the curtain.
That "man behind the curtain" is, of course, one of the primary leaders of the national Democratic party. Good leaders set examples, by the words they say and the actions they execute and the impressions they create and project. So, what kind of example is Senate Majority Leader Reid setting? What kind of spirit is he creating?
The Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, believes the war in Iraq is lost. There is nothing about that conclusion that bothers Reid: He is as blasé as he is certain, as resolute in pursuit of defeat as Churchill was in pursuit of victory.
Hey, does that leadership image lift and motivate you? Does it leave you feeling inspired? Boy, I sure would be....if I was an al Qaeda jihadhi, that is!
But hey...Harry Reid has clarified! It's our fault, because we didn't get the nuance of what he was saying!
"Given the White House spin machine that's been working overtime in an effort to defend its failed policies, I think it's important for me to repeat what I said yesterday afternoon in this chamber," Reid emphasized. "The longer we continue down the President's path, the further we will be from responsibly ending this war. I said it yesterday, I say it again. The longer we continue down the President's path, the further we will be from responsibly ending this war."
Emphasis added, because, as we all know by now, he went to the Senate chamber to try to clean up what he said on camera earlier, in clear and deliberate English, that the war in Iraq was lost.
And then, if you can believe it, he had the nerve to say this:
"No one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than the Democrats. We've proven that time and time again since this war started more than four years ago. We take a back seat to no one in supporting our troops, and we will never abandon our troops in a time of war.
The man has chutzpah, I have to give him that. Common sense? Maybe not. But chutzpah? Definately!
(H/T to Michelle Malkin and the Hartford Courant for the above article)
More Babbin:
When Reid says the war is lost, the troops hear. They understand that they are still risking their lives every day for a war the Democrats are content to lose. There can be no more destructive assault on their morale. It is only because of their inherent quality -- much higher than the draftees of Vietnam -- that they don’t abandon the field.
Think about that. In order to succeed, our line soldiers have to rise above their national leaders! (What's even more impressive---those soldiers are doing just that.)
And yes, our troops most certainly DO hear. Hey, they have the Internet and Fox News in Iraq---did you know that? (The Dems do, and yet they keep saying things like Sen Reid did this past week.)
So, what do the troops think: (H/T Michelle Malkin)
Senator Reid,
It is difficult to write this letter with any civility, but I think enough people will scream so much, with enough cursing and invective, that I will not need to add any more for you to get the point, that you infuriate those Americans who serve in the military with your careless, ignorant, mean-spirited, and frankly, dangerous remarks.You, sir, are not any average, private citizen. You are a Senator of the United States of America, and whatever your political views or allegiances may be, you must first show loyalty to and serve with honor your country. Yet, you do not do so, and you have disgraced whatever nobility or honor you might have earned serving your constituency.
Even if our efforts in Iraq were an absolute failure, which they are surely not, you abuse your position and the Nation’s trust by declaring that the war is lost. Can you not comprehend how wrong it is for you to make such a statement?! Regardless of your partisan views, which seem to me awfully petty indeed when compared to the national security of our country or the lives of our soldiers, you must have enough sense of decency or patriotism that, at the least, to know that you don’t damage or hurt your nation and the public servants with the most on the line?!
You embolden our enemies, you discourage our allies, you demoralize the troops who serve, and you denigrate those Iraqis who have turned to the US as their hope for freedom, after decades of living under the tyranny and violence of a war criminal and a brutal oppression.
...
Sir,
We have attack helicopters, the insurgents don't and this unit does not take prisoners. There is no such thing as a fair weather warrior, but you have become a fair weather Senator, a disgrace to our country and a hero to spineless people who will not fight anyone. Let us fight an enemy who will not quit fighting us even if you succeed in pulling us out of this country. The Iraqis overwhelmingly support us as their allies.What you are saying to the Iraqis is what? "Go to hell."
How dare you say that this war is lost.
You had better thank President Bush for getting rid of Saddam Hussein and insuring that Iraq will not have WMDs for the foreseeable future.
You and Feingold are a piece of work when you assume to direct the commander in chief with your misguided defunding bills. I will follow our President, I will not follow you and your guidance.
Decide to fund the warriors here in Iraq and those lined up to take our place; quit supporting the spineless ones who have bribed you into kissing bin Laden's ass.
SSG Hinz, Daniel
1-82 ARB 25 CAB
COB Speicher
...
Senator Reid: When you say we've lost in Iraq, I don't think you understand the effect of your words. The Iraqis I speak with are the good guys here, fighting to build a stable government. They hear what you say, but they don't understand it. They don't know about the political game, they don't know about a Presidential veto, and they don't know about party politics.
But they do know that if they help us, they are noticed by terrorists and extremists. They decide to help us if they think we can protect them from those terrorists. They tell us where caches of weapons are hidden. They call and report small groups of men who are strangers to the neighborhood, men that look the same to us, but are obvious to them as a foreign suicide cell.To be brief, your words are killing us. Your statements make the Iraqis afraid to help us for fear we'll leave them unprotected in the future. They don't report a cache, and its weapons blow up my friends in a convoy. They don't report a foreign fighter, and that fighter sends a mortar onto my base. Your statements are noticed, and they have an effect.
Finally, you are mistaken when you say we are losing. We are winning, I see it every day. However, we will win with fewer casualties if you help us. Will you?
Respectfully,
LT Jason Nichols, USN
MNF-I, Baghdad
Maybe it's me, but those men don't sound motivated and inspired by Reid, or the rest of the Dems (Lieberman excepted).
Babbin again:
On April 23, 1971 John Kerry told a Senate Committee, “We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” In those years, the morale of our troops was destroyed piecemeal by Kerry and his cohorts. Reid is merely a new manifestation of the Democrats’ pathology. He, like the rest, don’t give a damn about our troops. They care only about their path to greater political power.
Emphasis added. Good point Babbin, a former DOD official and Air Force officer, makes about the slow erosion of troop morale. It's amazing what soldiers can do in a crisis if their motiviation and spirit are high. Comments like those of Kerry, Reid, Rahm Emmanuel (who commented on 2006 Election Night about our failure in Iraq---a comment that elicited boos in the Army chow halls where the election news was being shown), San Fran Nan, etc... slowly chip chip chip away at morale. That increases the risk that, at some point, when that soldier goes to his internal spirit/motivation well, the well might have run dry.
Meanwhile, our MSM, whose members find their inspiration in (a)Davos invites, (b) pats on the backs by the "proper" people at Kennedy Center cocktail parties and (c) "Charlie Rose" appearances, can't quite grasp the damage of Reid's comments. Or, out of fear of those choice invites drying up, they won't comment in print/on air about it.
(Do they think we don't notice? Do they think the troops don't notice? Strange...I thought our MSMers were smart people. Well, "book smart" and "life smart" are apparently two different things.)
Anyhoo, back to Babbin in closing.
Harry Reid’s statement compels one more conclusion: that the Democrats are incapable of leading this nation to victory against this existential threat.
Amen, Jed. We need to make this argument again and again and again in the next two years, leading up to November 2008. 40% of Americans won't agree. But, all we need is 51% to change things. One way we can help change things: share articles like Jed Babbin's, and force other people to think. Think about how comments like Harry Reid's makes them feel, and whether they really think that American leaders should say things like that in time of war. My guess--if you get enough people to think about that, Reid won't be in power past January 2009.
May we all labor earnestly in between now and then to make it so.
From The National Strategy For Victory In Iraq. As issued by the official elected in 2004---with the first popular majority in a long time!--to set and execute such policy.
Helping the Iraqi People Defeat the Terrorists and Build an Inclusive Democratic State
Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages
Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.
Our short term goals are not yet accomplished. Hence, we keep working.
If you want to quit, go ahead. Don't let the door hit you in your spineless butt on the way out.
And if you want to establish the rep on this site as a doofus and a pest, keep writing comments like this one. IMO, of course.
(And, if "facilely" is not a word...well, it should be!)
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Iraqis are fighting and dying in greater numbers than US troops precisely because they want "those things."
I can't believe you haven't noticed.
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
You are one of those "religion of peace" guys.
Sorry, I don't buy it. Most of the violence is Iraqi on Iraqi so your theory of a unified vision of the future is clearly wrong.
I am all for idealism. I would love to think the world can just join hands and sing cumbahyah but I don't. I would love to believe that we can stamp out evil in the world, but I don't. I would love to believe Sunni and Shiite can live in peace, but I don't.
Feel free to push off now. Redstaters, don't feel the need to dialogue with this guy on my account. IMO he's a pinhead, and not worth our time.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
"what if the Iraqi people don't want those things. Then what?"
One question for you: What if they do and we abandon them? Second question: What in the world makes you think they don't?
Harry Reid on Iraq: “I say we’ve lost. Let’s bring our boys home in, oh, say 18 months. In the meantime, no more funding for them.”
1400 years of history proves to me they don't.
If the question is what is in Iraq best interest, I see your point. I am coming from a different point of view - what is in the best interest of the United States.
if they want... "those things" isn't it best to let them earn it on their own? wouldn't it be the most ideal circumstance if our assistance was requested instead of foisted upon them?
on the American colonies? Without the aid of our stronger allies, we would never have achieved independence from the British.
Granted, in the case of Iraq, we did oust the dictator who had been so beneficent to his people doing the work of the United Nations. But still, we are the ally of the Iraqi people, and leaving now would be the ultimate betrayal.
the fact that the elections were acclaimed by everyone, even the MSM, to be a big success, and that the government elected in them hasn't asked us to leave, indicates a desire on the part of most Iraqis to have liberty rather than tyranny. It's the equivalent of a request for assistance, under the circumstances. There was no opportunity for the request to be issued under the tyranny of Saddam.
Call the fighting there a "civil war" when it suits you, or "anti-occupation violence" when that suits you, the fact remains that there are many Iraqis who are putting their own lives on the line to make their democracy work.
Reference has been made to Sunni-Shiia conflicts. There is some of that, egged on by the forces that do want a theocracy established. But if that were the way they all felt, there would be no question that such a result was a popular demand. I don't think that's now the case. The fact that the violence among Iraqis is concentrated in a few areas and is not widespread supports that notion.
Harry Reid on Iraq: “I say we’ve lost. Let’s bring our boys home in, oh, say 18 months. In the meantime, no more funding for them.”
Timmcg, you are employing questions for a hobby-horse game of interrogational checkmate aren’t you? Or are you just sincerely seeking the truth?
Have you tried asking yourself how al Qaeda in Iraq defines victory for their strategy? How Sen. Reid’s declamation of loss and pull out is precisely what they define as victory, the fuel that fires their kiln?
So when you say “We have achieved our objectives:” I ask who is this “We” you cast yourself in with. I can clearly answer that I have no part with such a group.
If they choose theocracy over democracy there then so it shall be. If it is of the nature of the Kalifah Islamic theocracy whose manifest destiny is to establish supremacy over us, then we must confront it there in an existential conflict. Fortunately that does not appear to be the case for there are many among those who have been elected – armed with a ratified constitution -- that want democracy and a modern state for predominantly Muslim population. Our objective is rightly to continue to support them, for their success or loss is a vital battle in our longer term struggle against the Kalifah movement.
John E.
Seeking the truth.
I DON'T care how al Qaeda defines success - I DO care about what is in the best interest of the United States. I'm not their dancing bear.
How long do we support the Iraqi government? What if the only thing we are supporting is what we prop up?
I don't believe the Iraqis want democracy over theocracy. I don't believe the Sunni & Shiite people in Iraq want to live in equality or peace. Isn't that how victory has been defined? How do you achieve something that is outside your control?
Defeat is unacceptable, the consequences of failure would be catastrophic and felt world-wide and Sen. Reid's minority position which advocates defeat is untenable.
Success in Iraq is but one objective of a broad Middle East strategy that greatly impacts the security and economic interests of the region and the national security interests of the United States, as well as the safety and economic security of the American people.
I'm not willing to sacrifice my children's safety and economic security for political expedience. Are you?
With that in mind: For as long as it takes, and by what ever means necessary.
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
We are going to stay until Sunni's and Shiite live together in harmony? Ummmm.... you do realize the clock is ticking on 1400 years on this one already, right?
The consequences of failure would be catastrophic.
You do realize, Iraqis are fighting and dying because they've rejected that past, and they're trying desperately to secure a future that lies on a path which no longer embraces, requires nor succumbs to oppression.
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
If "The consequences of failure would be catastrophic," why is the United States not acting accordingly?
Why do we need to pay huge retention bonuses and re-enlistment bonuses to get people in uniform?
Why are we cross leveling equipment instead of buying equipment?
Why are we limiting the numbers of troops in Iraq?
If failure would be catastrophic why is there no talk of a draft? Or would a Draft in the US be more catastrophic than failure in Iraq?
Tell ya what, elect Hillary in 2008 and you will have no choice but to reinstate the military draft, because you will not be able to PAY ENOUGH to get a military to support that woman.
If Candidate Clinton promises to avoid nation building, pledges that "help is on the way" to rebuild the military and supports the Murtha Readiness Requirements in the pending bill, she will have majority support amongst at least the serving Army.
Her husband didn't even have the support of the military. He was a joke. I had friends that worked in his secret service detail; the stories they would tell...
What makes you think she would be any different?
someone as out of touch with reality as you are, they were in the final stages of Alzheimer's.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
she will have majority support amongst at least the serving Army.
At the very least, the majority of the standing Army recognizes that Murtha's "requirements" are intended to strangle our expeditionary force, and force it to redeploy home prematurely. (Something you favor, I suspect?)
Besides fantasy, what makes you think the majority of the serving Army will support HRC on anything?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
well, one of them anyway. All 300,000,000 million Americans are entitled to express their opinions on Iraq and are not supposed to defer to rank or title of any kind. That applies from the lowliest E-1 to the octagenarian lady who's president of the garden club. Everyone is entitled to express opinions without snarky interventions from self-appointed experts.
Liberals and antiwar opponents, who wouldn't know port from a porthole, have picked up a nasty habit of hiding behind designated spokesmen with military backgrounds, as if that matters when it comes to questions of national security. Their goal is to quash discussion by demanding deference. Now if you wish to offer your services in this endeavor, it is your right to engage in this enterprise, which does have a similarity to the world's oldest profession.
An oak leaf is not a fig leaf. Stop using it to argue.
"The consequences of failure would be catastrophic."
The biggest loser would be the Sunni terrorists and foreign fighters. Our leaving would precipitate a Shiite take over & the Sunni terrorists would not be able to leave and not be able to win. It would be a absolute meat grinder for them.
Do you remember how everyone made fun of Congressman Reyes last fall who did not know that al Qaeda was Sunni?
It is amazing what happens when you explain to people that Somolia has al Qaeda because it is a Sunni Country. Ditto for Afghanistan. BUT Iraq is a Shiite country where they would probably like to exterminate the Sunnis who also happen to be al Qaeda.
If that were all that was at stake, then I might have more in common with your prescriptions. I consider that assessment to be a dangerous piece of domestic political propaganda however.
AQ, no let me say the Kalifahs, because AQ is just the tip of their iceberg. There are 120-180 million Muslims that share this Kalifah dream with AQ (see http://www.libforall.org/background-islamic-diversity.html). And there are even more that may be sucked into such a movement if it gains momentum. In Iraq they are exploiting the historical Sunni-Shia tensions through horrific provocations. These tensions have not always produced violent sectarian fighting. Co-existing in violence is not an inevitability. Rather AQ has succeeded in converting these tensions into violence. It is a superb strategy for it unleashes disorder upon the society. Their objective is to bring down all the governments in “Muslim lands” so that they can establish the Kaliphate; so disorder is the perfect prescription for their system of thought. Iraq is a foothold. If we leave they won’t stop executing this grand strategy. They will try to exploit it further and extend the volatility throughout the region because they know it will draw in the partisans from surrounding States. Attack a bear’s cubs and that bear is going to try to do an dance on your dung heap, it’s just natural.
Where do you find expert testimony that claims a Sunni-Shia apocalypse is inevitable? I really don’t find 1400 years of history that suggest this.
John E.
Do you think the US presence in Iraq fuels anti-American feeling throughout the Muslim world or do you think it promotes pro-American feelings?
do you think after we 'cut and run,' will we EVER have a single Ally believe a thing our nation says ever again? Our world support will be exactly what it deserves to be if we abandon YET ANOTHER ally. ZERO!
You ever see the movie love story?
"Being the world's only super power means you never have to say you're sorry"
Seriously, after 4 years of Iraq, our relationships in the middle east are worse than they were. Same with Europe and especially Britain. Oh yeah, include Asia & Russia in the mix as well. And don't forget that a dime store dictator is more popular in South America than Bush.
Where is it better???
That being said, our support in Antarctica hasn't changed.
Because there is such a free press, with a free flow of information throughout the world, and the US is never portrayed as the evil Imperialist, our standing will go UP if we allow slaughter by running away.
All it will require for the US to become popular is for the US to become a second class power, with a second class economy and a second class standart of living.
US relationship in Europe and Mideast? Right. We leave the Iraqis holding the bag and we will be much loved. The only way we are loved by the world is when we aid that world to attain freedom. We're hated in Russia? Funny we're loved in those Eastern European countries that we helped free from Russia. But, we can end that if we try.
Well then timmcg, seems to me that we are engaged in the interrogation game, not pondering for truth. It’s a fun game but I’ve got productive things to do that make me feel guilty for indulging in such sport at the present time.
Here is an honest answer for you anyhow, since I have done you the disservice of writing you off.
Yes, I do think our presence in Iraq -- and all other “Muslim lands” for that matter – fuels the anti-American sentiment you refer to. I don’t think it justifiably should; rather quite the contrary. But given the preformed anti-American disposition which exists for many reasons, not the least of which is our support for Israel, it is inevitable that anything we do which advances our position will fuel these sentiments; even though we are acting magnanimously. There are some rather obvious steps we could take to deflect this anti-Americanism. Just check out Ahmadenijad’s letter to president Bush.
Your analysis of the intolerance inevitable between Sunnis and Shia is of a piece with the analysis that Islam itself is by its very nature a hopelessly intolerant and violent religion. There are many Muslims – and progressive historians for example, but not just to say only progressive ones – that dispute that characterization. If your analysis is correct however, then we probably do indeed foresee our Armageddon and all ought to be gearing up our militancy not gearing it down. At least that is the conclusion I would reach if you do manage to convince me of your view of Islamic intolerance expressed in the Sunni-Shia tensions.
Perhaps we can at least agree that the existential nature of these policy questions puts severe pressures on us to be well-informed. Peace, Love and Bluegrass Man.
John E.
The only way Harry Reid can undo the damage caused his irresponsible declaration of defeat is to fall on his sword (as regards the ML). If he doesn't do it voluntarily, he should be pushed.
John E.
which as Jed Babbin points out is both endemic and historic in the Dem party, you make something of a point. This goes to prove that if you keep swinging eventually you will get a hit, much like those thousand monkeys who keep banging away on typewriters and after a millennium come up with Shakespeare.
"Living in harmony" is an impossibility for people so in thrall with death, but then how do we use or define harmony?
The key is the 1400 years you refer to. Granted throats were always slit while new throats were searched for but the achievable trick is to arrive at a point where slaughter gives way to mere murder, a difference in quantity. There have been considerable periods of time in the past when islamic butchery has been made to subside. This considerable feat has been accomplished through the only thing devotees of a religion of peace understand, defeat.
As you have by now surmised I am not an enthusiast for both a transnational peanut butter spread of democracy along with victory, only victory. Victory as defined in the clear sense that while murder will always have to find an outlet, it can be reduced to both manageable and restricted geographical conditions.
This can happen if and when both sets of organized killers come to realize that more is to be gained by a union and truce between them while allowing for a minimum low level, occasional and recreational murder, then by open war with each other and certainly, war with us.
It has happened in the past, it can be caused to happen again, it is doable but not by September 2008.
You will forgive the cynicism in my post but as you said, 1400 years. Democracy would be nice but first victory, somewhat redefined, but victory nonetheless.
And Harry Reid & Company aren't helping.
P S, we don't have a choice.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
"There have been considerable periods of time in the past when islamic butchery has been made to subside. This considerable feat has been accomplished through the only thing devotees of a religion of peace understand, defeat."
I agree. I don't think America can do it because, as outsiders, we would have to be doubly brutal and our country flat out does not have the stomach for genocide.
Therefore, the only way there will be peace in Iraq is if a Shiite strongman (or strongmen) come to power and rule the country with an iron fist. Oh, and by the way, the Sunni terrorists and the radical Islamic movement will be torn to threads - not a bad by product, in my mind.
we did in the countries of Europe.
When they ask us to leave, we leave.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
The Weinberger/Powell Doctrine is absolutely correct in that any action must have the support of the People and of the Congress to have ultimate success.
The support of the People has collapsed. There is no longer "as long as it takes." Any path that is chosen must take in consideration political realities.
It is a complete disservice to "the troops" to give them a five year plan that is going to be jettisoned in less than two years under a new administration!!
"any action must have the support of the People and of the Congress to have ultimate success."
Popular support waxes and wanes, but what you and Quitter-in-Chief Reid have missed is that quitting short of "as long as it takes" means the battlefield may be empty but the war is still going on. Only now, we'll have fewer allies who believe our resolve, and the enemy will be even harder to convince. Support will grow quickly after the next attack inside the US, and "the People" will be wondering how the quitters' vision could have been so wrong.
In fact, there is no alternative to "as long as it takes," because our enemy has no intention of quitting just because we abandon Iraq.
Do you remember how quickly Quaddafi decided to become a non-player after we went into Iraq after Saddam? That, a victory without a battle, will never happen again if we follow Harry Reid.
"It is a complete disservice to "the troops" to give them a five year plan that is going to be jettisoned in less than two years under a new administration!!"
It's certainly a disservice to announce that they've lost, but tell them and our enemies that they have to keep trying, anyway.
Harry Reid on Iraq: “I say we’ve lost. Let’s bring our boys home in, oh, say 18 months. In the meantime, no more funding for them.”
The support of the People has collapsed.
Actually, many people do support this mission. Many more do not want to see us cut and run. Now, perhaps YOU have quit---but that is another matter altogether.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
What does "cut and run" even mean? It's a pithy slogan, but it obfuscates more than it helps. Again, what is the goal? If the goal is to turn Iraqi into U.S.A. Jr., a secular, liberal, consumerist democracy in which people live together in relative peace and harmony, in which there's a pretty distinct seperation between church and state, in which there's a Walmart and an Applebees in every town, and in which the U.S. is a revered friend and trusted ally, then I think that the goal is a pipe dream on par with wanting to turn all the sand in Iraq into gold.
We need a better defined goal, on that tells the American people exactly what we're doing in Iraq. We should help the Iraqi forces develop, and then get out. There may be bloodbaths, but that's up to the Iraqis to decide. Every country has had some sort of bloodbath in its national history, something necessary in the development of its national character and destiny. Only the Iraqis can choose to live in peace. We can't make them, any more than the Chinese could force the U.S. to adopt Communism if it invaded us.
That said, it's not up to Senator Reid to decide when the war is "lost." Reid isn't the C-in-C, and he isn't a general. If he has concerns with the war strategy, then he should address them with the President in private. His words are an embarrassment, as they make the U.S. look indecisive and disorganized.
I personally don’t see how you can separate those two things; I can’t. Here is a rather sophisticated conservative statement of your “dancing bear” allusion. I find it to be thought stripped of heart. Furthermore, the analogy fails for me because our context is not a stage show but a boxing ring. http://www.amconmag.com:80/2007/2007_02_12/feature.html
How long do we fight in Iraq? Until AQ is defeated there. Until their strategy of mayhem as the means to destabilize that government and society, and the consequent opportunity for their own assertion of control by brutal intimidation is utterly smashed. Of course, you must have already heard this answer because it is the repeated standard. Why am I spending time articulating it?
As for what we are propping up, it has been elected. And future elections may change it. And perhaps we shall have to reevaluate then.
What you believe is relevant to what you support. I personally find the generalizations in your belief to be tendentious and a gloss. There is evidence that some Iraqis want theocracy not democracy. Some want sectarian supremacy, some re-bathification. Some are caught in the Hatfield-McCoy cycle. Some want tolerant democracy. What “the people of Iraq” want cannot be expressed in simplistic terms. What the “people of America” want can’t be expressed simply either. Sadly so, because the eventual triumph of those Iraqis who want a tolerant democracy is clearly in our interests, and despite the accusations of cultural hubris that I expose myself to, I believe it is clearly in the best interest of the children of Iraq. There is a complex moral pressure there bears down upon my beleifs about this situation.
John E.
You are being a principled conservative instead of a partisan republican by asking such questions.
What many do not realize is that support amongst those in the military (Army/Marines), in particular the reserve components, is dropping precipitously. Retention/recruiting has been held together by the largest incentive packages in the history of the military. Even then, those taking the bonuses are those that have already seen their marriages and families destroyed. Guys that still have a marriage and a family are getting out when they can.
I have been to both Iraq and Afghanistan (post 9/11)and when you weigh the "cost" of Iraq with the "risk" of eroding readiness to fight the Global War on Terror, it becomes extremely obvious as to the course of action that should be taken.
Is Harry Reid correct that we "lost?" From a military perspective, absolutely not because the military conflict was one a long time ago. Will the United States "win" the Political/Economic/Diplomatic "battle" in Iraq? Who knows, because the "civilian warriors" needed to do that mission are "AWOL." We should no longer be asked to support the troops in Iraq. We should be talking about supporting the GS Employees that have gone to Iraq!
In the 1990s there were very few in uniform that would openly speak out against Somalia,Haiti and Bosnia. There was however extensive behind the scenes resentment regardless of the Clinton photo ops where he stood with the troops.
Today, there is a large swath in the Army/Marine Corps, especially in the Senior Commissioned and Non-Commissioned Grades, that would quietly cheer a planned and properly funded withdrawal from Iraq. They would cheer because after four years of conflict they realize this is nation building, something the President opposed during the 2000 debates, and that the Nation is being subjected to great risk because instead of a Nation "going to war" and building/replenishing the Armed Forces it was to told to "go shopping."
Are these the comments that a reporter or blogger will get when they ask a Career Soldier/Marine in public? Not at all. These are the comments that are shared amongst men that measure their friendship in more than one decade and have served together in more than one conflict.
In 2008, as there is very little to indicate that the status quo will be improved in Iraq, the large edge that the Republican party had amongst currently serving military members will be erased.
are going to support a party that wants to surrender to anyone that says boo????????? A political party that currently has no political leaders that will defend the United States.
"In 2008, as there is very little to indicate that the status quo will be improved in Iraq, the large edge that the Republican party had amongst currently serving military members will be erased."
That's not the military I served in.
in people like me who have a loved one serving in a combat arm - my youngest is an infantryman in Afghanistan. I posted a blog on this the day after the election and nothing has happened to change my mind. I really do not trust the Pelosi/Reid/Clinton/Edwards/Obama types of the world with my son's life, and it is taking all I can do to refrain from actively discouraging him from re-enlisting.
I see them returning to the WJC model of a paper military, thank God there was still enough equipment around from the Reagan/Bush days that they couldn't starve them for equipment, that they can trot out to make them look good or put their peccadillos below the fold. I don't want my kid sent to some s**thole like Darfur because "the international community wants something done" and then denied proper air support because it might cause civilian damage or denied armor because armor might look too bellicose.
In Vino Veritas
You are being a principled conservative instead of a partisan republican by asking such questions.
Don't play that game, he's as big a lib as you are!
And this sounds an awful lot like a variation on, "study hard and get good grades. Try to be smart, or else..."
Even then, those taking the bonuses are those that have already seen their marriages and families destroyed. Guys that still have a marriage and a family are getting out when they can.
Not the military people I speak with.
the Nation is being subjected to great risk because instead of a Nation "going to war" and building/replenishing the Armed Forces it was to told to "go shopping."
Nice out of context TalkingPoint™.
After the nation was attacked, with the CLEAR INTENTION of destroying our economy, the President told the American people not allow the terrorist to win by allowing that economy to collapse. Repeatedly, liberal clowns have used that phrase to belittle everything this President has done since. I'm sure you didn't intend it that way, of course.
I don't see many silent defeatists amongst the letters from the field I see posted over there. So, there's a silent whispering campaign among our military? OK---if you say so.
It sounds as if you've quit. Most of our troops have not. Do not presume to speak for them. We here are certainly not fooled into thinking you speak for them.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
is flat out wrong. Incentives fluctuate with the civilian job market as well as the desire to grow or trim technical skill areas in the military. Today's incentives are not even close to the pilot bonuses paid during the 80's when the airlines were expanding. Today, SPECWAR has some significant incentives because the training pipeline is long and there is good financial opportunities in private security outside the military.
Your broad brushed comments regarding morale are also incorrect, at least among the active duty force. There has been some significant adjusting using the reserve forces in deployment rotation - a concept that should have started decades ago. The reserves now are a viable fighting force.
I had to laugh regarding your comments about Bosnia and Somalia - you obviously weren't there and you couldn't be more wrong. I spent quite a bit of time in Sarajevo, Vincenza as well as flying missions and it was a cluster-F thanks to micro-managing and incompetence from senior civilian defense officials. Somalia was worse - sending live video of the carnage to the WH Situation Room - no action allowed though - the WH either couldn't care less or entertained themselves watching the slaughter. The resulting disrespect the senior defense officials was widespread. Remember troops on food stamps.
Learn some history
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
Declare victory, regardless of the facts on the ground and the obvious outcome, and leave!
Leave in a hurry, with our tails tucked firmly between our legs.
Leave behind anyone who supported us...leave behind a people unable to defend themselves. Yes, that is certainly the answer.
Vietnam was but one battle in the overall Cold War.
An interesting SSC essay would ask, could the US have won the cold war if it had stayed in Vietnam for another decade?
In retrospect, leaving Vietnam was the right choice though at the time, many said the result would be catastrophic to the United States.
Why do you libs learn all the WRONG lessons from history. vietnam wouldn't have taken another decade...would have ended by 1070 were it not for the Anti-War Protest Movement. Kerry and Fonda, the dynamic duo determined to lose yet another war, cost more American lives than any Communist leader. Read the memoirs of gen Giap. The North was ready to surrender and ask for peace, but the libs convinced them to hold on and wait for the US to surrender.
Play it again, Sam!
We had to work to lose vietnam. If we had of maintained aid to the south at the 1974 levels that picture would be imaginary. Aid and a credible threat of air support would have been more than enough to keep the south alive.
To answer your question, Yes we would have won the cold war. If anything maybe a little sooner.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Yes, probably a good 10-20 years earlier too, with far fewer civilians in foreign countries slaughtered on the altar of the Marxist man (in whatever the local guise happened to be).
See, I agree that this war in Iraq is exactly like the Vietnam war, but I have a different take on the Vietnam war than you do. I believe that in Vietnam, on the day of our greatest victory, leftists defeatists in this country managed to use politics to lose the war. If Uncle Walter had accurately reported the news instead of launching an unjustified tirade, the war would have been over, because we had just broken the back of the Viet Cong, and they were never again a fighting force in the war. And now, as we once again approach the precipice of victory you want to dishonor brave men and throw it away again.
Even though the Soviets boasted a robust economy fueling their dreams of world conquest, and a citizenship base of thousands of suicide bombers willing to strap bombs on themselves in the name of Communism, we were able to defeat them. Yes, the analogy is certainly well founded. We won the Cold War without firing a shot...well except in Korea and Vietnam, and we can do the same with radical Islam. After all, radical Islam lacks the billions of dollars the robust Soviet economy generated. Radical Islam does not fund or encourage terrorists worldwide to try to bring down governments as did the Soviets. Radical Islam certainly has pragmatic leadership, much like the old Soviet Union. The relgion of Communism generated a much more fanatical following than any Imam in Iraq or Iran ever will. Those Soviet suiced bombers, armed with visions of 72 virgins in heaven were much more ideoligally driven than the simple religion of peace advocates we face today.
The cold war was not won by McGovern, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and other fellow travelers like yourself who advocated a mutually respected peaceful coexistence between East and West. The nuclear freeze movement folks that these policians loved failed as well to win the cold war.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Right now the Army and Marine Corps are burning up their equipment and Congress and the Administration is not keeping up with replacement of equipment.
We were told this would be a long war and the Army has yet to see one new Soldier added to its permanent end strength.
So what has been the "plan" the last four years? "Borrow/steal" equipment from other units so they can not do their wartime mission. Keep sending troops back to Iraq for their third or more tour since we do not have enough fresh troops being added.
I am sure that China has US Army and Marine Corps readiness data shortly after it is prepared by DOD. They are probably very pleased.
Do you know what is worse than calling an Army defeated? A busted Army that can not fullfill other world wide operations that both Democrats and Republicans are calling looser.
For the last four years have there been any "Republican Bloggers" calling to increase end strength or to fully fund equipment? No, they have been too busy being partisan.
For the last four years have there been any "Republican Bloggers" calling to increase end strength or to fully fund equipment? No, they have been too busy being partisan.
Oh, but you're not being partisan, are you? Of course not...you're wearing an OAK LEAF! (Or, so you claim)
No matter. You have now placed yourself on record: NO Republican bloggers have called for increased end strength or full funding of equipment. None. Zero. Zip.
With all due respect, field grade officers who rant and write patently ridiculous things don't inspire much confidence in their temperment and judgement.
From one field grade to "another."
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
the middle of a war. The Democratic defeatists, rather than support our troops in the effort to actually win the war, prefer a quick exit that will doom the people of Iraq to a blood bath. A surrender before our mission is complete will forever serve as a reminder to future struggling democracies that the US can't be counted on.
The only strategy by which our enemy could possibly attain victory was outlined a few years back by al-Zarqawi: start sectarian violence that will lead to a protracted civil war that will cause the American people to become impatient and lose their resolve.
The only possible way for the greatest military on earth to lose is for our citizens to demand a withdrawal from Iraq.
It sickens me that many of those in the Senate now calling for surrender - including Harry Reid and Chuck Hagel - voted for the war in the first place. How many posters on RedState have followed suit?
We were sent to Vietnam by those who were gung-ho, only to return to indifference from those same people. "We should never have gotten involved in the first place" was the new refrain.
It's good to see there are many here on RS who are still faithful to the task at hand.
I am disgusted by the others, and would not want to ever be in the position where any of them were assigned to cover my back.
Babbin:
Now all pretense is dispensed with: we can see the man behind the curtain.
I agree with Babbin, and yet there is yet another layer of pretense which is still covering the Democrats. The Democrats are not just against the Iraq War, but against all wars. Overall, their party is pacifist.
The same so-called arguments which the Democrats use against the Iraq War could have been used in 1942 to argue that we should make peace with Hitler and Japan instead of fighting on to victory.
The Democrats quote the death toll in Iraq, show pictures of body bags coming home, and say that is a reason to end the war. It's true that every one of our troop's lives are precious. But there are casualties in every war, so what the Democrats are really saying, the "secret" assumption behind what they say publicly, is that we really shouldn't fight any wars at all.
All of the other Democratic arguments show the same flaws. For example, the Dems argue that we should surrender in Iraq because mistakes were made. But mistakes were made all through World War II as well, so if we followed the Democrats' rules, we might be speaking German now because we would have surrendered World War II.
The Democrats are in favor of any war in which national intersts are not involved. The same Dem leadership in congress that wants us out of Iraq is in favor of a deployement of US troops to Darfur to stop the genocide.
Should they prevail in 2008, winning the Presidency, you can expect a US military mission to Darfur in the name of humanity. AND you can then expect to see the same terrorist fighting us in Iraq to be fighting us then in Darfur.
The Dems might not want to confront Radical Islam, but the terrorists are interested in confronting US.
That's a good point, that some Democrats talk loudly about supporting some specific "wars", typically UN peace keeping stuff. But a huge part of their Party opposes even that. In a vote condemning Clinton's Bosnia deployment, but not cutting off funding, 1/3 of House Democrats voted against Clinton and against the War.
If we had a Democratic president, say Hillary, I think she'd need lots of Republican votes for any military action, and for something like Darfur she would pull troops out after the first blood shed, like Bill Clinton in Somalia.
Congress not Clinton forced the United States out of Somalia.
When you read the Congressional testimony at the time, you realize the number of hypocrites that exist on both sides of the aisle today.
I must remove Byrd and Feingold from my blanket statement as they have not flip flopped from their positions then to their positions today.
Yes Congress wanted us out of Somalia. But, I believe that was because the Secretary of Defense, Aspin, would not allow the troops to have the needed equipment to protect themselves. Aspin didn't want it to look like we were there to fight. Because of that we lost lives that shouldn't have been lost. Personally, I believe Aspin is a murderer. His actions or lack there of, directly contributed to the death of those soldiers.
GOP Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, speech on the Senate floor October 6, 1993:
"I supported our original mission, which was humanitarian in nature and limited in scope. I can no longer support a continued United States presence in Somalia because the nature of the mission is now unrealistic and because the scope of our mission is now limitless. . . . Mr. President, it is no small feat for a superpower to accept setback on the world stage, but a step backward is sometimes the wisest course. I believe that withdrawal is now the more prudent option."
GOP Sen. Dirk Kempthorne, speech on the Senate floor, October 6, 1993:
"Mr. President, the mission is accomplished in Somalia. The humanitarian aid has been delivered to those who were starving. The mission is not nation building, which is what now is being foisted upon the American people. The United States has no interest in the civil war in Somalia and as this young soldier told me, if the Somalis are now healthy enough to be fighting us, then it is absolutely time that we go home. . . It is time for the Senate of the United States to get on with the debate, to get on with the vote, and to get the American troops home."
President Clinton’s speech, on October 8, 1993, arguing against withdrawal
"And make no mistake about it, if we were to leave Somalia tomorrow, other nations would leave, too. Chaos would resume, the relief effort would stop and starvation soon would return. That knowledge has led us to continue our mission. . . .
If we leave them now, those embers will reignite into flames and people will die again. If we stay a short while longer and do the right things, we’ve got a reasonable chance of cooling off the embers and getting other firefighters to take our place. . .
So, now, we face a choice. Do we leave when the job gets tough or when the job is well done? Do we invite the return of mass suffering or do we leave in a way that gives the Somalis a decent chance to survive? Recently, Gen. Colin Powell said this about our choices in Somalia: “Because things get difficult, you don’t cut and run. You work the problem and try to find a correct solution.” . . .
So let us finish the work we set out to do. Let us demonstrate to the world, as generations of Americans have done before us, that when Americans take on a challenge, they do the job right."
Today, the world is upside down and the political rhetoric has flipped and flopped.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. We pull out of Iraq before the Iraqis are prepared to govern themselves, and the instability that Somalia faced will be ten-fold.
We saw millions die in Southeast Asia when we gave up. The same Happened when the Soviets turned tail on Afghanistan and US aid to the Afghan people suddenly ended as well.
Now, we see the result of the same retreat in Somalia. Do we want to always repeat the mistakes of history?
If Aspin would have allowed the military to have their choice of equipment, would we have lost the soldiers that prompted this debate?
Aspin caused the problem by not allowing the military to be properly armed. If Clinton and Aspin weren't going to allow the military to have the equipment they needed to perform their duties, why should they be there?
Would be more believable than the statement from Reid.
""No one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than the Democrats. We've proven that time and time again since this war started more than four years ago. We take a back seat to no one in supporting our troops, and we will never abandon our troops in a time of war. "
What he does not tell us is whose troops he is talking about
when he says "our".
I don't think Sen Reid and the other Democrat leaders supports any American troops by saying "We have lost".
If a Dem had been in the WH when 9/11 happened, one can only guess at the response. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, assume some form military response (the citizenry would demand it and it would have been impossible to avoid).
The Dems would have been provided support and political cover to thier Dem President had the military reponse become a protracted affair such as we have now (an inevitable situation given the enemy we face - islam). Certainly there would have been some detractors on both sies of the aisle, but Dems would continue support because it was thier war in the political sense, and Reps would support because it was our war (collective US security/interest).
Knowing this, it becomes apparent that the war we are in is viewed only in a political context by the dems with no concern as to the necessity of it. As public sentiment changes over the long haul (molded bt the vermin in the MSM), polls would provide cover for the dems to change with it. Reps OTOH, seem to grasp the larger implications of the war and are more (mostly) resolute in joining the battle.
Bottom line - dems have sold out our future security for present political power. They, and especially thier leaders, are corrupt to their core and utterly devoid of honor. Should they ever get complete power in DC, we will be in a very, very bad place.
After four years of steady and bloody fighting, any sane person could only come to that conclusion. The "War" is lost. Sen. Reid is also right when he says that the Democrat's "support" for our troops has been consistent throughout the entire campaign. There's no denying those facts.
However, Sen. Reid is not "really" talking about the war in Iraq. The "War" has been with President Bush, and the Democrats have lost. President Bush has rejected the Democrat's cut-and-run strategy, and despite their best efforts to avoid responsibility for their actions, the Democrats truly are "the sole owner's of defeat."
Consequently, the only applicable description for Sen. Reid is "loser."
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
Great post, smagar. Recommended.
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
Our troops are winning the military war.
However, if the Democrats had definitively lost the political war about the military war, then the majority of both Houses of Congress wouldn't have voted against the military war. It's not good that we need to go into a veto threat / shutdown situation in order to fund our troops.
President Bush showed after 9/11 that he is the one to lead us in the war on terror. I hope the President listens to the many conservatives who want him to be the man who picked up the bullhorn and told the terrorists they would soon hear from us, that they want his Administration to speak out more often about the war and more effectively.
Reid is majority leader. He has the President's ear. Not many people do.
A majority leader that truly feels in his heart that America is headed down the wrong path, losing a war, has an obligation to share his feelings with the President/Commander in Chief in private.
Harry Reid did not choose this path.
He chose instead the path that would maximize his exposure and maximize his confrontation with the Administration. It would be hard to argue that his was an honest effort to be productive.
It is likewise hard to imagine that the insurgent forces in Iraq and elsewhere in the GWOT would not see Reid's comments as a sign of weakness and lack of resolve in the top echelon of American leadership. His comments are bound to embolden the enemy, increase their effort to gain new recruits and strengthen their resolve.
Mr. Reid, by flapping your jaw in an irresponsible manner, you have cost American lives. At the very least, you have undermined the American military by giving aid and comfort to the enemy when we have people in harm's way.
Maybe a lawyer can parse the difference between that and treason. But how anyone can claim it's "supporting the troops" with a straight face is beyond me.
Harry Reid on Iraq: “I say we’ve lost. Let’s bring our boys home in, oh, say 18 months. In the meantime, no more funding for them.”
Thanks for posting the National Strategy for Iraq. It shows the incompetence of our political leadership. Did they really consult any knowledgeable politico-military experts? I doubt it.
It is not a question of patriotism or partisanship...it is a question of having wise strategy, implemented by competent people, which can be successful, in a reasonable amount of time. If you try to start and stop a civil war and build a democracy by occupying a country, you are eventually going to have to take sides. You cannot be neutral. The only strategy change that is apparent is a larger U.S. police force in Baghdad and Andar. This strategy is also too costly, will take decades, and is fraught with unintended consequences, as we have seen.
An old salt would say, you never put yourself in the position where you could "lose face" with non-Europeans. Didn't anybody realize that U.S. public will not tolerate a long occupation, and will pull the plug, regardless of the merits. Americans are not going to buy the proposition that saving Iraq for democracy is a direct and practical way to eliminate Islamic terrorists. Two thirds of a trillion tax dollars could be squandered, which could be better spent on covert/special operations directly against those terrorists who can harm us.
Part of the instruction at each Senior Service College is to ensure that you understand the FAS Test which is if something is Feasible, Suitable and Acceptable. If an option does not pass the FAS test, it will most likely fail.
The students will apply the test to various recent military operations and then defend their position in the context of FAS.
I have no doubt that the "current strategy" will be made part of the curriculum on FAS.
Did they really consult any knowledgeable politico-military experts? I doubt it.
So, you think the Administration really didn't consult Petraeus, or General Jack Keane, or anyone else with experience before writing the surge strategy or the "Plan For Victory"? Or, does it just feel good to write something that bold, regardless of how foolish such a statement might actually be.
If you try to start and stop a civil war and build a democracy by occupying a country, you are eventually going to have to take sides.
Two things here:
1) Your fondness of calling this an "occupation" is offensive. We liberated Iraq's people from a despot. Now, we are trying to help them build a stable country. We are not treating them like a colony, whose resources we loot for our own profit, as European nations did in the early 1900s. And, the Iraqi government, and many of the people our soldiers talk with, are imploring us to stay.
2) Taking sides? OK--we have. With the elected Iraqi government, against the jihadhis and Baathists.
n old salt would say
Did you come here to preach to us? Are we supposed to listen to your sage counsel in rapt appreciation. OK--here's this for you. You're a quitter. We on this site are not quitters. Enough with you; push off.
For OAK LEAF, and your declaration that senior service colleges would pick apart the Iraq strategy:
1) The former Combined Arms Center commander, GEN Petraeus, put together and is directing our current strategy. Are you willing to debate this strategy with Petraeus?
2) Are you normally this pompous? Do you think that we at Redstate are impressed? Do you have a ring we're supposed to kiss?
3) What would you have done differently in Iraq? Recommend you post a diary on this, instead of leaving a lengthy comment here. You obviously have lots of opinions on what should have been done differently: OK---let's hear them. Write a diary. Go on record, for everyone to see.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Let me add to smajar’s request and suggest that you include this in your diary:
Provide the pertinent data, documentation and links from the Department of Defense and relevant military personnel that back-up your assertion of fact. I’m particularly interested that you provide documentation which verifies:
"Even then, those taking the bonuses are those that have already seen their marriages and families destroyed. Guys that still have a marriage and a family are getting out when they can."
And this:
"Today, there is a large swath in the Army/Marine Corps, especially in the Senior Commissioned and Non-Commissioned Grades, that would quietly cheer a planned and properly funded withdrawal from Iraq."
Why should any of us at RedState believe what you’ve written here?
Until proven otherwise, I’m forced to believe that all of this is just your partisan opinion and has no basis in fact.
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
Smagar...thanks for your critical comments, except for the "quitter" remark. I don't want to quit...I just want a more realistic and achievable political-military strategy.
General Petraeus is not the architect of our occupation of Iraq. He may have designed the "surge" part of it. The "surge" is just a strategy to quell the violence in Baghdad. It isn't a political strategy to get us out of there.
My definition of "occupation" comes from the dictionary. Whether or not the host country
wants a large contingent of foreign military forces on its soil, or not; it is still an occupation, especially if these forces are trying to help run the country. If the job of the U.S. armed forces is to referee a civil war, we could be in Iraq for decades. When does it become an occupation?
If we spend our treasure and blood on such a huge task, doesn't the American public deserve something more than rhetoric?
At what time will you become impatient? How many years? How much expenditures of money? How many killed and wounded? Do you want to weaken our armed forces so that they cannot fight a non-discretionary war? Do you want to ensure that we have a Democratic Congress and White House? If you think the American public is going to consider this like the Marshall Plan after WW2, you are crazy.
Our presence in Iraq stopped being an occupation once the new government took over there.
Do try to keep up.
Run like Reagan!
While we apparently disagree, I think the administration's Plan for Victory and Petraeus' execution strategy in Iraq makes sense, given the constraints we're under--e.g., an expeditionary force that's weary and limited in size, a crisis in which the military can only create the opportunity for politicians and people to stop the fighting and create a stable nation, a looming Presidential election which might spell the end of the campaign altogether.
I just want a more realistic and achievable political-military strategy.
OK---what do you propose? Recommend you write a diary and tell us. Given the situation we're now in (not the one we wish we were in) and the resources we do have, what should we do? What can we achieve?
If you write it, I promise to read it. But, I have to admit, you seem long on criticism and short on practical alternatives here.
The "surge" is just a strategy to quell the violence in Baghdad. It isn't a political strategy to get us out of there.
Are you saying that there's a political strategy the president can implement, but isn't? One that will solve the crisis? What should our politicans and diplomats be doing now that they aren't? Please be specific in your diary.
You say you're not ready to quit in Iraq? OK---glad to hear it. Tell us---what should we do?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
I love how "analysts" who have never served in the military, never majored in Middle Eastern Studies, and have never read the Koran or studied Islamic history proclaim "Sunni and Shia have fought each other for 1,400 years"...
Really? How does one explain Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia having both Sunni and Shia populations? One would think over the course of 1,400 years that wouldn't be the case if what you state is accurate. Then again, facts aren't that big a part of the "reality based" community..
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
Saddam is gone, a new constitution is in place and a new government is installed. We have achieved our objectives.
What if the Iraqi people flat-out don't want democracy and would rather be ruled by a religious theocracy?
Is our goal to have a permanent military presence there?