New. Way. Forward.
("yesterday's gone... yesterday's gone...")
By Mark Kilmer Posted in War — Comments (25) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I am not going to write the President's speech for him. To certain chunks of the American population, it really does not matter what he says. The press want to play "watchdog," with their romanticized versions of Bob Woodward and the Vietnam press. They want "Vietnam, Vietnam, Impeachment." They want their Walter Cronkite moment, though Matt Lauer and friends danced too quickly and too clumsily. It was a political gamble. This speech should be... not so much.
The Democrats, the core Democrats, and their tools on the left do not want to win this war. The Democrats want Bush to lose this war, Bush to be judged a greater failure than was Clinton, and the Republicans to be kept out of Congress and the Presidency by laughter for decades.
Their tools, well, they haven't a clue.
Read More...
And another sect wants to argue that "he should have said this," we should have done that, at a certain time in the past. Iraq's yesterday has passed.
I want the President to ignore these sects and speak to the war. Right here, right now. I liked Maliki's notion of cleaning up Baghdad so that peace could assert itself from there. That went nowhere, but now, he says he is going to give it another try. Good for them. The President ought to stress this Iraqi effort and tie part of the troop surge to this effort and the upcoming effort to keep the city clean.
Aided by multinational troops, the Iraqi forces "will hunt down all outlaws regardless of their sectarian and political affiliations," al-Maliki said at an Iraqi Army Day parade.
"We will also severely punish those [security forces] who do not carry out orders or operate in a partisan or sectarian way," he said.
Forces will search out insurgents neighborhood-by-neighborhood, The Associated Press reported, and will start the assault this weekend.
The announcement came two days after al-Maliki and President Bush spoke by video conference for two hours.
Again: good for them. Our forces have to be involved in, if not doing the house-to-house thing, in maintaining order once if has been established.
Training Iraqi Troops. It's a nice mantra, but I assume it's one of those things which is simple to say and sounds good, but what's the reality? I've heard U.S. trainers praise the skill and the bravery of the Iraqis learning the methods, but that was from FNC. They are almost the only outfit who bother letting us know what good is being done in Iraq. It contradicts the "Quagmire, Quagmire, Vietnam" meme, so we're told that they shill for the Bushies.
Training should be emphasized in the speech, and it should continue apace.
Okay, what else. De-Ba'athification. I'd like to see the Iraqi government get over that one. Saddam Hussein is dead. In fact, I just saw vid of the tyrant lying on a gurney with his neck torn. Maliki has to stick with his pledge to ignore the "sect" in "sectarian violence," stop seeking revenge for what's done, and work together as a country. I want to see that Sunnis and Shi'as can live together as Iraqis.
The expensive make-work program. President Bush should not say that he is going to export to Iraq the quasi-socialism of the second President Roosevelt. A "Diyala Valley Authority" will make jobs for the youth at American taxpayer expense so that these angry kids will quite carrying rifles and joining this or that militia. Who says the kids want to work for America? What happens to the kids when we stop giving them our money?
That being said, the President ought to push for the loans for small businesses and start implementing this as soon as Baghdad is again liberated. If he does so beforehand, our money will go towards providing security for these small firms, and it is a money-eating cycle. But a jump start, such as these loans would be, is a positive step. But the President must address graft and corruption, bad use of good money. Maybe name an accountant-in-chief to oversee a team which audits this spending.
And with all that, the speech should be simple, as specific as possible within the model of simplicity, and optimistic without being unrealistic: this is what we want to do and why, this is how we're going to do it, and this is what we need from you. What they do from us, that is. He needs us to want to win, to want a stable Iraq which is an ally in the war on terror, and to want an America which remains united in the cause for which we were founded. He needn't specify capitalism by name, but security and prosperity will do nicely as code words.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Enemy propaganda and their enablers — Comments (1) »
New. Way. Forward. 25 Comments (0 topical, 25 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I read your post and I'd like for you to explain where cutting off funding for the war (floated by Charlie Rangel), and immediate withdrawal (proposed by John Murtha and seconded by a large number of prominent Democrats), and saying there will be no funding for a troop surge (Neil Abercrombie) fit into "criticism and oversight"?
Are those valid policy alternatives, do these alternatives contribute to a successful outcome, or should these people be ignored?
There's a major difference between we folks who make up the vast bulk of the parties and the blathering that goes on among the pols. "The Democrats, the core Democrats, and their tools on the left..."--that's not talking about 2-8-15 people. That's waving a paintbrush.
Even so, let's step back. This is a multi-year conflict now that was supposed to be six days, maybe six weeks, not six months. We're well into it and listening to the generals, six years isn't at all unlikely -- and we might still be there then. The war hasn't worked the way people planned (or... didn't plan) save for the very first phase, which was defeating the Iraqi military. Since then it's been a fiasco.
Congress is an equal branch of government. It doesn't have to agree. It doesn't have to approve. It doesn't have to fund. It doesn't have to pass bills, resolutions, funding that it doesn't want to. We can agree or not. We can approve or not. But there's a legitimate analysis (which is now shared by not a few folks on the right--you've seen the remarks and can read the columns...) that says "this isn't working." It's not that it's not quite working, and that it needs a little more to make it. It's not working and has been steadily getting worse for months and months.
We were told by the military that they didn't need more troops. We were told by Bush that they didn't need more troops. Now... Bush (but not the military) wants more troops. Given his record of success with Iraq, it would be reasonable to really question the wisdom of his proposal.
Rangel has been derided by the right for calling for a draft. He was, at least in part, observing the fact that the military is stretched very thin (that's the military analysis of their condition, incidentally. I've heard it from the mouths of serving military officers, including a Marine colonel), and that if this is going to go on... and on... then the troops needed (oh, yeah, we'll need more troops...) have to come from somewhere. But since that's been shot down from both sides, he's looking at the next realistic option.
It's not realistic to think that putting 20,000 more troops into Iraq will change things much. Really. And all it's certain to do is to stretch the military further.
So he's unable to give the military the long-term support it requires--and the option is then to pull it out before it breaks, before it's urgently needed somewhere where our national interests are really on the line. It's the same thing as what he did before. He's shoving the reality-based options in our faces, and saying so... take this one. Sooner or later, we'll take one.
But we don't get to make up our own facts. The American military's a fine 'machine'--but that doesn't make it supernatural; it has limits.
Withdrawal is an equivalent. And whether we agree or not, the majority of the nation supports getting out, either right now, or really soon--not in a year or three... or ten.
Only 10% support a surge...
That's a dead proposal.
No funding for a surge?
Criticism? That's a hard critique. It's saying "This proposal is unacceptable. DOA." And remember... Congress holds the pursestrings. They don't get to command the military... but they do get to decide whether to tolerate a proposal. Frequently, a president gets what he wants, even though Congress doesn't agree with the policy and actions, because it's not willing to get the well being of the military caught in the middle of a pissing match.
Here? I'd say that with >3000 dead, no sign of improvement, and things turning from worse to worser... they've decided that the military's getting screwed anyway, and this may pinch a bit, but in the long run be better.
Understand, the debate here isn't that people WANT Bush to fail, want America to lose. It's that they conclude--painfully--that he's already failed, we've already lost (which at least one military officer has observed, saying that it's just a matter of when, now...). And rather than throw more troops in to indulge in denial longer, they're willing to accept that reality and try to deal with it.
It's not -- at least in their view -- a question of whether this policy supports a successful outcome, because it's past the time for there to be anything that can be called success, worth the price that's been paid... and would continue to have to be paid.
They're certainly "valid" options. They may not be the ones you or I like and prefer or even like. But politics doesn't mean you get, or even CAN get, what you want. It means that you get to participate in crafting the best of the options that can be extracted from the system and the situation.
Trust me, much as many--most--Democrats do not care for Bush, they have no interest in seeing the country harmed just to humiliate him. I can recognize that people who disagree with me--vociferously--are still patriots. Mistaken, perhaps. But that doesn't mean that they're actively looking to injure the nation, even if I'm convinced that their actions are actually doing that.
That's a non-snarky question. I always wonder why you lefty people have such trouble expressing yourself.
Yes, most Democrats want to see Bush defeated. They probably don't want to see America hurt. And they probably don't see that their own actions are hurting it. Encouraging our foreign enemies in order to gain in domestic politics is treasonable in my view, and thats exactly what the Democrats have been doing for the past several years.
Telling the terrorists "Just keep setting off bombs and we'll give up" is not the correct way to deal with them. Their actions have zero military significance; their only goal is in influence the political process in Iraq and in America.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
in fact a beautiful series of non-sequiturs. But you dodged the issue, are those Dems advocating withdrawal and the cutting off of funds for operations in Iraq to be dismissed as numbskulls who are out of step with the great and patriotic Dem majority?
Because they obviously want to see the country harmed to make a point.
I hadn't realized that you weren't done with him. I could probably find a defilbulator around here somewhere...
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
this is now academic, but I sure would like to see a link or ANYTHING that would validate this...
This is a multi-year conflict now that was supposed to be six days, maybe six weeks, not six months.
Have a long and pathetic life. You're well on you're way.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
The depressing bit is, of course, that he'll never understand why he got tossed.
Moe
PS: Personally, I think that hatedbyredstate.com has a nice ring to it, although defeneredstated.com has a quirky appeal.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Where do you get that? I know you have the answer because you're a professional writer. I ask because the USA/Gallup Poll TODAY stated that
36% support the surge
61% oppose
which is a whole lot more support than I had imagined. These numbers conform to the general principle that any conflict has about one-third passionate supporters, one third opponents, and one third who will go along with whoever seems to be winning.
Currently, the opposing side is winning. But that can change, very quickly.
For some reason the lefty blogs are hyping this poll like crazy, though it's much higher support than any other poll I've seen.
and his proposed legislation to streiff's list.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
wants to lose is as quantifiable as "almost everyone hates Bush". PLEASE.
The power brokers are playing for power. They don't believe they will suffer any long term consequences for losing in Iraq. These same power brokers reflect on Viet Nam as a loss that we all got past, and the Vietnamese are no worse the wear for it 30 years on...that is ridiculous.
What Streiff & mbeck said...
What we do in life echoes in eternity.
-Maximus Decimus Meridius
there's probably 5 million or so Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians who would argue that particular point. (I understand it's not your point.)
And, Mary Jo Kopchne was also unavailable for comment...
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
(boy, are we getting distracted from the original point here?)
There weren't enough South Vietnamese who really wanted what we were fighting for to make it happen. Far, far too many didn't care, or supported the north, or were willing to accept the north's victory as the price of peace.
If the South hadn't been a crumbly despotic pseudo-democracy with limited support from the people, it could have stood on its own... or with very limited US aid and assistance. But the longer that the conflict went on, the more the US had to carry the ball.
People have to want freedom, have to want liberty. It's not something that someone else can make them have.
And we did survive the victory of the north Vietnamese. It may not be the world the way we'd have liked it, but in the real world, we all have to live with things being not-the-way-I-want. A lot of the time.
(Power brokers on both sides play for just the power. They're folks to watch out for... and it's important not to overlook the ones on one's own side, nor to mistake everyone disagreeing with you (in power) for being one of them.)
I would have tossed him two posts ago - but all y'all are apparently eager to try that rapprochement thing.
Well, go ahead and rapproch, then.
Moe
PS: Best you pretend that you don't see this post, ogre. The last thing that you'll do here is make me officially notice you.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
I'm trying to affirm the idea that we have to talk to each other--and be able to talk to each other. Not to simply create strawmen that we stick names on and beat up.
And booting me will only confirm the worst opinions about RedState.
Your choice.
I'm not being disingenuous. I'm telling you the truth as I see it and understand it.
I'm not trying to violate the rules. Nor to edge around them. If trying to uphold a contrary position, politely, is grounds for banning, then... I'll get banned.
Now you've just created some more terrorists -- I mean confirmed the worst opinions about RedState. I always get this liberal mumbo jumbo mixed up.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
to look bad. That is their primary goal. Ergo, we have to lose. They do not actively think that we must lose, perhaps, but they do think that Bush must resemble their prefabricated rhetoric.
It is folly to try to appear to be high-minded about this; we're talking about the Democrats. You have to be deaf and blind not to realize that this is all about politics and power to them. The implementation of their agenda requires that we lose this war so that they can remain in power.
I don't WANT Bush to look bad.
I happen to think he does look bad, already. But that's my opinion of the results of his choices and actions and behaviors... and attitudes.
It would take some serious miracles to scrub that appearance up. But want America to get harmed so that Bush looks worse? That's simply nuts.
Literally everything you wrote has a mirror image on the other side of the partisan divide. Evil, power-mongering Republicans wanting power, power, power, willing to destroy America, pour unlimited lives and wealth into a disasterous war in order to maintain a fig leaf on the presidential reputation; driven by an agenda... blah, blah, blah.
Until most of us can move past that, there's no one who can be a uniter--and we'll be profoundly divided. Which is bad. We don't have to agree, but we do need not to wallow in demonizing every thought, proposal and policy suggestion. Otherwise Lincoln's remarks about a house divided will become very apt, one way or the other.
But they do want Bush to fail, and they want him to be seen to fail by the American people. They simply don't believe that there is a connection between the Iraq front and the larger war on Islamic fascism. Kennedy, for instance, is probably in favor of supporting the troops in the abstract, but wants us to withdraw. But he does not want America to "lose". That's silly.
However, people like Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Medea Benjamin, the Code Pink crowd, and International ANSWER, they want us to lose. Period. The Democrats keep these people around at their peril.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
There is nothing the Democrats hate spending money on more than the US military. You cannot support the troops in the abstract. You either support the mission to it's successful completion or you don't. And they don't.
Durbin compares our military to Nazis and Pol Pot. No one on his side of the aisle blinks.
Kerry calls our troops terrorists in Iraq. No one on his side of the aisle blinks.
And on and on and on.
If we lose in Iraq, the Democrats can - and will - make a credible case that the military is simply not an option in today's complicated world. We need to spend more effort negotiating, and the UN is the appropriate vehicle to accomplish that.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
You'll find Democratic efforts to spend money on the *troops*. On armor, etc. Real, tangible needs of the military.
And the idea that supporting the troops is identical with supporting the policy of the president is simply absurd, a notion that's been derided by Republican presidents in the past. Supporting the president is not the same as supporting the troops.
As for the last... I think not. After all, it was Clinton who decided to use the military in the Balkans. Careful of cherry picking too much here--one of the criticisms I've seen being that Democrats start more wars. You can't have it both ways.
"The Democrats, the core Democrats, and their tools on the left do not want to win this war. The Democrats want Bush to lose this war, Bush to be judged a greater failure than was Clinton, and the Republicans to be kept out of Congress and the Presidency by laughter for decades."
This is that trap that arises out of partisan politics and which the media feeds--and feeds on.
This is absurd. This is as silly as suggesting that 'the Republicans, the core Republicans, and their tools on the right' want(ed) us to lose in Somalia, and in Kosovo. Silly. Absurd. WRONG.
There are a vanishingly small number of Americans--so few as to justify utterly ignoring them, politically--who want America to "lose," to fail....
Repeating this nonsense is popular on both sides of the political divide. It echoes nicely. We-Good. They-Evil. Rah! Go slap yourselves; wake up. It's wrong.
Almost no one wants America to have lost and failed. That's entirely and completely and utterly different from having taken a long, hard, cold look at the situation, the history, the facts, the circumstances... and said "No, this is silly, wrong, stupid. This is likely to fail, this is likely to harm America, this is in fact extremely likely to do grave and serious injury and to have profound, long-lasting effects that are harmful to America, and so we as patriots should not support this and even if the administration goes forward, we must continue to point out the pitfalls and errors in the hope of pulling the other side back from making the worst of the possible mistakes--for the good of the nation."
That's true. It's always true.
There was criticism and oversight of our actions and contracting during WWII. Just for example.
The Democrats don't want America to lose. It'd be great if the nightmare in Iraq could somehow be pulled out. But it's not something that's being cheered FOR. It's something that's being observed and critiqued. And yes, it's true that failure inevitably redounds to the benefit of the other side, in political terms. But to suggest that many people, most of "the other side" are actively working for it, cheering for it, hoping for it... that's simply self-delusional. And wallowing in self-delusion isn't going to achieve anything of value.
It is, in fact, opening yourself up to being used by those who'll mouth the same nonsense to you, for their own purposes.