Attention Congress: Ponder Long And Hard What You Deign
your sins will come back to visit you, and we're going to give them a ride
By haystack Posted in War — Comments (73) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I can't remember a time in my life that I have been more PISSED OFF than at this time. I can't remember ANY series of world events that EVER got to me the way this crisis America faces (the citizens of the Republic at odds with our elected bodies hired BY us to represent OUR best interests and do OUR bidding) is getting to me now. In fact, of all the previous "crises" the Republic has faced throughout history, this may be the worst of them. NOT, mind you, because of the matter at hand, rather for the total collapse of Congress' ability to consider the health and well-being of the Country above the expediencies of their collective re-election concerns.
The Republicans and Democrats alike up there on the Hill are failing their oaths of office, and failing their constituents, and failing what is currently a deeply troubled Republic.
The results of the foolishness these scumbags pursue will have to be dealt with by "we the People", and it matters. The historical relevance and importance is sufficiently described by Fred Thompson's own words on the Redstate Radio Podcast, just published here:
This idea of appearing to be weak and divided before the world is the most dangerous thing we could do with regard to this nation.
More destruction and war and havoc has been caused by the appearance of weaknesses by Democracies, in some cases US, than any other reason. I point out the Korean war. I point out the first Gulf war, and even the takedown of Saddam...."ahh, they won't really do anything about it..." and that's what they're going to be counting on if we look weak and divided and we abandon the place to chaos, which is what would happen.
Our problems lay squarely at the feet of these scumbag Senators and Representatives, each of whom are getting miraculous new inspirations about war and strategy and what is best for a country and her people (you know, the ones they couldn't have given a flip about oh so few years ago as hundreds of thousands were being raped and butchered and gassed? Yeah-THEM), NOW, as the poll numbers are updating and showing which Political trash is becoming increasingly susceptible to future defeat.
And before you anti-war drumbeaters set about trying to slap me around, as I have said in the past-these people either need to de-fund NOW, and strike an immediate and FULL withdrawal...OR, they need to HELP the President win instead of making sure he fails...and fails alone. So, don't even go there with me.
More hate, angst, and vitriol below the fold...
Don't take MY word for it, do a little shopping at the "Senators Class II list" HERE and see how many of them who USED TO SUPPORT winning wars are now talking about actions that will result in an indirect, but equivalent, SURRENDER. The Class II's, you see, are up for re-election in '08 and they want to make sure you hear them tell you they hear your voices, and they feel your pain.
Well, they don't, they won't, and they never cared to. They care about power: getting it, keeping it, and growing it.
It is, thankfully, NOT my job here at Redstate to be docile, or gentle, or even diplomatic. It IS expected of me to be fair, and in fairness, the problem isn't even with our activist opposition anti-war crowd. They are fairly well organized, have been fairly consistent in their expectations of repayment for their efforts to ascend a Democrat majority on the Hill, and have done a better than decent job of bitch-slapping those who have since softened or abandoned the rhetoric that took them to the winner's circle last November.
While their reasons for wanting an end to the war in Iraq (and for now against terrorism) are purely selfish:
[a] proposal for a Peoples' Peace Congress to challenge the corporate war Congress in Washington. At such a gathering, different groups could argue for better uses for the funds now earmarked for war. By demanding funds for health care, education and job creation, for example, they could directly confront the “war Congress” meeting at the Capitol.
they are at least honest about it.
Selfish? Yes. Hands out for self-enrichment, considered more important than the lives of people so far away who are, ostensibly, less important than these Troops Out Now people consider themselves to be? Absolutely. Honest, at least? Completely.
The PRO war crowd, similarly, could be considered selfish in their own right. We are rightly accused of being worried about the safety and security of our families here at home, and desire that the fighting and the killing of terrorists be done where THEY live instead of where WE live. Selfish? Yep. Tinfoil hat-wearing "afraid of bupmer-sticker" crazy people? Without a doubt. Honest? Completely.
Where does this leave the trash up in DC then? About as honest as the thief denying guilt as he is found locked inside the bank vault in the morning with bundles of 100's stuffed in his pockets.
Back in January, the Commander in Chief issued an updated Iraq Strategy. Now, anyone who paid the slightest attention to the '06 elections will remember the Democrat claim that Bush had no strategy. This, despite his having issued one in November '05. The nuancing of a President for political gain is not a monopoly held, one party over another, but the Democrats were brilliantly successful in convincing armchair America they MUST be right as they screamed and wailed that there was no plan.
There were in fact 3 iterations of such a plan never acknowledged by the left because they would have been forced to give an as clearly spelled alternative or told to STFD and STFU. Additionally, Dep State has ROUTINELY reported on all things Iraq, as required by Congress. Again, crickets chirping from the left.
Were the debate with the American people to have centered around which strategy showed the most promise, America could have decided for herself. THIS shell game of convincing the American people that Bush's published plan (that we were to believe didn't exist in the first place) was really NO plan, and that this was sufficient cause to surrender, lose, and withdraw has become the greatest crime Politicians have ever committed against a people...a little over-dramatic you say?
Maybe, but in the meantime people are dying, and a very stark new Middle East awaits the outcome of the backseat teen fumblings of an American Congress hell bent on destroying anything in its path back to elected office, devil may care.
Consider the POS from New York, Rangel, on display with Tucker Calson on MSNBC [10 minute video of horrors and spontaneous hair combustion]:
[On why the Dems won in November]
"The voters are way ahead of the House of Representatives and the Senate. This has to be the most immoral blunder that our great nation has ever involved itself in."
You really DO (if you can stomach it) need to watch this chump rattle on about how the Republicans have supported "this commader in chief"...implying that the Democrats have not. Great testimony to National unity and American patriotism, huh?
My favorite line is this:
There's been over a dozen Republicans that have been there [the White House] and they have told the President this election, their re-election, is far more important than staying the course.
Which was quickly followed by Rangel suggesting there is no Al Qaeda in Iraq...but even if there were, "we don't know what they look like-I hate to say it but they all look alike."
I defy a white politician to get away with that one without the sky falling.
It is clear from Robert Byrd & Hillary Clinton's masterpiece: "This is not our fight - Congress must end U.S. role in a civil war nobody voted for" to WSJ's "Republican Retreat" to Alaska Report's "Republicans now realize Iraq is another Bush failure" to USA Today's "McConnell in tough spot on Hill, in Ky." to Slate's "Another One Bites the Dust" [referring to Repubs who have defected from Bushco™] to WaPo's "Key GOP Senator Breaks With Bush" to Breitbart's "Report: Wars Costing $12 Billion a Month" to the NYT's "Senate Set to Tackle Iraq Strategy" to My Way's "Official: Iraq Gov't Missed All Targets" and the Hill's "Pelosi lines up Iraq votes" that the media smells blood in the water, and Democrats see VICTORY on the horizon.
You would like to believe the victory they had in mind was American victory. Sadly, electoral victory is all they give a rat's patooty about.
Forget whether "Iraqi leaders warn of catastrophe if US goes" and let not your Democrat-powered hearts be troubled by "Iraqi FM: Turkey Massing 140,000 Troops" and ABSOLUTELY DO NOT worry that our friend Zawahiri has AGAIN made his call for unification of Mujahideen and total support among Muslim populations for jihad. This IS, after all, a bumper sticker made by President Bush and his thugs at Cheneyco™, and they are just scare tactics. It's all good. Iraq and Iraqis don't matter. We matter. Let's get the troops out NOW. Today.
There's jillions to be had that we can hand out to the poor and downtrodden right here in the good ole US of A.
What's a couple MORE hundred thousand Iraqis?
Our new direction for America?
Can you spell commode?
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | 10 Weeks To Testimony — Comments (14) »
Attention Congress: Ponder Long And Hard What You Deign 73 Comments (0 topical, 73 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I try to figure out which scenario is worse. They actually believe the crap they spew or, are they are dishonest about it to play it for political gain.
I am terribly disappointed in the general direction of our elected elite losing their fiduciary responsibility to represent the people once in office. It has degraded from rational representation of the people to "I'll do what I want until you catch me" mentality in Washington. Say anything to get elected and be held accountable to virtually nothing.
The quick reply is well voters can vote them out next time. I'm sorry but that just isn't good enough these days. We need shorter term leash of oversight on these buffoons to keep them honest. The amnesty bill would have been disaster had it not been for ordinary people taking significant time out of their day to educate themselves and take action to force their representatives to do the right thing.
That is like hiring a lawyer and then have to study up on law to make sure they do their job! That's what we elect/hire these buffoons for, to do the right thing. Sure there are gray areas on the "right thing" but cmon. We have some glaring examples right now in amnesty and cut and run in Iraq.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
a great article, and very interesting links on the current Iraq objectives. I may not be happy with all of them, but it's a comfort they've been spelled out more than I thought.
To some extent I agree that the next election may be more important than "staying the course". What do you think would happen to any continuing Iraq strategy, if we lost in 2008?
BUT if the Congress allows us to be defeated in Iraq, the issue is still a huge winner for the Democrats. They'll be the people who stopped Bush's war - now bipartisanly acknowledged as a failure!
For both the country and the party, we have to find a way to win. If we can't accomplish everything we'd like on the ground, we still must have a real victory to claim. Hopefully, we can convince our Republican officals of that as well.
The "civil war" that the Left tells us we're involved with in Iraq is not the worst case scenario. The Left seems to think that if we leave there will either be sudden peace (because they're fighting to expel us) or that they will just go on killing each other.
That would be true if Iraq had no neighbors and existed in a vacuum. The immediate results would be swift - each sect would seek aid from like neighbors. That means that the Shiite majority, bereft of American support would look to Shiite Iran to provide aid in maintaining Shiite political domination. Sunnis would turn to Baathist Syria and perhaps the other Sunni dominated states in the region. The Kurds would likely look to found their own independent state in the north, which would be a thumb in the eye to Turkey, which would probably invade in order to prevent domestic disturbances from its own Kurdish population.
What is now a proxy war - we know Iran is fighting whatever they may say in public - would soon become a full-fledged international conflict that would serve only to aggrandize those states in the region that are least friendly to American interests. Even if the democratic government in Iraq were to hang on, we would face a cold shoulder at best from that government which we abandoned. It would be virtually impossible for us to gain any cooperation - we would rightfully be seen as untrustworthy partners who will jump ship as soon as it costs to much to stay on.
And it of course makes us look weak. Not just to our enemies - al Quaeda, Iran, N. Korea - but to those who seek to gain advantage at American expense - Russia and China especially.
Amen brother. This red-neck from TN is so mad I could spit nails. Both houses need a reality check and put this great country ahead of all else before another soul is killed.
Let it be written in stone - I will not vote for any Senator, Presential candidate or Representative that even mutters the word "withdrawal". Let this lot be put on notice - my family (4 votes) will work around the clock against that candidate. I would like to hear from like minded individuals who feel the same as some of us do.
FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION and I will quote Coach Paul "Bear" Bryant.
"If you believe in yourself and have dedication and pride - and never quit, you'll be a winner.
The price of victory is high - but so are the rewards."
check the Senate link-you will see Alexander there...he needs to be told how you feel.
To anyone else, just because your Senator may not be a Class II this go 'round, you are still well within your rights to contact them and tell them to shut down their colleague
class II's before we turn Iraq into another Cambodia.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
Trust me Lamar knows me. I call his office weekly and one or two emails a month. Lamar is a nice guy but he's a "feel good" senator. What I mean is he only support those "feel good" bills. Stuff that looks good on his record. The man (nor Corker) has any Johnson's. We all need our represenatives, including the ladies, with some Johnonson's.
I agree brother, but I can't condone quoting the "Bear" here in "Big Orange" country. If I let this one slide you'll eventually backslide into a Spurrier quote and then me and my hillbilly kin would have to run you out of the Volunteer nation. Nuf said.
"The only way to negotiate with "The Tide", is with your knee on their chest and the ball in the endzone." - Gen Neyland.
Xhog
Trust me brother if I were in your shoe/cleets I would say the same but ain't the 3rd Saturday October the very BEST it can be.
I'm not going to ask how you got that "XHOG" nick because I can guess.
RTR
Couple Questions -
1) What's Winning?
2) How can you continue to believe in the same failed policy we've been pursuing for 5 years now? Please don't say the surge is a new policy. It's just replacing the foreign troops that have pulled out.
3) So what if we pull out. What happens then? Iraqi's engage in an inevitable civil war, where at the end we will have an identifiable friend or foe? Perhaps you Cons are just more caring about being the world police then I am. Our presence is a drain on our treasury, our families, and our soldiers mental health.
4) Why aren't you sounding the alarm for a draft. If this is really the fight for our lives, the fight of good v. evil, why aren't you screaming for more Americans to sacrifice and get in the fight? We cannot continue to overextend our soldiers. If we are to keep this war going, shouldn't we institute the draft and have mutual sacrifice?
I hope I don't get banned, but I assume I will. Thanks.
winning is leaving a country able to secure and manage itself
failed policies need successful policies, not a bunch of losers that would prefer to throw up their hands and walk away because it's too hard now...lone superpower means something
if we pull out, millions of Iraqis will die, the region will fall into a superset of Muslim radicals bent on the next caliphate, subduing lesser countries to their will, and making our ability to do commerce and trade with the middle east impossible. So What, you say? Until you people allow us to be energy independent, we HAVE to get along with the middle east
a draft? a volunteer military is far and above, a superior military. Make them fight, and a percentage of people that do NOT want to be there, will facilitate heavy losses, casualties, and defeats because of their inability to adhere to the mission.
Perhaps you WILL get banned, but, being flip about strangers being slaughtered, encouraging a hostile takeover of a region by people that want to see us die, who will control the most precious resource the world relies on is being either naive, or stupid.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
do you commit American resources to continued failed policy? Do you even admit that Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney etc attacked Iraq with a bad policy? Have you spent any time reading Fiasco or Cobra II? Are you qualified at all to make any of these statements you make, outside of reading the William "The Bloody" Kristol every week?
In my line of business, we don't compound a bad decision by piling more bad decisions upon it. We change strategy, and move forward.
Pulling out of a situation that will occur whether we leave now or in 20 years isn't retreat, it's sensible. And there have been numerous generals (most recently former Regean NSA Cheif Gen. Odom - http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backg...) that agree with me.
And I find it comedic that conservatives that continue to keep our volunteer army in the line of fire w/out appropriate equipment or rest and call liberals "flip" about strangers being slaughtered. Where I come from supporting the troops isn't as simple as just supporting sending men and women into war zones to fight and die. It's all encompassing. It's ensuring they have the best equipment, the best leadership, the best strategy and the best health care (including mental health care when they return home). I have yet to see a Repub stand up for any of those causes.
I assume Haystack that since you find the war so noble you are either to old to fight in it, but served during Vietnam or GWI or you have served in Iraq and are not simply a chickenhawk keyboard warrior.
Thanks for your time.
One of the most galling parts of my military service was listening to panty-waisted losers who "worried" about me. To endure the constant litany of concern and caring from a group of people who despised me and the country I proudly served was a task I labored to learn.
If you want to express your concern pray for our soldiers, but don't weild them like a shield to defend your spineless positions. I volunteered, I believed in my country and what I was doing, and I'm damn proud of my time in uniform. Don't you dare speak for me or those like me who made their own choices.
We have our own voices and you don't speak for us. Go find a hole to hide in and we'll holler when their all dead so you can come out and declare defeat.
"The only way to negotiate with your enemy, is with your knee on his chest and your knife at his throat." - Anon.
The only reason I feel remotely safe with these losers running the country is because I know we have real men willing to die to protect us.
I appreciate it more than you'll ever know.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
first, as a one hour wonder here at Redstate, you have not had sufficient time to know anything about me, my background, my positions, the work I have done, the family I have invested in this war, or anything else...and I could care less...I am certainly not going to re-run my last three years here for you.
You see Iraq as lost, wrong to begin with, Bush's and Bush's alone...and can turn your back on our soldiers and the Iraqis who have fought and died trying to establish a country they can live in and prosper within...bully for you.
Some of us around here are invested in the war on terror...we see (as does al Qaeda) that Iraq is a front on that war, and we believe the battle called Iraq must not be relinquished to the enemy.
You, on the other hand, see it as some event for which you wanted no part in, waited for your opportunities to take potshots at because you disagreed at the outset, and seek ever-new opportunities to say "I told you so"
That may be your brand of being a patriotic American, but us dolt conservatives see it as, once in the fight, let's stick together and fight to win.
You'll have to excuse us...we clearly are not quite so able to distance ourselves from rooting for the home team.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
Bye, militarist.
:Crunch:
:scrape:
:scrape:
:scrape:
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I have been a military member(Active/Retired) for over 50 years.
During that time period, I recall nothing any Democrat political leader ever did to aid me, fellow military members, dependents, or retired military. Could there have been a few way back when, maybe, but it must have been a long time ago.
I can tell you what a current Democrat political leader did while many of us were serving in Vietnam. John Kerry did every thing he could to support the enemy, including meeting with them.
Today the number you have that are supporting the enemy who is destroying our military members is so long it would be easier to point out the one senator who is not supporting them. Of course , he was ran out of the Democrat Party because of his position of support for the US against the terrorists.
Democrat political leaders,supporting the US military,hasn't happened in a long,long time; I don't expect it is going to happen during the rest of my days.
1) Leaving Iraq a stable enough democracy that embraces free market capitalism, and can provide their own security. For more info on how this is progressing, despite what the MSM is telling you, read this:
http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/baqubah-update-05-july-2007.htm
2)What does "pursuing the same failed policy" even mean? Although others did not like it, I liked "Stay the course" because of the analogy of a golf course - some holes are more difficult than others, requiring different strategies or clubs, but one does not take their balls and go home just because it gets tough. You stay the course and finish what you start. And as for the surge, it is not simply replacing foreign troops that have left. It is repositioning troops for specific targeted missions with certain goals in mind. Surge is a misleading name for it. It's too bad you limit your sources because there really is lots of information out there that you seem to not be availing yourself to.
3)It is clearly not a civil war... you are not seeing Shia's arming up and fighting Sunnis - what you are seeing is AlQuada (funded, armed and trained by Iran and Syria) hitting town and arming up against any who are cooperating with Americans. I suggest you read this blog by two Iraqi brothers living in Baghdad: www.iraqthemodel.blogspot.com. Leaving Iraq would be a disaster not only for the Iraqis (On another note - it is very disturbing to see how liberals seem to have such a high tolerance for genocide. They pretend to be so into brotherhood and all until it is time for the rubber to meet the road, and then the rubber hits the road alright, the tires squealing in their get-away! They are off to some other self serving cause.) But for us - Turkey will swoop in and seize the oil fields from the Kurds, Syria I'm sure will fight for them as well, and Iran will swoop in as well... and it will not be like the Taliban in Afghanistan who had nothing in terms of resources. Iraq is an industrialized nation with wealth and resources. What do you think this is all about anyway? Think about it - trained doctors were willing to blow themselves up for this evil Islamic idealogy - they want to destroy Western civilization because we do not bow to their god. Iraq is only one front on this war.
4) We do not need a draft - we are currently meeting the goals. Today's military is a highly trained and educated fighting force. No one wants to fight next to someone who does not want to be there and is not committed. If it becomes necessary to expand the military, they will increase the pay and benefits and more people will join. Remember today's smaller military size is the result of the Clinton cuts of the 90s - our so-called "peace dividend."
And before you ask, yes, I have a child there now.
If you fail to accept that basic reality that is even admitted by our goverment and our intelligence communnity, i can't engage in discourse with you. It must be nice to deny reality.
Unfortunately I don't live in Candy Cane lane with you where you get to make believe things are going as you want them to in Iraq to justify supporting bad policy and a failed war.
with no real evidence backing up your claim. That tells me you have nothing to discourse except your liberal catchwords and canned phrases. I gave you links from people actually on the ground in Iraq giving cogent and thoughtful analysis to dispell the notion of it being a "civil war" which I still contend is a gross misrepresntation of what the major problems there are.
I'm not saying things are going as I would like - I would like our soldiers to be able to fight the enemy without all the outrageous PC constraints we have them under. This is impeding our progress very much. BUT, it is a far cry from a failed war.
For you to dismiss the complexities of what is going on there as a civil war is disingenuous and shallow.
a civil war doesn't make it one.
What is underway in Iraq would never have been called a civil war at any other time in history. There are a lot of names for it, but it is difficult to find any similar conflict that has been called a civil war. Even the genocide in Rwanda wasn't called a civil war.
Don't be dismissive of someone when you don't know what you are talking about. People who do that have very short half-lives here.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
"Please don't say the surge is a new policy. It's just replacing the foreign troops that have pulled out."
The above quote shows a very real ignorance of the "clear and hold" policy. Exactly which "foreign troops" are the additional U.S. troops that have moved into Baghdad replacing? And what were these "foreign troops" (if they were there) clearing and holding anyway?
for starters.
And how are we going to clear and hold areas when we don't have enough troops to clear and hold all of baghdad? The insurgents are just leaving the area we clear, and moving to other areas, and when we have to leave the "held" area due to lack of forces (thank you Don Rumsfeld) they will simply move back into these regions.
I get what Patreaus is trying to do. I found his ideas in Fiasco right on, but he doesn't have the troops to implement his plan. It's simply 5 years to late.
The British have worked in southern Iraq. The people we have "surged" into Iraq have not replaced British troops.
As far as not having enough people...The idea is to give the Iraqis time to step up. To recruit and train forces. Its not to be a permanent "holding" force. Ultimately, the Iraqis need to hold. In the interim, the Iraqi capital needs to be secured to give the country a chance to succeed. That's why around 60% of the additional American troops are in Baghdad.
Could we use more people? Sure. We could use a larger military, period. I can easily fault the Bush Administration for not working to increase the size of our military. In addition, I look forward to the Democratic party supporting a military of the size we need....But I ain't holding my breath.
the surge are not entirely incorrect.
However, you are certainly wrong about the British. They were not allowed by their ROE to engage in the type of operation we have run in Iraq especially in Operation phantom thunder,and they had no, that would be zero, offensive operations of any kind while they were in Iraq (occupying the southern, Shia parts of Iraq, where the insurgency was not operating (the insurgecy is Sunni) although there were many casualties and many brave actions by the Brits, they were not the equivalent of our surge troops.
Again,the plan is to first secure the belts around Baghdad and the Sunni provinces, where AQ had many bomb factories, hideouts, ammo dumps etc)and then secure bghdad. This latter part has not yet happened, it is scheduled for later in the summer, but I think you will know about it.
Some of us would have liked Rumsfeld out and Petraeus in starting in 2004, but that didn't happen. Does that mean that three years later it is doomed to failure or should not be tried? I don't agree!
in the area where the British Army is operating, so how can we be replacing them?
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Thank you, Haystack, for so succinctly and concisely saying what I actually feel.
Amen and May God bless.
most of this country's voting citizens want us to leave Iraq. According to this, anyway.
And a bunch of others I won't care to list. They all say the same thing anyway.
Reality is, the only people that want us to stay in the war are Bush, the Iraqi government and a small faction of GOP conservatives. The reason the Republicans are abandoning Bush is because he refuses to let go of the illusion that we can win this war. His political life is (officially) over in about a year and a half. Theirs is not. They are listening to their constituents, and breaking rank. For every phone call they get that tells them to support the war, they get three that say "you don't get my vote unless you abandon it."
It's about time we face the facts.
is sick of losing in Iraq, and is sick of Iraq in general due to the pissing and moaning across the aisles...poll fairly, and most Americans want to WIN...and leave.
"the only people" argument is convenient, and incorrect...The Iraq war debate has been, for the last two years, about the President, not about the fight.
And, to be fair, I would sit quietly back and watch congress de-fund, and force an immediate withdrawal and return of all military assets to US soil-but they will NOT do that, because they can not face what even THEY know will result.
Politics...not warfighting...is the issue here-and a lot of lives are affected.
Ask yourself why none of your political heroes are jumping up and down about defunding? Why, exactly, are there no bills under consideration...because it isn't politically expedient, that's why...not because it's the right or wrong thing to do.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
I would take the handcuffs off our military and let them do their jobs. I would get the politicians out of it. I would make speeches every single day, reiterating to our apparently stupid nation drunk on pop culture the importance of the enemy we face. And I would lay off the "religion of peace" talk until someone showed me evidence of it. I would have zero tolerance for the fanatics that want to demonstrate on the streets of NY, spit on the flag, and claim they will not rest until their flag flies over the White House. I would start investigating and arresting the leakers of confidential information that seem to keep turning up in the New York Times. Those are just a few of the things I would do differently. i'm sure I would think of more, but that would be a good start.
Seeing as how you're in the driver's seat, and all that.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
He has been tepid and inconsistent on this, for years.
Do you not understand what the term LOSE means? We only lose if you say so. I'm not there. My son is in Mosul and he tells us the IED's are down, their leadership has been destroyed and they have no network. A soldier will not tell you he/she is willing to lose. Only civilians will tell you that. A soldier does not understand the term LOSE. You fight battles to win.
I will not have the lives of hundred of thousands Iraq's on my hands. You may call it a civil war (friend or foe) but I'll call it a BLOOD bath. Prior to Korea and Viet Nam - America did not lose wars and these wars were lost by policticans not soldiers.
I don't agree with everything the President says or does but I'm behind him or any other President in War Time 150% in fighting a war to WIN. Your sir/madam need to understand America does not and will not lose a WAR. If we lose a war, it because civilians and Politicans don't have the stomach to stick it out when it gets stuff. If you let us lose this war then I can assure you there will be another war right behind this one. Only bloodier and closer to your and my home. How much do YOU value freedom and liberty. Let the Iraq people get that choice.
I refuse to surrender or withdraw. Not now or ever!!!!
Iraq was this administration's unilateral dream, and they pursued it for their own interests. The bulk of our efforts against the war of terror should have been concentrated in Afghanistan.
And as far as my "plan" - here's what I would have done: I would have given Afghanistan 72 hours to turn in Osama Bin Laden, and when they refused, I would have turned Afghanistan into an empty crater. I may be more liberal than you RedStaters, but I still shiver everytime I remember those two planes crash into the WTC towers. The bastards that flew those planes didn't give a flip about the innocent lives that were taken that day. Any country or government that protects them deserves neither compassion nor mercy, as far as I'm concerned.
And that goes for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and anyone else. God forbid we get hit again - should that ever happen, my plan would be to not fight a "compassionate" war. Instead, set an example that if you intend to hit the United States of America, we'll open the floodgates to hell and send you there packing.
how silly this sounds.
First, from September 20, 2001
And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al Qaeda who hide in your land. (Applause.) Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities. (Applause.) Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.
These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. (Applause.) The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.
Second, have you seen photos of Afghanistan? And a smoking crater?
So the war against Iraq was wrong but you are all in favor of war against Syria and Iran?
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
And Iraq had NO WMD's and no ties to Al-Qaeda.
And yes - I'm in favor of dropping a nuke right on top of Tehran, and a second one right on top of Damascus. They've been funding terrorists for decades. I have no compassion or sympathy for either of those two regimes, or the people that support them.
While that may sound drastic, or crule, or barbaric to some, those are my beliefs. If we ever have to go to war with Iran or Syria, not one American soldier has to die. There is always the nuclear option, and as long as there are idiots on the face of this planet who willingly slaughter innocent women and children for the promise of 70 virgins in heaven, I am more than happy to employ it.
is that yes, Iran and Syria supported terrorism and should be nukes, but Iraq, which spent two decades on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terror is off limits because you believe they had no ties to al Qaeda and no WMD (which neither Syria nor Iran have)
Let's leave aside for the moment the fact that Saddam helped Ansar al Islam, now quaintly known as al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, to set up camp north of the No-Fly Zone in Iraqi Kurdistan.
I'm taking it that your advocacy of nuking Tehran and Damascus are rhetorical flights of fancy because if you are serious you need to find another place to post this type of nonsense.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
But I think that we can avoid murdering millions of people just because you got scared. Even if they are Middle Easterners.
Get off and stay off.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
lessons from history to guide us. Any assumptions from prior wars are useless. From the begining, we were told that this was going to be a multi-generational conflict. Yet it appears that many of us have forgotten and like little kids on a long car trip are calling out "Are we there yet?"
FYI, we are engaging the terrorist in more places than Afganistan and Iraq but that is part of the secret war which is more "big stick" diplomacy than overt combat. Our troops are doing better than expected. Casualties are low and, compared to other wars, the war-time costs are also low.
Of course, those who still think in terms of the Grande Battalions are calling for the draft. Most of the draft avocates have absolutely no idea about current military doctrine or tactics. You probably could get many of them to endorse a "push of pike" in Bagdad.
Our operations cannot be explained in detail because such explanations benefit the enemy. We want the enemy to believe in the ultimate success of their war of national liberation doctrine as we slowly perform a geo-strategic Cannae.
"We are engaged in a new type of conflict. There are no lessons from history to guide us. Any assumptions from prior wars are useless."
If you are talking about Afghanistan and Iraq, this is completely wrong. There are plenty of lessons from the past to guide us. Unfortunately, they are not all remembered.
There are huge bodies of literature about every topic, i.e. armies in modernization and nation-building, military occupations of third world countries, counter-insurgency and guerrilla warfare, lessons of colonialism and imperialism, building democracies, civil wars, propaganda, etc.
One lesson is that democracies, like the U.S., will not fight open-ended, optional wars, in developing countries. If you cannot win in one or two years, the public will get restless and end it. This is the nature of democracies There are numerous historical examples. I don't think Iraq is unique in this regard.
... that weakness breeds contempt and contempt breeds war.
When the Congress, in its infinite(simal) wisdom finally gets their way and confirms our weakness for all the world to see it will be met with cheers by every current and potential enemy of our way of life and fear by every friend. When the cheering dies down the plans will begin. And the people of this country will pay for the cowardice of the politicians for decades to come. And our military, the very people about whom the cretins in Washington pretend to be so concerned, will pay and pay dearly --- for they are the ones who will have to give battle to the evil that will be incarnated by our weakness.
It is no longer matters whether Iraq was necessary, although I still believe that the information available at the time made it so. It no longer matters whether the post-war handling was right or wrong, good or bad. None of the nonsense trotted out by the "if I knew then what I know now" politicians matters any longer. What matters now is that we not surrender Iraq, that we not turn our backs and run away --- no matter what words are used to describe retreat.
It is literally victory or death. Time and time again history has demonstrated that if we do not prevail death will surely follow in the wake of our retreat.
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
Before we pulled out of Vietnam people were saying that if we left, Communism was going to sweep Asia and take over the world. Their fears were obviously overblown.
Now, you are trying to say Islamic terrorism is perhaps even more dangerous than Communism. It is a danger, no doubt, but you are acting like they are going to take over the world or conquer the United States. The Islamists continually profess their desire to destroy Israel, a country right next door and possessing only a small percentage of our military might. Yet Israel still stands. If the Islamists can't even bring down Israel, what can they possibly hope to do against the US? This idea that Islamic terrorism is some kind of world super-power, capable of taking down a modern first-world country, is absurd and hyperbolic.
Will pulling out of Iraq have consequences? Most certainly. Will they be unpleasant? Most certainly. I'm laying responsibility for those consequences squarely on the shoulders of President Bush. He is the one that took us into this war. He is the one that soft sold the difficulty of the war, then spent four years telling people it was going well when it clearly wasn't, which is why it is now completely impossible to convince people to support the war. He is the one that bungled and mis-managed the war planning and implementation. When we leave Iraq, we will be leaving because the voters no longer support the war. The reason they won't support it is because we have almost nothing to show for over four years of effort. The reason that we have so little to show is President Bush.
Tell that to five million southeast Asians who were butchered after the Democratic Party pulled us out of Vietnam and then defunded their military.
And thank you for laying the responsibility for the impending slaughter in the Middle East on GWB's shoulders. Lord knows he's done a crappy job of being a wartime POTUS, but your friends on the Left have done their standard admirable job of being cowards, fools and traitors.
Bush may not have managed the politics well, but it's you and your cohorts who are going to pull the rug out from under the Iraqi people. And you're doing in the face of a virtually bloodless war in terms of American losses.
You make me sick. I hope you and your Democratic cowards rot in hell for what you've done to the people of Southeast Asia and soon to the people of Iraq and the Middle East.
I need a shower.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
far better said than mine.
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
I know that in the fevered minds of the "progressives" Islamic Terrorism is just a bumper stikcer or ar worst an overblown case of carjacking so arguing with you is pretty much a losing proposition.
These are the lessons of history, you don't even have to take my word for it, just try reading a little actual history --- not the politically correct padlum they teach in American schools today.
But thankfully you have George Bush to blame so everything, including the carnage in the Middle East, will be explainable. So you can go back to worrying about Paris Hilton or civil rights for tree toads or whatever is important to the left these days secure in the knowledge that all the mayhem in the world is the fault of one man.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
Seriously, there are some lessons that can be learned from history and applied here. They are not always obvious and some of those lessons may paint a picture that many are not comfortable looking at.
For example...Compare the fanaticism of the jihadist with the Japanese soldiers in WWII. Look at what types of tactics we had to use to bring about victory. While they type of fighting is different, the psychology of the two forces is very similar and may provide some ideas about how best to defeat our present enemy.
I also think some lessons can be drawn by looking at 19th century colonial warfare and the Indian Wars here in the States. It is worth looking into. Some of the strategies implemented by different commanders were very unique but fit the situation peferctly and allowed the colonial power to win a war that conventional military thinking would have lost.
Finally...I just began reading Walid Phares' 2005 book "Future Jihad" and I find it very enlightening. Our enemies entire world view is wrapped up in their history and there is something to be gained for us by studying it.
I have to say I really am disgusted by the lack of thought and lack of spine that so many of my countrymen demonstrate every day. Iraq is not a, "war of choice". We have to stay until Iraq can stand on its' own two feet and defend itself. I don't care if they go Marxist on us and join the Hugo Chavez crowd as long as that decision is made by the Iraqi people themselves.
I understand your point, but this is clearly an overstatement. Throughout history soldiers have fought bravely and accepted defeat when they had to. Even the fight-to-the-death Japanese in WWII eventually accepted what it meant to lose.
Losing takes a lot of forms -- from raw military defeat to loss of will (for both good and bad reasons). Our troops are being asked to do something that may well be beyond their ability to deliver. The fault lies not with them, but with the task at hand.
These troops, regardless of the outcome, are not going to come home in shame; and Americans (most at least) will be grateful for what they've done and what they've tried to do.
If we lose a war, it because civilians and Politicans don't have the stomach to stick it out when it gets stuff.[sic]
No matter what any individual believes, in a society like ours, the civilians are critical to any war effort. It isn't just up to the president, Pentagon, or soldiers. If the citizens don't support the effort -- for which they are paying -- then, at some point, a war has to end.
You may want the president and military to have an open-ended ticket to wage the conflict in Iraq, but, even accepting the fact that the citizenry may be wrong, I don't want to live in a society where the wishes of the people are endlessly ignored by their leaders and military.
Mr. Bush has had years now to "sell" this war to the American people. He has failed miserably. We may or may not agree about the causes of his failure, but either way that won't change the fact that he has failed. At some point, the elected representatives of the people should represent the wishes of their constituents or accept the possibility of electoral repudiation.
Based on Haystack's own formulation,
the citizens of the Republic at odds with our elected bodies hired BY us to represent OUR best interests and do OUR bidding,
the problem right now appears to be not that we aren't forging ahead in Iraq, but that we aren't acknowledging the wishes of the majority of Americans and taking steps to wrap up our involvement. Sometimes our "best interests" may not coincide with "our bidding."
The tyranny of the majority can be a dangerous thing, but the tyranny of a (small) minority is hardly an improvement. I've been in a lot of small minorities in my life, and I may have felt my representative was doing the wrong thing, but I could hardly accuse him or her of not doing the bidding of those who hired him/her.
For good or ill, most representatives today will be doing the bidding of those who hired them by supporting and voting for withdrawal. Sad or not, that seems to be the reality of where we are today.
I agree with your logic. That is why Civilians are in charge of the military. But at the same time, one must understand who and what your are fighting. We have no battle lines. We don't have an enemies flag that we charge toward but we mustn't lose the will to win. This is not a game (do not take this wrong). It is survival. This enemy is something we've never faces before. An enemy that will roast and serve a boy child to it's parents. This enemy has no boundaries but we have self imposed boundaries that we must let go. It is making this country look weak. The middle east is only a small part of the global war on terror. China and Iran are suppling weapons and training to the enemy. Now China is a differnt story but one must not lose site of that country.
One needs to understand this did not start on GW's watch. GW just so happens to push back. Our enemies were not used to that. Our next President cannot let us go into a shell and try to hide our heads and let them pick us off one at a time. I do hope that MOST Americans understand this is Global and will take generations before we can "take a breathe".
My only wish is that the leaders of this nation understood that by withdrawing from Iraq that it will not stop the killing. If it's not Iraq...where will it be next? The answer to that lies with you and me.
you say that we -- supporters of the war -- want an "open-ended commitment". Presumably by this you mean the blank check, signing on to appropriations, troop increases, an endless support of the government in Iraq.
This is completely wrong -- at least as far as the President, and those of us who support the surge, are concerned. The surge was not, as some profess to believe, merely another troop escalation. rather, it was a way of forcing the endgame in Iraq. We are committed to a drawdown of US troops in Iraq -- AFTER we have defeated AQ and the Mahdi army and other enemies. The surge is not about an endless escalation and involvement in Iraq -- it is the opposite. It is a way to get out of Iraq with a victory -- the only way, I believe.
The surge is scheduled to last perhaps six or eight mont, after which we will have won or lost. If lose then we need to withdraw our troops. ut I think we will win. How about waiting until we have executed this carefully planned and brilliant operation?
you say that we -- supporters of the war -- want an "open-ended commitment". Presumably by this you mean the blank check, signing on to appropriations, troop increases, an endless support of the government in Iraq.
This is completely wrong -- at least as far as the President, and those of us who support the surge, are concerned. The surge was not, as some profess to believe, merely another troop escalation. rather, it was a way of forcing the endgame in Iraq. We are committed to a drawdown of US troops in Iraq -- AFTER we have defeated AQ and the Mahdi army and other enemies. The surge is not about an endless escalation and involvement in Iraq -- it is the opposite. It is a way to get out of Iraq with a victory -- the only way, I believe.
The surge is scheduled to last perhaps six or eight mont, after which we will have won or lost. If lose then we need to withdraw our troops. ut I think we will win. How about waiting until we have executed this carefully planned and brilliant operation?
When have we tried to defeat the Mahdi Army? If we tried, we sure did a p--s poor job of it.
They will end up running part of the country.
from Bill Roggio's fourth rail for July 9:
"Muqtada al Sadr, the leader of the Mahdi Army, has fled Iraq and sought shelter in Iran for the second time this year, according to U.S. military sources. Sadr left Iraq after Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki issued an unusually strong demand for the Mahdi Army to disband, and as Iraqi and Coalition forces have battled Sadr's forces in Baghdad, Diwaniyah, and Samawa in the south.
In Samawa, Iraqi Army and police units deployed throughout the city "after negotiations with Sadr's office in the city reached a 'deadlock.'" Sadr sought a truce with the provincial government. Eight were killed and 66 wounded in the fighting over the past several days. In Diwaniyah, the 8th Iraqi Army Division paired up with the Hilla SWAT special police and killed nine members of the "rogue Jaysh al-Mahdi [Mahdi Army] militia and captured four others on July 7." In Baghdad, Iraqi Special Operations Forces captured seven members of "a rogue Jaysh al-Madhi" cell on July 7. This cell was part of "a network involved in death squad activities, kidnapping and assassination activities."
I don't know about you, but I'm seeing a lot of killing and capturing and fighting here, by Iraqi and Coalition forces against the Mahdi Army.
That's what I said. We're engaging them.
Please don't say we didn't do it back in 2005 or whatever. I was talking about now, and so were you.
Sorry, it's too hot here to argue (except with the cat who has decided she wants to weight 35 pounds).
Incidentally, I wasn't arguing anything in my post except maybe that 1) soldiers do know how to lose, they've done it since the first war, and the alternative would be for every war to go on until everyone on one side was dead -- something that clearly doesn't happen (at least not very often); and 2) for most political representatives in the US today, representing their constituents would mean voting to begin withdrawing troops now. I wasn't arguing the rightness or wrongness of that, just its reality.
So, rather than argue, I'll just respond, if that's OK.
I don't think six or eight months is going to be enough to "win" anything meaningful. Neither, from what I've heard and read, does Gen. Petraeus, who speaks in terms of years. So, the decision Americans have to make is are they willing to keep reconsidering the wisdom of going on when they get one assurance after another that if we just persevere for another X months, we'll be out of the woods. The opposition forces in Iraq are in the driver's seat. Anytime they think that lying low for a period of time will result in the Americans declaring victory (because all the "benchmarks" will reflect that) and withdrawing, all they have to do is lie low. Anytime they think that killing Americans will hasten withdrawal they can kill Americans. If they're smart they can manipulate us like puppets. It's an ugly situation, but I think that's how things stand.
The other problem, as I see it, with what you've written is that if we get to the end of yet another "magical"* six (or eight) months, and we haven't won, George Bush is never going to concede defeat and withdraw. And why should he? If the consequences of that withdrawal are as dire as he says they will be (personally, I don't think anyone can know that) , then withdrawing will be just as irresponsible then as it is now. Hence, no end in sight. In the meantime, how many more Americans will have died and how many more terrorists will have been spawned?
Sad to say, this really may be something we can not possibly win. If the opposition forces (I use that expression because the "opposition" is so heterogeneous) play it right, this will be an endless war with no victory possible. Some things simply can't be achieved with military force.
*The use of the word "magical" was not meant to respond sarcastically to the way you used the word, but to the fact that for years now one elected official, military leader, or pundit has announced conclusively that the next X months will be the deciding X months. Then, when X months have passed, and nothing has been decided, the same people offer us the next X months as the critical period. Taken to its logical conclusion that's endless.
But I will respond anyway.
1. You say that any victory we win in Iraq will be illusory, in that our enemy, the infinitely brilliant and capable enemy, are masters of shape-shifting and deception, and they will pretend to be defeated till we leave and then return, etc. You say the enemy is in charge and we are helpless since they can manipulate reality, manipulate the press, kill people at will etc. Hence, there's no such thing as victory and it's all an illusion.
My answer is, Iraq is not a vacuum. It's not an empty field where we're fighting with phantoms. Thanks to our efforts and the efforts of the Iraqis over the past few years, they have a functioning government and a capable and improving national army. The Iraqi people have come to trust us (why it took so long is another story) and without their support the terrorist activities you describe as being in the driver's seat cannot take place.
2. You say, again that the surge is merely the latest in a continuum of open-ended commitments, and if (or when, as you would say) it fails, the President will ask for another six months and so on. You add that we have had a series of people telling us to give it another period of time and so on. And now the "same people" are saying the same thing again.
I have to dispute that -- are you saying that President Bush did not relieve all of his generals and replace them as well as the Secretary of Defense, prior to (and a necessary condition of) the surge. Are you not aware of this? In what sense is it "the same people".
The President has said that the surge is the last chance for victory in Iraq. If it fails there will not be an extension of the kind you are talking about.
As to the length of a counterinsurgency, Gen Petraeus is looking at the normal course such as Malaysia, etc. That would be a low-level conflict that disrupted but did not threaten the security of Iraq and it would be carried out in a remote part of the country and involve a small US force and Iraqi forces -- nothing like the level we have now.
I don't get the "magical" reference. So maybe your comments not aimed at me?
There, now you know that I'm responding to you.
It's cooling off a little, but I'm still not much in the mood for an argument. That said, how could I possibly argue with someone who is simply making things up.
1. You say that any victory we win in Iraq will be illusory, in that our enemy, the infinitely brilliant and capable enemy, are masters of shape-shifting and deception, and they will pretend to be defeated till we leave and then return, etc. You say the enemy is in charge and we are helpless since they can manipulate reality, manipulate the press, kill people at will etc. Hence, there's no such thing as victory and it's all an illusion.
I said that? Wow, I'll have to reread my post. Hmmm. Nope, that's not what I said. First of all, if you read carefully, since I don't claim omniscience, I frequently use modifiers, conditionals, and limiters of various sorts. I wrote:
"The opposition forces in Iraq are in the driver's seat. Anytime they think that lying low for a period of time will result in the Americans declaring victory (because all the "benchmarks" will reflect that) and withdrawing, all they have to do is lie low. Anytime they think that killing Americans will hasten withdrawal they can kill Americans. If they're smart they can manipulate us like puppets. It's an ugly situation, but I think that's how things stand."
Now, perhaps when you're in the driver's seat you feel "infinitely brilliant and capable...," and you're a "master of shape-shifting and deception," but I certainly don't and I most certainly didn't attribute any of those qualities to our adversaries. I said they could do certain things, not that they will. And I most certainly didn't characterize the situation the way you have mischaracterized what I wrote. Just because they're in the driver's seat doesn't mean they won't drive recklessly, or while under the influence (of religious zeal or murderous delusion?). It means what I wrote. They can (perhaps could is better) do those things. Will they? How do I know? But if they're smart, they will manipulate the situation with the bigger picture in mind. Of course, they may not.
and they will pretend to be defeated till we leave and then return, etc.
Septembergurl, people's actual words and intent mean something (or should). Once again, I didn't say they will do that, I said "if they're smart."
My answer is, Iraq is not a vacuum. It's not an empty field where we're fighting with phantoms. Thanks to our efforts and the efforts of the Iraqis over the past few years, they have a functioning government and a capable and improving national army.
Perhaps. But I certainly have read plenty that says that isn't the case. I never said we were fighting phantoms. But I don't think anyone is arguing that the Iraqi government has met or surpassed any of the benchmarks set for them. Now, the latest argument I've heard is that the benchmarks are meaningless. And the opposition forces, which can choose to fight, or not fight, to wait or not wait, have considerable latitude. Phantoms no. But, again, if they're smart (and they may not be) they could probably do a reasonable impression.
The Iraqi people have come to trust us
This is an assertion without substantial reliable evidence. Since, some polls have shown that a majority of Iraqis think it's OK to kill Americans, I'd say you've engaged in a modicum of hyperbole here.
...and without their support the terrorist activities you describe as being in the driver's seat cannot take place.
The "Iraqi people" are not monolithic, and clearly, a significant number of Iraqis do support the opposition. One of the realities of this kind of warfare seems to be that the opposition forces don't need to have majority support to carry on indefinitely. They just need enough. And it seems that they have enough support now.
2. You say, again that the surge is merely the latest in a continuum of open-ended commitments, and if (or when, as you would say) it fails, the President will ask for another six months and so on. You add that we have had a series of people telling us to give it another period of time and so on. And now the "same people" are saying the same thing again.
Again, argue with what I wrote, not what you think I wrote or wish I had written. I said nothing about "when" the surge fails. Unlike some, I have no crystal ball or hotline to the boss to tell me what's going to happen. If you look back at what I wrote, I said, “Then, when X months have passed, and nothing has been decided…” Not when the surge fails, but rather, and what is more likely than failure or success, when “nothing has been decided….” Writing the same sentence again, I might use if instead of when.
I have to dispute that -- are you saying that President Bush did not relieve all of his generals and replace them as well as the Secretary of Defense, prior to (and a necessary condition of) the surge. Are you not aware of this? In what sense is it "the same people".
Even Sherlock Holmes couldn't find where I said the president hadn't removed and replaced personnel. But there are two ways to view the "same people." In some cases, the same people means the identical individuals. In other cases, it means the people in those same positions. However, for the most part I'm speaking of the identical people. The president, McCain, Lieberman, Graham, Kristol, Friedman, and on and on. The point, and significant numbers of Americans seem to have picked up on this, is that we've been hearing the same promises for years now. If you look through the archives of lefty blogs you will find countless references to exactly this. It's one of their major talking points. They've even coined the expression "Friedman" to represent a six month period that will be decisive. Each time the six month period ends, a new six month period is proposed. If you aren't aware of this, I encourage you to lurk on some lefty blogs for a while. I think you'll get the picture -- and maybe high blood pressure, as well. Since I don’t wish you to damage your health, please take frequent breaks and do stress relieving exercises.
The President has said that the surge is the last chance for victory in Iraq. If it fails there will not be an extension of the kind you are talking about.
I'd like to see the quote from the president where he says such an extension won't happen. I doubt it exists (although I could be wrong), because that simply isn't his style (and I certainly don’t remember reading or hearing about any such a pledge). In fact, what we're seeing now is that the rhetoric of six months ago is being modified. I'm not going to waste my time going back and digging up every instance of the president or some other official or pundit saying we'd "know" by September. I’m not even going to waste time arguing that any specific individual posed September as the decisive time. For better or worse, it’s out there, and people are counting on it. Of course, now we're hearing that the real surge is only just beginning, so of course September is too early, while General Petraeus has been speaking in terms of years. That's a lot of Friedmans.
As to the length of a counterinsurgency, Gen Petraeus is looking at the normal course such as Malaysia, etc. That would be a low-level conflict that disrupted but did not threaten the security of Iraq and it would be carried out in a remote part of the country and involve a small US force and Iraqi forces -- nothing like the level we have now.
Sadly, that's just guessing. And for all his expertise on terrorism and counterinsurgency (he "wrote the book"), I'm not aware that General Petraeus has ever won a counterinsurgency against religious fanatics in a country like Iraq (that might be because this situation is close to, if not, unique).
I don't get the "magical" reference. So maybe your comments not aimed at me?
I just didn't want you to think that I was being snarky about your use of the time period.
First of all, I did indeed take your remark that"...when X months have passed, and nothing has been decided," etc to be a paraphrase of "when the surge fails". Incidentally, I agree that the results have to be decisive -- saying that we have made progress but we need more time to make more progress will not suffice. We need dramatic and overwhelming evidence of success.
You made 2 points:
1. That the asymmetrical warfare we are engaged in favors our enemy, as does the timetable, world opinion, the political clock etc. Well, I would agree that it does if we let it-- that is if we allow the terrorists jihadis and insurgents to set up shop and operate relatively freely in parts of Iraq as we did in 2004-2006. The argument is that I believe that we are now using appropriate force levels, tactics, strategy and you believe we are still using the same old methods and the same old people. And that's where I'm going to leave it since I have been over this many times as have others and you simply don't agree.
2. More egregiously you state that supporters of the surge have supported the war from the beginning, supported every move, development, strategy etc and that our support or the surge is merely us saying OK this time we really mean it, give us six more months and we'll have it won, etc. After I pointed out that the personnel actually planning and executing the war were all *new* you then said you hadn't meant that -- you gave the examples of Friedman, Lieberman, McCain, Graham, and Kristol. OK let's look at those examples.
I don't read the Times but I have the impression that friedman, while he was a supporter for a while, has changed his tune. I'm pretty sure he supports the Baker Hamilton report. He certainly does not support the surge or the President.
I'll give you Lieberman.
McCain, while a strong supporter of the war, has been a critic of the strategy. tactics and troop levels almost since the beginning. He criticized the President and SecDef mercilessly for sending in too few troops, called for an increase of 100,000 troops since 2004, and has criticized the administration spokesmen for the happy talk for years -- he has shorthand which goes "mission accomplished/dead enders/last throes of the insurgency" as a way of expressing his disdain for the Administration happytalkers. He supports the surge but criticises it for having only 30,000 additional troops instead of the 100,000 he called for. He voted against Gen Casey, Petraeus' predecessor in Iraq, being elevated to Army Chief f Saff on the grounds that he thought Casey had FAILED in Iraq. Graham is McCain's Mini-Me in these matters.
Kristol -- the strategy and the need for the surge was first made public in the Weekly Standard by the surge's authors, Keane and Kagan. The basis for the surge was a critique of our losing strategy and leadership in Iraq. Again, the point being made was that we needed to change what we were doing -- not that we needed to continue it.
And let me add myself. I was and am a supporter of the war for a variety of reasons. I have been a crtitic of the way it was fought and our overall strategy since 2004 and especially since our failure to deal with the consequences of the mosque bombing in Feb 2006. Indeed I called for the replacement of Casey by Petraeus and a counterinsurgency strategy on this very blog well before it was adopted by the President. From my point of view, the President has finally come around to my position, so it's a lttle galling to be peotrayed as a mindless cheerleader for whatever the President does. Again we will have to disagree on this.
Finally a couple o points of fact:
"The Iraqi people have come to trust us(me)
This is an assertion without substantial reliable evidence. Since, some polls have shown that a majority of Iraqis think it's OK to kill Americans, I'd say you've engaged in a modicum of hyperbole here."
And I'd say you're not up to speed on this development, for which there is widespread evidence. Even the MSM, eg NY Slimes have done stories on the impressive support we are now getting from the people.
The party line for defeatism is that while the people are coming around to supporting us, it's too little and too late -- not that it's not happening.
"And for all his expertise on terrorism and counterinsurgency (he "wrote the book"), I'm not aware that General Petraeus has ever won a counterinsurgency against religious fanatics in a country like Iraq (that might be because this situation is close to, if not, unique"
Actually, Gen Petraeus did fight the insurgency in Iraq, when he was in charge of the northern part of the country around Mosul after the invasion and in 2004. And that was the only part of the post-invasion that was successful. Newsweek put Petraeus on its cover saying "Can Petraeus Save Iraq?" after which he was rotated out of the country. Unfortunately we then wasted three years with less than stellar people running the war.
Oh gee -- more slavish support by me of our President and his military leaders.
I'm willing to accept that we simply disagree on some things. I could take exception to some of the things you've said in your latest response, but basically I think we're at an impasse. Time will tell.
Finally, I commend you for responding without any of the vitriol that is so common (at least for some people) here at RedState. Perhaps we'll talk (disagree?) again sometime.
when he was fighting Rome while the politicians in Carthage were doing everything to sabotage the war effort. They were successful and Hannibal had to flee Carthage. For their efforts to end the war with Rome, the Romans rewarded the politicians, as well as all the inhabitants of Carthage,with either death or slavery.
Hannibal forced Carthage into a 17 year war with Rome and lost (principally at the Battle of Zama, near Carthage). I don't blame the senators for firing Hannibal. The Romans would have subjugated Carthage, whether or not the senators supported Hannibal, who wanted a perpetual war, regardless of costs, against the Romans.
Most histories talk about three Punic Wars. I look at the whole period as one war with periods of low intensity conflict between the classical three wars. Rome was out to destroy Carthage from day one but most of the people of Carthage refused to believe that Rome was after their total destruction. Hannibal, by his operations in Italy, managed to kep Rome so busy that Carthage could have been strenghtened.
However, the politicians were more interested in opening trade with the Romans than in improving their position. At the start of the Punic Wars, Carthage was the premier power in the Mediterranean while Rome was a small land-based power with a few untrustworthy city-states that Rome technically controlled.
During the period of the Punic Wars, Carthage sacrificed the interests of its allies so that, by the time of the battle of Zama, only Carthages long time ally, the Neubians remained. After the Neubian king was assassinated, the Neubian forces went over to the Romans at the battle of Zama.
The politicians of Carthage played their petty little domestic power games to the end. Rome had told the world that it intended to destroy Carthage and did so.
Now we have the various terrorists telling the world that they will destroy the United States and no one seems to be listening.
Soldiers don't lose wars! Democratic politicians lose wars! I remember growing up and having to fight the neighborhood bully. I took a few blows but I kept fighting and I won. The other kids (they are probably Democrats today)ran for cover and quivered with fear. I was now their hero, if I would have lost the bully would have been their hero. Democrats would bend over and take it in the %** if the bad guys would just leave them alone. The enemy is coming to get us. Stand up and fight! Democrats!
Soldiers don't lose wars! Democratic politicians lose wars!
Let's see Woodrow Wilson was president during WWI. Hmmm. Our side won.
WWII? Well, that would be FDR and Harry Truman. Oops! We won again.
Korea. Democrat at the start, but it was Eisenhower who ended it without victory (and I'm not saying he did the wrong thing), and inconveniently, he was a Republican.
Then, Vietnam. Darn. Nixon and Ford saw that one through to closure...and certainly not victory. And please don't blame it all on the opposition Congress. President Bush is certainly not giving up with Congress in the control (meager though it is) of the Democrats.
To the extent that the first Iraqi war qualifies, there was a Republican at the helm, but some might argue that by failing to oust Hussein, GHWB actually lost that one. It was a limited engagement that accomplished its very limited goals, but it sure left those Iraqis up the creek who'd risen up against Hussein based on what they thought was the promise of the American president to support them. Victory? Maybe too close to call. You decide.
Argue what you want, but why throw around meaningless and ridiculous assertions that have their basis purely in your own wishful thinking? Just because it fits on a bumper sticker doesn't mean it's worth saying.
You can't deny the party changed after 68 and the uproar over HHH. Truman, FDR, and Wilson are as detached from this conversation as Lincoln and Grant.
And yes, Virginia, it was the Democratic Watergate Baby Congress that lost the Vietnam War.
Run like Reagan!
My point being; When you send forces into battle you fight the battle to win! You win and lose battles but you fight to win the overall war. The Democratic party is responsible for not allowing our soliders to fight the good fight. You need a lawyer in your platoon to make sure you are not tried for war crimes etc. You went to the UN and signed treaties to weaken the US. You need to look at what the Democratic party stands for and I can assure you it is not in your best interest. Sometimes the truth hurts.
Given the weak control that the Dems have in Congress, if the US begins withdrawing from Iraq before Bush leaves office, it will only be because a significant number of Republicans vote to do so.
Reid isn't capable of leading or creating a bi-partisan coalition. The Republicans will join, if they do, because they decide to for their own reasons.
Thus, the Dems will not own the responsibility; they will share it.
I don't take issue with your anger that Iraq may not end the way you want or hope it will. Just with your distorting things that don't need to be distorted for you to make your point.
"You, you, you." That would make me a Democrat, something I neither claim nor would be proud to be.
You have mistakenly interpreted my comments as a defense of the Democrats. Absolutely not. On the contrary, I was simply taking issue with what I see as hyperbolic vilification without basis in fact.
The Democratic party is responsible for not allowing our soliders to fight the good fight. You need a lawyer in your platoon to make sure you are not tried for war crimes etc. You went to the UN and signed treaties to weaken the US. You need to look at what the Democratic party stands for and I can assure you it is not in your best interest. Sometimes the truth hurts.
Once again, when I read this, I simply get the impression of someone who hates Democrats more that he/she cares about reality. While people may disagree about issues, I see it as pointless to simply rail about one party or the other as being the sole cause of this or that evil.
As for whether the Democratic Party represents my best interests, I have no illusions that it does. Neither does the Republican Party. Not even close. Both are remarkably corrupt, far more interested in fund-raising and election cycles than they are in representing any ordinary citizen's interests.
Cheers.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmYzZjJiOTAxNWUyYmY2NzNkMjZkYTk...
Via The Corner:
I give you John McCain on the cost of bugging out....not that the Left cares. Why worry about losing a war, when you think you can win an election?