Oh, Stop It
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in War — Comments (26) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The demonization of David Petraeus continues. Having mentioned Eric Shinseki earlier today, we might note that generals have been known to talk back to the civilian leadership many a time. Indeed, Sullivan has been known to celebrate one who did. But since Andrew Sullivan believes that Petraeus--and Ambassador Crocker with him--will come out with a report indicating that the surge is working, he is bound and determined to smear Petraeus in any way that he can. Thus, a Ph.D. recipient from Princeton who has written the book on counterinsurgency is now reduced to someone who "has been told what to say. He takes orders. That's his job."
Is there any more evidence needed to come to the conclusion that Sullivan believes he has neither the intellectual chops nor the expertise in the art and science of war to actually make an argument on the issues instead of merely portraying Petraeus as a mindless robot--based on an offhand comment by John McCain, no less? And while we are asking questions, would someone please tell Andrew Sullivan that his blog increasingly reeks of desperation? I'm all for people who disagree with me taking their stands in public debates. But it would be kind of nice if they would graduate from the kind of insult-mongering that one finds on little kiddie playgrounds and make serious arguments on the issues.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | The New Republic meets Dan Rather (and finds that they have a surprising amount in common) [Updated repeatedly] — Comments (11) »
Oh, Stop It 26 Comments (0 topical, 26 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
and screaming by MoveOn and others.
I only disagree that things will grind on as before until November 2008. I think things may change enough in Iraq, and at home, that the war won't necessarily be a losing issue. Rather, it will be possible to make those who call for retreat look weak on national security.
Join the Win the War campaign, joshlevy@yahoo.com, www.win-the-war.com.
Our leaders waver, but we can give them the courage they need.
Or did your future self just send back a copy of the testimony?
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
... hat if I were in contact with my future self, I would be sending myself back things far more interesting than Gen. Petraeus' testimony.
It's simply a matter of looking at what has happened in the past and asking whether anything has changed in a way that would produce a different result.
I think not.
In fact, it's intensified! The push to end this war with an American defeat using variations of the same arguments that have been used since the beginning has only grown stronger since the Democrats won the election in 2006. I expect the past to be prologue for just that reason.
Past events are not a reliable indicator of future performance in warfare. Tactics and strategies continually evolve and transmute, the learning curve is sharp when the air is filled with lead. In warfare the fortunes of either side may turn on a single event or battle, the historical precedent is undeniable.
While your assertion that things may not change is reasonable, it is not unreasonable to assume that things may change. Dramatic change is unlikely but so was our victory at Midway and many other places where the tide of war was turned.
Past performance in Iraq may support your argument, but there are good reasons to be optimistic, and history decidely shows that it is not a fools optimism.
Be of good cheer. We are engaging our enemies and winning.
Now if I could just find my flux capacitor!
"The only way to negotiate with your enemy, is with your knee on his chest and your knife at his throat." - Anon.
Join the Win the War campaign, joshlevy@yahoo.com, www.win-the-war.com.
Our leaders waver, but we can give them the courage they need.
"It takes two people to lie Marge"
"One person to lie and one person to listen...."
I'll bite.
And what if Patraeus comes in September and lays out "data points" such as:
--US casualties at 10 month lows.(July is at an 8 month low)
--Civilian deaths have been cut by 1/3 (Which they have)
--The MNF-I and the ISF are getting 4 times the amount of civilian intelligence that they were just 6 months ago.(True)
--Anbar is a great success story on all accounts. (It is)
--ISF forces continue to improve modestly and their force levels grow as well.
--Coalition forces have discovered more weapons stockpiles in the past six months than they have all of last year.
Data points? I'm not so sure. But security and economic assistance is the base on which the political victories will have to be built upon. Progress is progress. If my grade in Math class went from a D+ to a C+ or B- is that not progress or am I still going to fail?
Before the Iraq parliament went off for their summer holidays this week the Sunni block resigned (because Maliki wasn't proactive enough in disarming Shia militia's). There is absolutely no real legitimate representative government in Iraq. The crumbling of the multi sect coalition is a clear and disastrous step towards civil war. Not only that, it is a big step towards Iraqi alignment with Tehran.
The military gains have been massively outweighed by political setbacks.
and some are linked to the insurgency.
From the "huh?" it appears this is news to you.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
but I don't do research. Several Sunni members of parliament have been linked to groups which are fighting the government. I don't know why this is a shock since Sadr has representatives in the parliament.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
everything is bad in Iraq government benefit A-Q. The fact that any Iraqi would stand up for freedom, knowing the history of abandonment the American leftists have shown in Vietnam and the same American leftist segment of our political leaders and voters are showing in their actions toward Iraqis, totally amazes me.
The Sunni segment resigns from the government of Iraq and if we here on Redstate just don't talk about it AQ won't find out?
and the government of Iraq will handle it as they have handled numerous other problems. As long as America supports the Iraqi government, Iraq has a chance. If America leaves before the Iraq government can stand on its own, the result will be the same as in Vietnam; a free nation destroyed by the terrorists because Americans like Walter Cronkite transmitted the enemy propaganda on a daily basis to America. There gullible Americans that couldn't recognize enemy propaganda for what it was bought it hook, line and sinker. The fact that Americans, their allies and brave Vietnamese were actually winning, made no difference to the leftists in America, who's goal was to defeat America.
I find it very easy to ignore Andrew Sullivan but would find it even easier if conservative bloggers didn't feel the need to chronicle every stupidity that issues forth from his mouth. The bloggers at the NRO Corner are the worst about this. Instead of just letting AS wither on the vine, like clockwork they come out to announce the latest reason why they're done with him. Where would the stats of his piddly little blog be without the traffic sent his way by those who think he's worthless?
Sullivan surrendered any claim to intellectual honesty many, many moons ago; conservatives rising to the bait of answering his slanders only give him the attention he seeks. Sullivan's relevant to the BDS community, and that's about it.
Let the BDS echo chamber talk about him - I'm not interested.
Slouching to irrelevance.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
On the other hand, if anybody actually cares about Andrew Sullivan's views on Petraeus's report, perhaps Petraeus could be convinced to conclude it with a brief note stating support for gay marriage.
Even if nobody DOES care what Andrew Sullivan thinks, it would still afford us the amusement of watching him fall all over himself arguing why Petraeus is the greatest military strategist in the history of warfare.
Does Andrew Sullivan have some mystical powers of which I'm unaware? Does he really swing opinion, on the blogosphere or elsewhere?
Jeez, the man is a twit of world-class proportions. I tire of hearing about him.
Does anyone take this guy seriously? If not, who cares what he thinks? I mean, it's not as if he has the stones to say these things about Petraeus to his face. Sullivan is very brave...from behind the safe side of the keyboard.
Andrew Sullivan is a very little man, in all the ways that count.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Andrew Sullivan is the only kind of Conservative the New York Times can handle and feature in their book reviews without holding their noses, which is really kind of sick if you think about it. There are so many people worth reading and talking about more than him. I think the only reason people pay attention to him is that he carved out a niche for himself as America's Gay Conservative, because the New York Times says so, and everyone wanted to see what that looked like and what he thought, etc., etc.
As I look forward to this upcoming election, I think it's time for everyone to find some new benchmarks and shake things up a little. My Andrew Sullivan fatigue set in a long time ago.
Andrew Sullivan is a laughing stock for both the Left and the Right. I don't dislike Sullivan just because I disagree with him, rather it's because he's intellectually dishonest and comes off like a hyperventilating child in the midst of a tantrum.
I'm not really sure why Pejman feels the need to frequently smack down such an irrelevant political commentator. Sullivan's worst nightmare is to be ignored, we should just further isolate him from intelligent debate.
He's not worth the bandwidth.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
I can't for the life of me fathom how anyone with a scintilla of intelligence would assume that an Army General would sell out and waste his troops for a failed approach to a war. A French general would.
If Patraeus thinks it's working, then it's working. I'll not consider the opinion of politicos and pundits for the judgment of a general with his boots on the ground in the war zone and his troops'lives on the line.
We all know exactly what is going to happen in September, because we've seen this movie a number of times before.
Petreaus will say something along the lines of 'well, there remain many serious challenges, and there can be no guarantee of success, but in recent months we've begun to see some positive signs."
The administration will start up the chorus of "withdrawal would be disastrous and a victory for Al Qaeda, and anyway Petraeus is telling us that we are starting to win, so we have to let the military finish the job".
The Democrats in Congress will point out that the "signs of progress" are isolated data points, and the overall indicators of violence and instability haven't moved, and ask, by the way, where are the signs of political progress that you promised us when the surge began.
The Republicans in Congress will stroke their beards and sound very concerned, but at the end of the say they'll say "well, there are some signs of progress, so we're not going to pull the plug right now, but the next six months will be critical".
Then they'll filibuster whatever legislation the Dems put up, the Iraq war will grind on as before, until November 2008, when the GOP will be decimated by an American public that understands perfectly well what's going on and is tired of the charade.