Redstate

 of the flagging of the war effort. It's not really anything new, you understand - you can read accounts of 1863 in the US or the Alliance in WWI to see similar things.

 Of course, one can look at it realistically or one can continue to believe in the 'pure livers' philosophy. In terms of support for the war effort, the polls, the lack of 'sacrifice', the lack of interest in serving - even the lack of people willing to come to a free concert/festival - these point to reality more than fantasy.

that, per my own theories, many people in this country don't realize there's a war (or medium-intensity police action, since Congress hasn't had the guts to declare a war in 60 years) going on.  To most Americans, "Iraq" and "War on Terror" are just ongoing TV shows, like "American Idol", the difference being that, instead of voting for our favorite singers, we get to sit around in our air-conditioned living rooms making cerebral statements like, "War is wrong", "Bring our troops home", "No blood for oil!"  On the other hand, I'm not going to fret too much over a small Citizens United rally on a hot summer day...after all, the adults who make this country run may have had other things to do.  Frankly, at some point, Americans by and large concluded that no war was worth more than a few months' time, and that the only "cool" form of patriotism was exercising the freedom to criticize the government.

The point is, it's either a strength or a weakness of this country that no one is asked by the government to lift a d***ed finger in service of the country that gives them a life they can take for granted.  But there is definitely a widespread contempt for our armed forces that stems from ignorance and unfamiliarity, from never having been asked to serve or assist them in any way.  And by extension, there is contempt for any public official who would deploy those armed forces for any task more dangerous than lining up trucks in a motor pool.  

I understand how fickle the American public can be, and that this is nothing new in wartime, but the silver lining for us could be that we can finally accept what we're up against and quietly go about doing the work that needs to be done.

What are you even criticizing?  Those who believe the war in Iraq is against the interests of the US?  Why should people not voice their disagreement in the most important issue facing American's today?  This war has gone on longer than the current administration led the American people to believe(longer than US involvement in WWI for instance), has been poorly executed, is of questionable importance to the United States, and has no end in sight.  Jefferson said, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."  Perhaps he's just another one of those people who don't see the war in Iraq as something that "needs to be done."

does this poor attendence at a rally in Wash. DC reflect poor support nationwide for the war effort?

I'd attribute the poor turnout to two things: (1) poor planning -- we heard about the Million Mom March for MONTHS prior to the event, thru advertising and MSM reports.  More recent pro-troops rallies were widely pumped in the blogosphere.

This post is the first I've heard, read, or seen concerning this rally.   Granted, I don't live in DC -- so maybe there was some local advertising.  Which brings us to (2): if you want to hold a rally supporting conservative causes or the military, you really need to draw from OUTSIDE the Beltway.  Other than conservative lobbyists and the Republican Congresscritters (who are too "important" to do anything so crass as to show up at a rally, unless they're on stage), you're not going to find many people within the Beltway to come out to support conservative causes or the military or the war effort.

So what were the organizers THINKING?  My answer: they weren't.

The 2004 elections suggested that Americans support the administration's war effort. They are less than a year old. Elections are more important than any rally.

This is the first I've heard of this rally, and I'm a daily listener to conservative talk radio/reader of conservative and pro-military blogs.

I don't recall Sean Hannity, Rush, Hugh Hewitt, Blackfive, Mudville Gazette, Smash or any other conservative/pro military group mentioning this at all.

You seem to have a short memory.  President Bush from the very beginning said that this was going to be a long war.

Look how long it took us to defeat Germany and Japan.  And we are still there.

You need to accept the fact that battles may be won quickly, but that wars are of a long duration.

But I thought "major combat operations" ended more than 2 years ago... maybe memories are shortest among our leaders.

It seems like having a couple famous singers should be able to bring alot more than 50 people regardless of the reason for the event.  While support of our troops is certainly worthwhile, the implied support for the continuing bloody stalemate in Iraq is hard to get excited about, so I can see why the cause itself didn't bring in a bigger audience.

... until this very post. All other considerations aside, this thing was seriously lacking publicity.

If you are talking about the overall "war on terror", well then yes, the President did talk about it as a long-term effort, although he still hasn't demanded any real sacrifices of the American people in fighting the war.

But if you are talking about the war in Iraq.  That was sold as a quick, practically painless war.  The Pentagon talked about reducing troop levels to 20,000--30,000 by the end of 2003.  Wolfowitz talked about Iraq paying for its own reconstruction.  And Bush stood in front of that silly "Mission Accomplished" banner 1500+ American deaths ago.

japan?  We're getting close.  And I think both of those countries were slightly better equipped then our current enemy, at least for the traditional style of warfare that bush has chosen

In case you haven't noticed the Baathists are no longer running the show. The war is over. What we are dealing with now is the occupation, and that's what I think his original point dealt with.

As I recall (streiff can probably correct me here), the postwar occupation of Japan was something on the order of seven years - whereas we still have troops in Germany to this day.

"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

-Rumsfeld

"What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. ... Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s,"

-Gen Myers, Chair of Joint Chiefs

"I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. ... I think it will go relatively quickly, ... (in) weeks rather than months."

-VP Cheney

Source for previous 3 quotes

 The war will be concluded "quickly and confidently."

President Bush

It wasn't until after the war was underway that Bush started claiming the war might be long.  There are tomes of claims by the administration and Bush that the occupation would be short and would not be costly (we have already exceeded the worst case scenario by the better part of a year and almost doubled the cost).

What you have said simply is not true.

Presidnet Bush speaking on 26 Feb 03:

"Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before -- in the peace that followed a world war."

We stayed in Germany for over 50 years.  We returned Okinawa to Japan after about 40 years.  

President Bush on 23 March 03:

"And so I can assure the American people we're making good progress, and I also can assure them that this is just the beginning of a tough fight."

This refers to the Iraq war not the GWOT, it was a speech given during the first week of the Iraq war.

Paul Wolfowitz to Congress on 27 Feb 03:

"...Still, war is fraught with uncertainty and that makes all predictions of future war costs highly uncertain.

..."The possible cost of war in Iraq should be considered in the context of America's other international undertakings of recent years. We must remember that there is a cost of containment in both dollars as well as risk to our national security."

"Context of America's other international undertakings" = diplo speak for 'Cost of the Cold War'  Just in case you miss it he mentions 'containment' right away.

Rumsfeld on 27 Feb 03 to a reporter's question:

Rumsfeld: "...In the event force has to be used, it's not knowable how long it would last, ...And cost would be a function of what it cost minus what other countries provided. So there are so many variables, to pretend that someone can even marginally usefully speculate on that...is obviously not, I don't think, a very useful exercise."

If you have any quotes from any Cabinet or higher offical saying anything about a "quick" or a "practically painless" war in Iraq, I should very much like to see them.

The Pentagon has also talked about increasing troop levels in Korea by double, as well as about stationing CVN's in Guam.  They plan and talk alot, I think they think it makes them prepared for eventualities that may or may not come to pass.

In the march to war, Wolfowitz took the unusual step of publicly rebuking Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki for his estimate that "several hundred thousand troops" would be necessary to provide security in post-war Iraq. At the time, Wolfowitz dismissed Shinseki's estimate as "wildly off the mark" and said "the notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish."

Currently we have 140,000 troops in Iraq with no drawdown in site.

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld refer to the military conflict in Iraq, not the occupation.  At the time they were responding to predictions from the left and right that it would take at least a year to defeat Hussein's Army and that without a force of double the size Franks had the USArmy would face stalemate.

Myers says what he would like to see, not what he says he will see.  The point he makes is that it will not take 400,000 soldiers to defeat the Iraqi Army-- and it didn't.

sev·er·al (sĕv'ər-əl, sĕv'rəl)

adj.

Being of a number more than two or three but not many.

By my calculations (off the cuff) we are short of several hundred thousand by a factor of two to four.  I would say 'several hundred thousand short of what Shinseki reckoned' but it can be hard to count big numbers.

On September 15th 2002, White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay [fired] estimated the high limit on the cost to be 1-2% of GNP, or about $100-$200 billion. Mitch Daniels, Director of the Office of Management and Budget subsequently discounted this estimate as "very, very high" and stated that the costs would be between $50-$60 billion.

We're over 200 billion for Iraq and counting.

"Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion [obviously using Mitch Daniel's number] for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question." Donald Rumsfeld 1/19/03

"Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very -- an issue for the future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction."  Ari Fleischer, 2/18/03

 "There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people...and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years...We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." Paul Wolfowitz, 3/27/03

"I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense...[Reconstruction] funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it." Rumsfeld the same day

last two quotes in front of the Senate Appropriations Committee (under oath I presume)

Since when was our goal to oust the baathists?  I thought we were there to drain the swamp, or maybe to put up some flypaper? Or make Iraq safe for democracy?  I can't remember.  But I choose to define the war as being over when we aren't losing soldiers daily or weekly to suicide bombings.  I don't think that was a large problem in post-war Germany or Japan.      

This is a fascinating discussion of the post World War II occupation, and the comparative lack of casualties.

The goal of this particular war (not the war on terror, but the war in Iraq, which is one battle in the larger GWOT), was regime change in Iraq. Did I miss where Saddam was back in power?

Making Iraq safe for Democracy was one of the foremost goals of the postwar occupation. For sure, we are engaged in military conflict, but it is not the war we originally engaged in, it is a postwar occupational insurgency.

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld refer to the military conflict in Iraq, not the occupation.

I'm sure our troops in Iraq would be glad to hear there's no military conflict.

At the time they were responding to predictions from the left and right that it would take at least a year to defeat Hussein's Army and that without a force of double the size Franks had the USArmy would face stalemate.

I never saw anyone from either left or right who predicted a protracted battle against Saddam Hussein.  Many on the left were predicting guerrilla warfare, civil war, etc. but I don't recall anyone thinking that Hussein's regular army would last long.

Few even here at RedState disagree with the notion that Bush, Rumsfeld, etc. were caught flat-footed and unprepared to secure the country once Baghdad fell.

On September 15th 2002, White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay [fired] estimated the high limit on the cost to be 1-2% of GNP, or about $100-$200 billion. Mitch Daniels, Director of the Office of Management and Budget subsequently discounted this estimate as "very, very high" and stated that the costs would be between $50-$60 billion.

Since you quote without context one cannot tell wether Lindsay or Daniels refers to the war or the occupation or both.

"Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion [obviously using Mitch Daniel's number] for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question." Donald Rumsfeld 1/19/03

That being from January, it was an open question.  At that time Chirac hadn't told us that he would use all of France's diplomatic muscle to stop us.  In addition, he is quoting OMB which as above doesn't refer specifically to war or occupation or both.

"Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very -- an issue for the future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction."  Ari Fleischer, 2/18/03



"There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people...and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years...We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." Paul Wolfowitz, 3/27/03

That turned out to be wrong.  It also turned out thanks to Chirac's plotting that it is was no longer politically acceptable to use Iraqi funds.  Iraq is still pumping oil, we just can't use the money.

"I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense...[Reconstruction] funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it." Rumsfeld the same day

He was also proven wrong.  International diplomacy has made Iraqi monies off limits to us, and so reconstruction has fallen to us.

Of course 3/27/03 was after the war started.  Combat began on 19 March 03, and Congress authorized war on 10 October 2002.

Presumably any sales would have been done in Sept and October and not after combat started.

goal of this administration, and it would have been illegal if it were.  

Secondly, if that truly was the goal, then there had to be reasons behind the desire for regime change, such as stabilizing the region, oil, whatever, and until those goals are realized, it is disingenuous to delineate between military action and occupation to lessen the percieved impact of the war, just as it was disingenuous of Bush to do it to gain support for the war.

Since our stated goal was to oust the top Baathist, it pretty much follows that we would do the same with the rest of his crew.  If you choose to define the end of the war as "being over when we aren't losing soldiers daily or weekly to suicide bombings", would it still be over if we were only losing a few soldiers and American civilians every six months or so?  Would it still be over if we had no troops in Iraq or Afghanistan and they were killing just a few Americans a year?  Do you really believe that if we called off the war, they would stop killing us?  The operative phrase here is "suicide bombers".  These are not Sign-a-Document-and-go-Home folks we are fighting.

President Bush, October 7, 2002:

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

And that's why two administrations -- mine and President Clinton's -- have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.

Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse.

Now, you can argue about how successful this vision has been, but to say that regime change was not the stated goal of the Iraq war is nothing more than deliberately ignoring facts.

Second, as to the reasons for this desire for regime change:

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

The Iraqi regime certainly isn't doing that anymore.

The final point was that Saddam Hussein was not a man to be trusted, and that the future security of our country could not be left to chance on trusting Saddam Hussein:

There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

While not a fan of country music, I was generally impressed by Tracy Byrd. A pro.

Kimberly Caldwell, alas, has hired an arranger heavily influenced by Schönberg. Which is not a good way to go on "God Bless America."

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

Scroll down for a while to find the one mention of regime change that I could find.  Hardly our overall "stated goal" for the Iraq war.

To your other point, there have been terrorist attacks around the world for decades now that have targeted U.S. troops.  It is our responsibility to address those attacks.  Calling it a war is just a gimmick for the president to mobilize public support.  I think our "war" with iraq was illegal and foolish.  My point was that for those who want to call it a war, they shouldn't pretend that the war is over when they say it is, and now it's just an occupational insurgency.  And the president shouldn't play semantic games.

instead of "stated goal", unless you think we should have left him and his government inpower while we tiptoed around looking for WMD and terrorists.  

Terrorists have been attacking Americans for decades, we have been responding to those attacks for decades, and all we got to show for it was 9/11.  Do you think 9/11 would have been the culmination of the terrorist assault on Americans if we had just decided to let bygones be bygones? If we are fighting a Global War on Terror, then Iraq is but a battle which we have won in that war.  The fighting that still goes on in Afghanistan and Iraq does not mean we have lost those battles, only that the war continues as we draw our enemies out to fight our soldiers and not our civilians.  If they want to kill us, they need to know that we are dictating the terms of battle, and they will be paying a much higher price for their bloodlust than they have in the past.

I agree that the president should not play semantic games. He should stop calling Islam "the religion of peace".

Are we now supposed to be using "stalemate" instead of "quagmire"?  Is that an upgrade or does it depend on the modifiers?

I was so deeply into this whole Michael Jackson thing that I missed the boat!

attacked for decades, the U.S. itself has been remarkably free from attacks aside from 9/11.  So while I'm willing to give new policies etc... some limited credit, there really is no proof that the current administration is being more effective than any previous admin other then that they say so.

Second, I have no problem with combating terrorism, I think it is necessary.  I think Afghanistan was necessary, but I think that it was poor planning to allow drug lords and opium trade to come in and fill the void left by the ousting of the Taliban.  

Iraq is very different.  I see Iraq as deflecting our energy from the real goal of combating terrorism due to the pet project of the neocons over the last decade and a half.  The idea that we are luring out our enemies to fight on our terms is silly.  The Iraqi insurgents may be our enemies now, but they hardly posed any threat to the U.S. before we invaded Iraq.  If anything we have given them the ability to draw new recruits by splashing pictures of dead iraqis and abu ghraib all over al-jazeera.  Also, do you really think the goal of Al-Qaeda can be pared down to blood-lust?  Would they really be expending this much energy, money, and lives to kill a few random people?  9/11 was done for a reason, not because they "hate freedom", but because they want to create a war with the U.S. that will allow them to gain recruits for their overall dream of a unified Arabic empire.  Invading Iraq fits into that idea nicely.

And people have used religion to justify their own terrible motives for centuries, that doesn't mean the religion itself should be targeted (if so christianity has a lot to answer for too).    

I try to be polite when posting here at RedState, so I used the term with the more neutral connotation.  I'm sure the terminology matters little to the soldiers on the ground in Iraq, but I offer Republicans the term "stalemate" for their spinning use when they get tired of being laughed at when they say we are winning.

In my opinion,"stalemate" is no more accurate than "quagmire" in describing the situation in Iraq.  a stalemate is defined as: A situation in which further action is blocked; a deadlock.

 Our troops  might be a bit surprised to find that they have been fought to a stalemate.

Here is what top brass on the ground in Iraq have to say about it:

"I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is to concede that ... this insurgency is not going to be settled, the terrorists and the terrorism in Iraq is not going to be settled, through military options or military operations," Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said last week, in a comment that echoes what other senior officers say. "It's going to be settled in the political process."

Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, expressed similar sentiments, calling the military's efforts "the Pillsbury Doughboy idea" -- pressing the insurgency in one area only causes it to rise elsewhere.

Well, if I recall the reasoning before the US attack in Iraq, the argumentation for invading Iraq was:

• weapons of mass destruction. We there are for sure no wmd there anymore, so maybe the US attack was successful. Oh, I forgot, there were no wmd before the US attack either. OK, you didn't score any points there.
  
• Al Qaeda in Iraq. OK, there were no links before the war, but now the after the anti Muslim fundamentalist government (I.e. the bath party) is removed and US crusade forces are present at Muslim holy ground, there is perfect recruitment base for Muslim fundamentalist. So, the objective wasn't really met there either.

So, if you want to hear the opinion from the world outside US. Well, I guess you don't,but here it is anyway:

The invasion was a mistake from the beginning,. it should;to have happened. And, then the US forces had a chance to make it up by performing their duties flawlessly, but they failed big time. So, no wonder that there is no support.

I might be inclined to agree with you if progress toward a democratic, sovereign Iraq were successfully halted or reversed by the AIF.  In spite of their best efforts and worst atrocities, they have been unable to stop the Iraqi transition.  Just because our generals are considering political solutions does not necessarily mean that they now recognize the futility of further fighting.  It could also mean that military actions have been successful enough to convince the more rational among the the AIF that it is in their best interests to join the democratic process in Iraq.  To say our troops have been fought to a stalemate when they are showing great restraint in their efforts on behalf of the Iraqi people is wrong.  

what CA thinks is significant is from Jason Van Steenwyk.  It's basically a resounding, "Duh!"