A good piece by Jeff Goldstein discussing the overall narrative of the war, which includes this piece of Rumsfeld testimony:
Despite their long-neglected infrastructure and their lack of experience with democracy, the Iraqi people have demonstrated both the will and the capacity to succeed. They have oil, water, intelligent people, well-educated people, and a heritage of a great civilization that can be put to work to build a moderate Iraq version of a self- governing society.
The suggestion of those who say we are losing, or that we
KC
Boxer is my Senator. I’m sad to say it, but often I feel she needs to sit down and take a time out.
Tim F
It’s fine and dandy that Rumsfeld acknowledges now, two years into the occupation, that we’ve got major obstacles to overcome. Denying it further hardly seems possible.
But don’t try to deny that when it came to anticipating these problems the administration lied to you and me and even to itself. Cheney declared that he couldn’t imagine that we wouldn’t be greeted as liberators, Wolfowitz sneeringly dismissed even the possibility of a hostile reception or that the war wouldn’t pay for itself in oil revenue, and Rumsfeld listed a few months as the outside maximum for the use of force in Iraq. People who accurately predicted the challenge that we’d face were branded as traitors, military-haters or drummed out of the service a la Shinseki.
In terms of the standards that the war leaders set for themselves there is no description for this war other than a failure. That they may yet salvage victory out of the jaws of defeat doesn’t absolve them of failing to prepare for this relatively painless war’s violent aftermath.
SomeCallMeTim
I don’t think we’re guilty of it, but I think after the last five years we’re owed a little “petty revenge.” Being Cassandra is not really that fun.
Andrei
There’s an easy solution to winning, and doing it in a time frame that is quick and does not require a timeline: Send more troops.
Whatever happened to the Powell doctrine?
It’s clear we can fight with ease when we have to, the problem we are facing in Iraq is that once fights end there, there aren’t enough troops to contain and sustain the locations just won. It’s the two steps forward, one step back approach. And it’s costing us more by the day we let it continue.
So, if the right wing wants to win really fast and is serious about the war on terror, then do the right thing: Send more troops.
Imagine how long that would solidify your power in the halls of government. You win the war, do it quickly from here on out, and stablize the Middle East allowing th Iraqis to finally take control over their country. That would be an impressive legacy. (And if my memory serves me correctly, overwhleming force also tends to decrease the total number of casualities in the end game due to the total numbers used to put down the fighting.)
If the right wing wanted to avoid the massive blowback that would occur by reinstating the draft, many in the GOP could simply avoid it by asking all able bodied citizens who know that winning the war in Iraq is the right thing to do by dropping what they are doing and enlisting themselves or sending their family to do so. If they are unwilling to do so, then it’s time they stood up and asked everyone to fight to get over with and fast. Is a draft required? Something is required to fight.
Wars are fought, they are not spectated. What we have today is a spectator sport in Iraq by 98% of the American public, not a war.
IMHO, this is not the “if you support the war, go enlist” meme. This is the, “If you want to win the war, go fight and get it under control” meme.
I’m sick of hearing complaints about the Dems, even from you John. It’s just a bunch of hot air. This administration got us into this mess. When you want to use force to solve problems… you have to use force. Not “sort of” force as has been applied with the lack troop levels in Iraq.
The problem is simple: We need more troops to fight and stablize Iraq quickly. That is the real answer here, and people need to start confronting it.nospam.
John Cole
There are no troops to send, and even if we had more troops, it would not speed the training porcess or the development of the Constitution. More troops might help clamp down on the violence atouch, and aid physical reconstruction a bit, but the changes are going to have to come from within, and a long-term victory in iraq can not be bought with just a few more troops in the occupation.
Jeff G
Instead of suggesting that the Administration “lied” to you, me, and itself (that last begs the question, by the way), it’s more likely the Bushies didn’t anticipate some of the problems that cropped up after a quick and unforseen march to Baghdad.
It is the insistance that everything the Administration does is in the service of some lie that makes supporters defensive, and so prevents reasonable discussion of the problems. And such a defensive posture seems perfectly predictable, given the nature of electoral politics.
No, if there is any “lie” that has caused us problems its the perceptual lie that a media that concentrates only on the sensational – death, explosions, tragedy — furthers and, to the uncritical, substantiates.
Tim F
I will follow up on a discussion that I had with Darrell some time back. More than half of Americans now believe that this war was not worth it, did not have much to do with the larger struggle against terror, does not make America safer and was sold by a mendacious leader eager to provoke hostilities. In the face of those numbers it is simply crazy to expect the opposition party not to express opposition. You might as well ask them to stop breathing.
Further, if you read Reid’s comments to Bush’s speech he never claims that pulling out of Iraq is a viable option. He and the rest of the Democrats feel that at this point the only viable option is to find a way to win this war and salvage a peaceful Iraq. The only way that can be achieved, in their opinion and mine, is if we have an American leadership capable of leveling even with itself regarding the facts on the ground.
norbizness
I may be able to agree that sustained commitment is necessary (although in my heart of hearts, I really don’t believe that to be the case), but I’m afraid that the other portion of Jeff’s calculation (that the war was necessary) will never gain my assent. You might as well tell me Saddam remote-controlled the WTC planes for all the credence a “necessary” war in Iraq has with me.
Plus, absent additional troops, they are basically consigning Iraq to the status quo, security-wise, until 2009. I’m not sure if we’re breaking the military, but it sure looks that way. In short, I am not optimistic about there being any infrastructure for progress in the security arena.
CaseyL
What indications are there that the Bush Admin is capable of doing what it takes to “win” in Iraq?
What indications are there that the Bush Admin even knows that it will take to “win” in Iraq?
What are current public utility availability levels? How many hours per day of electricity do people have? Is the water safe? Does the sewage system work?
How is food getting to markets? Is enough food getting to market?
What are current disease rates in typhus, tetanus, malnutrition, and gangrene? What is the maternal and fetal mortality rate? How are people dealing with emotional/mental illnesses?
How safe are the streets? The major highways?
What is the crime rate? Esp. in robbery, kidnapping, murder?
Are kids going to school every day? Do they have functioning schools to go to? Do they have teachers, equipment, textbooks, lunches? Are the schools protected from explosions/artillary/invasion?
What is the unemployment rate?
What is the daily casualty rate?
How many hospitals are there in each city? How advanced are the hospitals? Are they staffed with licensed practitioners; do they have adequate supplies; are they protected from explosions/artillary/invasion?
Bush said there were 160,000 “trained and equipped” Iraqi security personnel. What does that mean: “trained and equipped”? How many of those 160,000 are reliable?
Is anyone in the Bush Admin asking any of these questions?
norbizness
Plus, a narrative needs consistency and some grounding in reality. How many trained Iraqi security forces were mentioned in the speech? 160,000? In what universe?
Kimmitt
I’m not sure that winning in Iraq is the same thing to you that it is to this Administration. I think they really need to define a set of events — publically — which would engender a US withdrawal. I think part of the problem is that there is no such set of events; those bases are meant to be essentially permanent.
Don
It would be truly refreshing if one side of the political aisle would stop acting as if everything is ok and stop talking about the ‘last throes of the Iraq insurgency’ and the other side of the aisle would stop trying to use everything as a launching pad for political office and asa vehicle for petty revenge
I think part of the problem is that standing up and demanding that the other side stop making it all sound like puppies and roses can’t help but look like petty revenge. As sick of it as I am, I’m not sure how I’d advise differently – when someone stands and repeatedly denies there’s a problem (unsecured munitions, inadequate armor, inadequate humanitarian planning, whatever) how do you attempt to forward superior plans? What’s the protocol for pushing solutions to problems the majority party repeatedly denies?
rilkefan
John, did you see this Kevin Drum post on troop level reform á la welfare reform?
Don
I’m not sure that winning in Iraq is the same thing to you that it is to this Administration. I think they really need to define a set of events — publically — which would engender a US withdrawal.
Too close to a timeline, possibly.
Personally I couldn’t care less if we have a permanent presence. To me the problem is the cost and the continued loss of life. When someone wants to spend my money I need to be convinced there’s some payoff for our country in exchange. When someone wants to spend American lives, doubly so.
Jorge
I got this over at Andrew Sullivan’s site.
“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.” – Governor George W. Bush, June 5, 1999, on the troops deployed to Kosovo under president Clinton.
Andrei
A touch? A bit? A few?!?
Yeah… maybe a “few” more troops would do little. I’m not asking for a few. I’m asking for “overwhleming force.”
Again I ask, what happened to the Powell doctrine?
What Iraq needs right now is serious stability in order to get the entire infrastructure rebuilt and allow an environment to exist where the Iraqis can decide their own fate. The constant fighting and daily violence is seriously weakening that. Further, govenrment officials and even doctors are targets of violence and assassinations.
How on earth does anyone expect a society to get anything done with those kind of threats every day? That’s like asking people in gang infested neighborhoods to organize and ignroe the violence from gangs in their streets that are killing their children. They need help from people who can use force to fight back.
Yes, I agree it would take some time to get a reasonable force trained and sent over there, so I say it’s time to get cracking people! Don’t forget, we *might* also needs those troops to help secure places Iran, North Korea, and other countries that might be harboring terrorist organizations. So any recruitment today will also help us succeed dramatically in the very near future.
Again, you can’t fight a war with “sort of.” You have to fight it all out, and right now, we are not fighting it for real. We don’t have enough troops to do the job. the answer right now the GOP needs to figure out is how to get the numbers we do need and get them in action.
The American public has time and again proven it is willing to fight for a just cause. I don’t see how now asking them to interrupt their lives and fight could be considered a winning strategy in the actual war on terror and the politcal war that works in Washington for the next few decades.
Mike S
It is the insistance that everything the Administration does is in the service of some lie that makes supporters defensive, and so prevents reasonable discussion of the problems. And such a defensive posture seems perfectly predictable, given the nature of electoral politics.
And it is the consistant attacks against those of us who got it more right than wrong as “Anti American traitors” who “want us to lose” “prevents a reasonable discussion.”
It’s also pretty tiresome to hear the Hewitt crap that the media hates the troops.
There is no discussion of what to change because the administration and it’s backers refuse to even admit things need to change.
The other day I brought up the idea that we may need to alter our tactic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” I acknowleged that it has been a neccessary evil in our past but since it bites us in our asses more often than not it was something we should at least discuss. The idea was totally ignored because it’s just so much more fun to snipe at each other.
That is where our real problems lie. “All Democrats are dumb, soft on defence, hate the military…” “All Republicans are greedy, liars, Christian talibanists…” Instead of setting aside petty differences we shove everyone into a little box and discount them altogether.
James Emerson
When a war is based on lies, then all that follows is immoral. We will lose Iraq even when we win every major battle, because we have become occupiers in the eyes of Iraqis. The remaining question is, how long will it take before we admit to ourselves that we cannot win an immoral war? How many more people need to die before the pain becomes unbearable?
I would argue that sooner is better than later.
albedo
It really doesn’t seem too unreasonable to ask that some specific goals and timetables be laid out. Not of the “exact date we’re getting out of Iraq” variety, but more of the “we need to achieve x, y, and z by a certain time.” It would be helpful to get a sense that this administration has concrete goals viz Iraq, beyond a mistily defined desire to spread freedom and fight terrorism.
Jimmy Jazz
Shorter conservative position: “We didn’t listen to you damn liberals before the war when you said this war would be a disaster, and we’re certainly not going to listen to you now that it is one!”
The administration either intentionally or through incompetence misled the American people about the causes, the duration, and the costs of this war. They deserve to pay a political price for that.
Bush has wrapped his presidency up in a flag woven of 9/11 and the Iraq invasion. It buyoed him against the weight of the rest of his unpopular ideas for a long time, now the perceived failures are weighing him down.
This administration does not listen to the “advice” of Democrats, or even most Republicans in Congress. They use Democrats for nothing other than political cover, and then destroy them anyway (see Daschle, Tom and Cleland, Max) when their purpose is served.
As stated earlier, the administration has used sophisticated marketing and rhetorical techniques to lump everyone they want to go after in a terrorist stew, and shield those they don’t want to go after (Saudis, Pakis). It is incumbent upon Democrats simply to state and repeat the version of events I like to call “reality”.
The adminstration has pushed hard to turn our system of government into something resembling a lockstep parliamentary system, where the “backbenchers” in Congress simply accede to whatever the adminstration proposes. It is natural and advisable for the Democrats to shift into a version of the British Loyal Opposition, with shadow proposals but little negotiation.
John Cole
yeah, Jimmy, that summarizes my position perfectly.
Cripes, I give up. I am going to watch Angel.
Steven
The President summarized the narrative nicely last night:
When the Iraqis stand up, we stand down.
Unfortunately, what wasn’t addressed was what happens if the Iraqis don’t stand up. I agree that a definitive timeline at this point is a serious mistake, but I think the Administration would be well served to start outlining exacting how long it is that the Iraqis have to stand up. And what exactly does it mean “to stand up.” As inept as this Administration has been in its planning, at this point they must have some reasonably well articulated internal benchmarks for when success can be declared. From a PR point of view, it would be a good idea for them to start sharing them with the voters.
JG
We don’t need a timeline, we need goals. What do we have to acheive to leave Iraq. We’ll get it done in whatever time it takes but it would be nice to know what has to be done. There is a plan right?
Jon H
“Unfortunately, what wasn’t addressed was what happens if the Iraqis don’t stand up.”
The other problem is, what if they stand up, but make it easier on themselves by reaching an ‘understanding’ with Al Qaeda, which allows Al Qaeda to operate?
SomeCallMeTim
We don’t need a timeline, we need goals.
What we need is a credible analysis. The purpose of American foreign policy is to address potential threats or advance American interests. The smaller the threat, the smaller the price we’re willing to pay for addressing it. Iraq was never a threat, even when we thought they might have a chem or bio program. Consequently, we, as a country, are unwilling to pay much for addressing the threat.
The more honest way to sell the war would have be a claim of advancing American interests: no Iraq is not a threat, but we have a chance to reconfigure the map toward our own ends. So we’re doing it. No one would have agreed, the world would have gone more nuts (it smacks of imperialism), and it still wouldn’t have been justified (the benefits are too contingent to justify much cost), but it would have been a more sustainable analysis than the crap we’ve presently been handed.
Jimmy Jazz
I didn’t name you, but you do seem to be echoing a version of that theme. Snark aside, I think my substantive points are valid, so don’t get hung up on the snark. I don’t think “cut and run” is a valid position, but I don’t think the Mayberry Machiavellis are going to pull us in for the big win, either.
If you want to talk about the current situation instead of the past, let’s do that. Bush has done nothing in his second term to indicate he has learned anything from the mistakes made in the first, has famously denied he made any, and shows no sign that he wants to “reach across the aisle”. In fact, the one senior administration official (Powell) that wasn’t a “team player” is now gone, and the senior intelligence officials at CIA that voiced serious concern over admin policy have been purged and apparently replaced with individuals who will tell the administration what it wants to hear. The incompetents (Rummy, Condi) have been promoted or retained instead of fired, and a wingnut nominated as UN ambassador. Your buddy (snark) Karl Rove is a senior policy and political advisor, a sort of one man Haldeman/Ehrlichman funnel to and from Howard Hughes, I mean Bush.
Bush has tried to maximize his political advantage from 9/11 and Iraq. Expecting the Dems not to do the same is essentially expecting them to write themselves off.
Do I think we’d be in much better shape if we went after each other on domestic stuff and maintained entente on foreign policy? Yup. But Bush has backed the Dems into a corner, and the only way out is to start swinging. Me? I’m hoping for a stable Iraq that isn’t too far inside Iran’s orbit (I can’t imagine it will be any better than that) and Bush becoming the Republican party’s version of John Major
Jimmy Jazz
Grrr, the formatting keys are great…when they freakin’ work.
Tim F
OT heads-up re DeLay. The House Majority Leader will finally have the chance to clear up all of these crazy-talk accusations.
Far North
John,
You mention that you want “the other side (Democrats) of the aisle to stop using everything as a launching pad for political office and a vehicle for petty revenge”.
I find it ironic that you are asking the Democrats not to behave like Republicans when pursuing political office. Dems haven’t played ugly, opportunistic political hardball to the level the Repubs have. The result has been that they’ve gotten smoked in every election of the last several years. Would the Republicans sit by with restraint if a Democratic administration fucked things up? I think not.
The thing is, Bush, and the people he has surrounded himself with, are incompetent when it comes to managing things in Iraq. The last 2+ years have proven that. Just what is it that give Bush supporters confidence that Bush is up to the job in Iraq?
I don’t know how to fix Iraq. Or, to put it another way, I don’t know how to unshit the bed. But I do know who shit the bed.
Mike S
Funny. Well, not really. Here we have a story that pretty well shows two of my earlier points on “the enemy of my…” One point was about both sides backing despots. In this case Carter and the Shaw of Iran. The other point was that by backing these people we run into serious blowback when the people rise up and take the leader we backed down. Read the link and meet the new President of Iran.
Jeff
“Dems haven’t played ugly, oppurtunistic political hardball to the level Republicans have”
Really
–“Vote Republican and another church burns”
–“Gov Bush lynched my father all over again” (and yes, I know those two examples were from the NAACP, which is not the Democratic party but “non-partisan”, but they’re a bought and paid for wing of the Democratic party)
–“If Robert Bork is confirmed blacks will sit at seperate lunch counters
–I still have the flyer i received on Nov 1st of last year telling me that the days of separate restrooms and drinking fountains are coming back if Republicans win (despite the fact that i lean Republican on some things, I’m a small business owner in Philly and I live in the city, so i’m a registered Democrat. Makes it easier to cut through the red tape, but it also causes me to get all the Democratic parties progaganda.
I came up with those in ten seconds. I don’t like the current Republican party either, but Democrats need to stop sounding like such whiny little bitches–or in the case of Oliver Willis, whiny, obese bitches–with all this “we lose because Repubwicans are weally mean and we’re so nice” crap.
Jimmy Jazz
*cough*Chalabi
*choke*Allawi
Jimmy Jazz
Which is it, Jeff? Are we ugly hardball players or whiny obese bitches? Both?
Mike S
Different Jimmy. I’m talking about backing real leaders. The Shaw, Saddam, Stalin in WWII, The current leader of Uzbecistan(sp?)…
Every ne of them has a valid reason to back them and every time they came back to bite us in the ass.
JG
Kind of interesting:
VIETNAM 2 PREFLIGHT CHECK
1.Cabal of oldsters who won
Jeff
Jimmy, if you’re so stupid that you need to ask that question, there’s no point in explaining it to you.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Well, Rumsfeld is talking about twelve more years of occupation. Wouldn’t you say that’s plenty of time to train more soldiers (except for our recruitment problems)? The United States’ War on Terror (i.e., from 9/11 to now) is longer than our entire involvement in WWII, Pearl Harbor to V-J Day. Maybe we would be doing better now if our leaders, none of whom have been replaced except those who were correct, had been more honest and less rosy-eyed at the scope of their project, especially their then-secret Iraq component.
All of our “progress” since the rout of the regular Iraqi Army is entirely symbolic and largely unilateral. Cobbling up a transitional government and transferring sovereignty (actually, it would be better to say “Pretending to transfer sovereignty, since the Iraq Government’s powers are dubious), holding an election, these are not really milestones that indicate success is in the offing. That’s more like finishing the specs and hiring a QA Team; it might be nice, but it isn’t writing and debugging the code.
Well, a cursory check shows that (say) electricity is down from last year, and, a fortiori, down from pre-war levels. Successful attacks on both US forces and, to a terrifying extent, those Iraqis who choose to work with us are also much, much worse than last year. We seem to be progressing only on the rhetorical front. Pardon the liberals and the Democrats for not standing up and cheering.
Jimmy Jazz
We’re on the same page Mike. If Cheney got his way, the permanent glorious leader of Iraq would have been a convicted bank felon who was getting manicures in London for the last 20 years. Plan B was Jr. Saddam (Allawi), a CIA asset who seemed just as thuggish as Saddam if given half a chance.
Sistani cured us of those unfortunate delusions, although Chalabi has more lives than Jason in the Friday the 13th films.
Jimmy Jazz
Thanks for clearing that up and staying on the high road of political discourse.
Al Maviva
JG, you forgot #28.
28. Defeatist liberal and hard left assholes openly rooting for the U.S. to fail, and embracing any genocidal would-be tyrant who comes down the road as a freedom fighter? Check.
Now Vietnam 2 is cleared for takeoff.
Mike S
Al. Another prime example of the Talk Radio Bukkake recipients.
Tim F
Just in case things go badly in Iraq, it’s reassuring to know that our friends on the right have that ‘stabbed-in-the-back’ excuse warmed up and ready to serve.
Jimmy Jazz
It’s so nice to interact with the wide range of thoughtful conservatives John’s attracted here, isn’t it Mike?
::sips tea::
JG
Only a true idiot would actually think there are americans who want america to lose wars.
p.lukasiak
and the other side of the aisle would stop trying to use everything as a launching pad for political office and as a vehicle for petty revenge.
Two words John. Get Bent.
The scumbags in the white house, and those who support them, deserve everything they get not merely for lying us into this stupid war, but for continuing to question the loyalty and patriotism of those who were right all along.
I sure as hell don’t see you giving respect to liberals like John Kerry who made perfectly sound and reasonable proposals for how to fix things in Iraq. And I sure as hell don’t see you coming up with a better plan than Kerry’s. All I see is petty mockery and contempt.
The liberals were right — and its about time that you face that fact, and start listening to and respecting what they have to say now, because you were dead wrong in supporting the lies of the Bush regime for four years.
Darrell
Yeah, and guess which side they’re on:
Here
and Here
In addition, we have the shouting down and abuse of military recruiters on campuses across the country, those referring to the terrorists as “minutemen”.. nah, only idiots would think there are leftist americans who are rooting for us to lose this war
Mike S
Darrell, you still have remnants on your face. Next time use a funnel.
Darrell
p.liksak, name the “sound and reasonable” proposals made by JF Kerry on how to fix things?..don’t forget about his suggestions to give control to the corrupt scumbags at the UN
John Kerry’s oh so specific advice:
“I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history.”
Ah yes, a more “sensitive” war.. very disturbing to know that lowlife got 48% of the vote
Barry
Jeff:
“Instead of suggesting that the Administration “lied” to you, me, and itself (that last begs the question, by the way), it’s more likely the Bushies didn’t anticipate some of the problems that cropped up after a quick and unforseen march to Baghdad.”
The only reason that the Bushies didn’t was that they stuck their fingers in their ears, and sh*t on everybody from the State Department to RAND to the Army War College saying that there would be huge problems. Not to mention the actual liberals.
“It is the insistance that everything the Administration does is in the service of some lie that makes supporters defensive, and so prevents reasonable discussion of the problems. And such a defensive posture seems perfectly predictable, given the nature of electoral politics.”
By now the assumption ‘that everything the Administration does is in the service of some lie’ is merely the result of experience. Supporters of the administration should be on the defensive. Actually, they should be on trial, but we don’t live in an ideal world.
“No, if there is any “lie” that has caused us problems its the perceptual lie that a media that concentrates only on the sensational – death, explosions, tragedy — furthers and, to the uncritical, substantiates.”
Gee, I can’t imagine why the media is focusing on all of the violence, except for it’s liberal bias – and the fact that there’s so much violence. Nah, that can’t be it – must be liberal bias.
Mike S
Darrell, you stupid f**k. Were you screeming when Rumsfeld said we needed to be more sensative?Of course not. Your mouth was full.
Tim F
It’s obviously ok when Rumsfeld says it because Rumsfeld’s a Republican. It’s only when Democrats say that sort of thing that it’s bad because Democrats aer bad and things that bad people say are bad. Yep.
Geoff
Darrell, who do you think you’re fooling? Kerry was obviously talking about keeping faith with our allies, not about being treating the Al Qaeda scum with sensitivity.
fbg46
Iraq is done. We’re leaving. That’s what last night’s little exercise (the division of the previously – indivisible “terrorists” into the now – divisible “terrorists” and “insurgents”) was all about — so we can secretly cut a deal with the (good) insurgents to bug out.
Actually, we were done in Summer ’03 when the Iraqi Army was disbanded. That’s just caught up with us.
How do we get out and still do some good? Simple.
1. Let’s go back to the place where the enemy actually is — Afghanistan — and finish the job. We use the next 60 to 90 days to take the regular Army and USMC light infantry battalions/SF operators (not the reserves, see below) out of Iraq and relocate them on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. That’s probably about 60 – plus k straight legs. That force will eventually be fleshed out to 100,000. They don’t leave Afghanistan until: 1) all Al Queda are killed; 2) OBL’s head is on a pike, and; 3) Afghanistan begins to function as a sovereign state.
2. The remaining units in Iraq — the Reserve/NG units, plus the regular Army forces which wouldn’t work so well in Afghanistan — armor, armored cav, mech infantry, etc.– are withdrawn to Kuwait where they are converted into large Quick Reaction Force – type units. In addition, they would rotate in and out of Iraq to continue to train the Iraqi police/army/etc. When their natural rotation dates arrive, they are not replaced, until eventually there would be no more than one or two brigades in Kuwait — about what we had there before the invasion. If the Iraqis can’t do it for themselves by then, so be it.
brenda
“The adminstration has pushed hard to turn our system of government into something resembling a lockstep parliamentary system, where the “backbenchers” in Congress simply accede to whatever the adminstration proposes.”
Another word for this is fascism:
“how long will it take before we admit to ourselves that we cannot win an immoral war? How many more people need to die before the pain becomes unbearable?”
GW is psychotic and delusional. And since it’s other people suffering it won’t even register with him. This man will go to the absolute bitter end before he’ll admitt to failure. Therefore he’ll have a psychotic breakdown before admitting defeat.
James Emerson
Therefore he’ll have a psychotic breakdown before admitting defeat.
You’re probably correct, but my fear is that he’ll have that psychotic breakdown before leaving office.
brenda
But it would be very entertaining to watch. Very exciting TV, and god knows we can’t have boring TV or radio. Must keep feeding the proles their bread and circuses.
AlanDownunder
“Failure is not an option”. Yes it is. If the option hasn’t already been taken it still can be.
“Success is an option”. Not yet it isn’t – it has yet to be defined. When it is defined, I’ll ponder whether [definition] = [success] and then, if so, whether it is an option.
1. WMD: Mission pre-accomplished.
2. AlQaida link: Mission pre-accomplished.
3. Regime change: Mission accomplished.
4. Freedom: Mission accomplished. Iragi citizens militias are now exercising 2nd Amendment-type rights.
Do these 4 accomplishments define success?
If so, where is the failure that is said not to be an option?
If not, what part of its definition am I missing?
Success is a precondition for withdrawal.
Withdrawal is a precondition for success.
Which assertion is correct?
Randolph Fritz
“there is no other viable option but to continue on with the work we have in front of us”
I too would prefer a peaceful, democratic Iraq, good relations with the moderate Arab/Islamic world, and the defeat of Arab/Islamic radicals. The reality, though, is that Iraq is dissolving into ethnic and religious strife and has become a training field for Arab/Islamic terrorists. The war has devolved into a war of attrition, and we have no way short of mass murder to defeat the opposition in Iraq. The invasion has cost us the goodwill of moderate Muslims throughout the world, radicalizing many of them. By these very simple strategic measures, we are losing.
What would you suggest we do?
ARROW
Darrell:
You know you are winning when the best that opponents of your views can do is to accuse you of being a puppet for a talk radio show. Lets not discuss the validity of the point, lets just say it is from talk radio, with the obvious implication that it is not valid by that very fact. Pretty shallow argument, I would say…
Mike S
Oh Snap spARROW. You sure got me there.
ARROW
Mike S:
You got yourself long ago. How do you like what you got?
Mike S
Love it. I make an excellant living, happily married to a beautifull woman for 6 years, live 6 blocks from the beach, I have a vacation home in Cabo San Lucas where I have a great time with my military friends and I get to laugh at fools like Darrell who pray to the talk radio Gods.
What’s not to love?
Mike S
Hit the wrong number. I live 3 blocks from the beach.
ARROW
I was referring to something less material, but it’s great to know your life is good. I live about 8 blocks from ground zero and have a vacation home in the South of France where I spend time with my MoveOn.org buddies, laughing at peaceniks that hang out with military friends.
AlanDownunder
What would you suggest we do?
Hark back to the old Republican adage “The Lord helps those who help themselves”. The region must help itself. US government intervention is anathema in the US, why should it not be anathema in the Middle East?
Full apology and full compensation of course – as soon as there is a credible recipient. Meanwhile if they need aid, let them ask the UN and let the US contribute.
Mike S
I’d be surprised if that you have any friends, let alone left this country for a vacation.
ARROW
You express my sentiments, exactly.