“Iran… Progress… Six more months…”
I am not even listening, but we all know what is going to be said. I don’t know why we even go through this charade any more. Just buckle down and expect to waste money and lives for close to another year until Bush is out of office, and then expect thirty years of being blamed for “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory,” or some such bullshit.
Unless McCain wins, in which case we will be there forever, but don’t you dare say McCain wants us there for 100 years. Then you will just be lying about poor old St. john, and don’t you know he never lies.
Consider this an open thread. I am cranky and don’t want to deal with the bullshit today.
*** Update ***
And, just as the stage directions state, here is Fred Kagan working to keep us in Iraq (and Iran, too, if we are lucky!) forever:
Losing wars is always bad.
Thanks for the insight, jackass.
zmulls
In six months, it will be different. It’ll be “Victory is at hand, my friends” until after the election, at which point we’ll go back to the “six more months is all we need”
Then they’ll repeat that until a Democrat snatches defeat from the jaws of victory….
Punchy
Open Thread? Open 3-pointer to tie! Open lane for a dunk! Can I haz CAMPEEUNSHUP?
rob!
instead of guys like Levin going on and on and on about what Bush should do, etc., knowing full well the troops ain’t going anywhere until Jan 2009 at the least, wouldn’t it be more refreshing (and, to be honest, interesting) if one of the Dems just got up and said:
“Look, I know, you know, we all know, that Bush doesn’t care what any of us think. The troops aren’t going anywhere. Ok, general, go ahead, tell us how victory is just around the corner.”
…and then sat down?
but i guess senators, no matter who they are, can’t resist the chance to pontificate when they know a camera is on them.
TheFountainHead
I have to agree (sort of) with the wingers on one thing. Patreus isn’t one of the bad guys. A drinker of the kool-aid? Sure. Lacking the moral fiber to screw over everyone who has helped him along the way and tell the truth about Iraq? Probably. But a bad guy? No, I don’t think so. Every single time I have heard him speak I have come away feeling that the guy is trying to do his job and he actually believes in his mission. That doesn’t make him a bad guy in my book. Crocker, on the other hand….man, now there’s a guy to throw in front of a garbage truck on the New Jersey Turnpike.
Wilfred
The best thing for Senators to do is to treat Petraeus like a bureaucrat instead of Caesar home from Gaul. His testimony is meaningless “Violence down”, “American Troops great” wanking. Crocker’s testimony is what matters, the part about political reconciliation. He was more honest than Petraeus the first time and less likely to weasel this time.
Zifnab
Nonsense, John. We’ll be there until our army finally collapses on itself and the nation goes bankrupt. The USSR pulled out of Afghanistan for similar reasons. In fact – if I remember my history correct – it was the Afghanistan adventure that is largely attributed to breaking the mighty Russian Army, leading to the fall of the Communist Party in the late 80s and early 90s.
Horray for ignoring history and being doomed to repeat it! Land wars in Asia FTL!
Halteclere
Open thread?
Absolute pulls their Mexico add.
Indignation and hysteria win out again.
LiberalTarian
I dunno. Someone gets up and gives knowingly gives rose-colored forecasts, it is hard to say, well, he just believes himself, so he’s a good guy. His mission is to serve the country–but isn’t he just like all those others who when asked will say, “I swore an oath to Bush”?
When did wingers start running the show?? More importantly, how do we work the big hook to pull them off the stage?
Garrigus Carraig
Lord I tried to read that Kagan. Oh Lord. Teh stupid it burnss. “Losing wars is always bad.” Really? Sometimes winning wars is worse. The Spanish-American War & the Philippine Insurrection come to mind.
The upside of “losing” this war is that maybe we’ll learn some lessons about the limits of force & the limits of our own military & such like. Except we won’t.
Anyway, don’t be baited into reading the Kagan.
Billy K
And that’s most likely why they picked him – he’s convincing to non-believers.
AFAIC, it doesn’t matter whether his heart is pure or not. He’s doing the devil’s work.
PaulB
Personally, I don’t care whether he’s a “bad guy” or whether he’s stupid. Either way, his many pronouncements on Iraq over the years have been horribly and, in some cases, stupidly wrong. Not once has his testimony on Iraq even remotely resembled the reality of the situation on the ground. And not once has his testimony been backed up by the actual events on the ground. See, in particular, this Glenn Greenwald post, which documents Petraeus’ testimony all the way back to 2003. Once you see just how badly, and how often, he’s been wrong and just how much of his testimony has been sheer propaganda, it’s hard to understand why we should take him seriously.
What’s most distressing is that nobody, not our representatives and not the press, has ever (and likely will ever) called him on his past bullshit and asked him the simple question: “General Petraeus, given your track record, why should we believe a word of your testimony today?”
Dennis - SGMM
It will be fun to see how they spin al-Maliki’s “surge” in Basra. Al-Sadr’s people let the air out of that one pretty fast. Although not widely reported, in the days following the Basra debacle, al-Maliki asked the Mahdi Army to please return the two armored vehicles that they captured there. Now al-Maliki is demanding that al-Sadr disband the Mahdi Army. Talk about chutzpah.
PaulB
What’s depressing about people like Kagan is that they will never be asked the simple and obvious questions: With whom are we at war? Who are we fighting in Iraq? If we withdraw, who have we “lost” to? What does “winning” look like and how will we know when we have achieved it? What is the cost of “winning”? What, specifically, is our exit strategy?
Billy K
OK, I have a question for the esteemed panel. This is the kind of thing we Lie-bruls aren’t supposed to ask, but it’s been rattling around in my head for a while now.
Some people believe (and I give it some credence) we are in the beginning stages of a global struggle for resources; that in the future, those who control fresh water and petroleum will control the world. Now, if this turns out to be true, wouldn’t leaving Iraq be dooming the US? And if THAT is true, isn’t Cheney a visionary and patriot?
Or is the whole thing mooted if/when we develop non-petrol-based energy sources to power our nation?
Smart people please offer me your opinions.
jake
Absolut Pussies.
The Other Steve
Out of curiousity.
Once we win in Iraq, do we get some sort of Trophy to take home?
Punchy
Was there a basketball game last nite? Does anyone know who won?
Billy K
Mavs beat Suns in an amazing 4th quarter comeback.
Or was that Sunday night?
Krista
Seeing as you’re cranky, I won’t point out how the blockquote in your post is all frakked up.
Oh wait, I just did.
Iraq? Pah. Think about it: fresh water and lots of oil. It’s right freaking next door to you. You probably won’t even have to draw your guns.
Dennis - SGMM
Slobber shields up! Lieberman is on.
Crusty Dem
There’s a reason why the Bush administration puts a General in front of Congress and not Robert Gates or Ryan Crocker or anyone else; Because his job is to follow orders and do his best to ensure victory (or whatever they’re calling it these days). His job is not to ask questions, it’s to carry out the orders of the CINC, so he’s able to present the details on the ground in Iraq, complete with rose-colored filtering, without arousing the ire of congress and without allowing them to ask the basic questions of success vs failure of political progress, etc.
In other words, rather than allowing them to ask whether there’s any damn point in extending troop deployment, putting Petraeus in front of Congress forces them to instead ask “How much longer and how many more troops?”. The answer to that question is invariably open-ended and pointless (since the answer in 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, etc is always the same: “a while longer, all of them”).
Davebo
Look, his job is in Iraq, not DC. He may or may not be a bad guy. He may or may not be particularly competent. But he has no business as a military officer acting in a political role on Capitol Hill.
And make no mistake, he isn’t briefing congress on the state of affairs in Iraq. He’s feeding them the administration’s spin on Iraq.
And he knows this.
Billy K
Oklahoma?
jnfr
And just as predicted, Lou Dobbs was on about how outrageous the ad was last night.
fuzzy
You think you’re cranky.
Putraeus says: I love war! More, more, more….(And I’ll do whatever the boss says.)
gypsy howell
Why are we even fucking bothering with this nonsense? What a huge waste of time. Does anyone really think Petraeus (or anyone, for that matter) is going to tell them something about the situation in Iraq that we don’t already know? The real question is, what are any of them going to DO about it?
Nothing. Not a god damned thing, that’s what.
Shame on all of them.
Jamey
According to a reliable source placed within the McCain family, Cindy McCain is a c#nt and a trollop.
Gus
Dennis, I found that demand that the Mahdi army disband hilarious, too. Reminds me of Black Knight bit in Monty Pythons Holy Grail.
Dennis - SGMM
Petroleum is a finite resource. Google “peak oil” and you’ll see where we stand. Fighting for it means that sooner or later we’re fighting every industrialized nation, whether it’s economically or militarily, for something that will be gone one day anyway. Putting real resources into developing and using alternative sources isn’t an option, it’s a necessity. It devolves to a choice of whether we do it now, while we have petroleum to cushion the transition, or we do it later while racing to avoid a complete collapse after expending much blood and treasure to forestall the inevitable.
zsa
Who wants to bet that Petraeus is on the GOP ticket in 2012?
By that point, he’ll have a secret plan to get us out of Iraq.
Gus
Billy K, I don’t qualify as one of the smart people, but I’ve had the same though myself regarding resource wars. Bush and Cheney may think that the grand Iraq adventure is the patriotic thing to do to secure precious oil before the Chinese yellow horde takes it over.
SpotWeld
Does anyone else get the impression that the overall logic is something along the lines of “We have to stay there even if we’re failing, because if we stop that means we’ve actually failed, ” ?
It reminds me of an overly stubborn mini-gold player who goes over the 6-putt limit and just keeps batting around the cup dead certain that the horrendous score they’re racking up is preferable to the ignominy of picking up the ball from the green.
Zifnab
Firstly, we are currently on the threshold of developing sustainable solar, wind, and tidal power to match our energy needs. Iraq isn’t about keeping America strong, its about lining people’s pockets. England didn’t conquer India because their country would collapse without spices for their meat pies. They conquered it because spices were a great business to be in. Despite peak oil looming, we can expect to continue using petroleum as our primary energy source for decades to come. There is an estimated one trillion gallons of oil left in the ground. At $100 / 20 gallon barrel, that’s a shit load of profit.
Secondly, if we are in Iraq for its water resources, we’re idiots. One would think that preserving clean local natural resources – aquifers, glaciers, lakes, rivers, rainwater – would be key to protecting our water resources. The Bush Admin clearly concern itself about any of those. Given their response to Katrina, its obvious what respect the GOP has for anyone not in their tax bracket. If everyone outside the DC area ran out of drinking water tomorrow, which GOoPer would give a shit?
No. This isn’t a global war for natural resources. This is a national raiding of the treasury to pay crony contractors for half-assed public works projects in a foreign country. It’s an excuse to crack down on civil liberties at home, so elected officials can maintain their positions of power. And its a means of expanding the American Empire further into the Middle East – an old-school, for-the-hell-of-it, land grab.
If we were strictly interested in seizing natural resources, we’d be doing a better job of it. Starting a war halfway around the world has a great number of benefits for a great number of individuals who have no particular interest in the actual resources being acquired.
jrg
Right… But charging into an unprovoked occupation halfway around the world with no exit strategy is a fantastic f*cking idea.
I guess when Kagan signed up with the “party of personal responsibility”, he thought that meant “no matter how bad the GOP screws up, we get to hold hippies personally responsible”.
They’ve been screwing this pooch for five years, now they want to blame “thuh libruls” because Fido still hasn’t gotten his rocks off yet? I guess it’s easier for the ego than admitting that you shouldn’t be screwing a pooch in the first place.
TheFountainHead
I agree that Patreus has always been wrong in his portrayal of the realities of the war and so on and so forth. Consider, though, that if the man actually believes that he is doing right by our troops on the ground, which by all accounts he is, then his first priority–as he might see it anyway–is to maintain his power and privilege to do that. Carry the bucket of bullshit the administration hands him when he does this fun dance with Congress is just the means to an ends. I really believe that he KNOWS what a crock of shit what he says is, but I also truly believe that he does it because he knows that if he doesn’t he’ll be replaced faster than Eliot Spitzer, and what good does he do the military then? I think he wants out of Iraq. I think he sees that his testimony alone ain’t going to do it, and has decided to bunker down and see if he can’t keep the whole thing from falling apart until the administration gets off his back. I could be completely wrong, but everything I’ve read about the way his subordinates revere him, the interviews he’s given, and his actions in the field belies the notion that he is a Bush Co. Puppet.
Wilfred
One of the correct questions to ask, and probably the most relevant in terms of the US extricating itself is: “Why should Iraqis kill each other for what most of them perceive to be the best interests of the US and Israel?”
This is what the Iraqis ask themselves every fucking day, but of course they are once again absent from the stage.
Billy K
Thanks for your responses, Gus, Zifnab and Dennis.
I have never bought the “global resource war” thing, but I admit I keep wondering if the Bilderburgers of the world know something, and maybe it’s not just a profit-grab. Not that I believe it, but I try to look at things from different perspectives.
As far as ,
Though I wish it were true, I highly doubt it. What do you base that on? Personally, I think we need to bite the bullet and partially adopt the French’s (ugh) nuclear plan until wind/solar/geothermal/tidal is ready (or even fission – I still hold out some hope).
Oh, and obviously, we’re not in Iraq for water rights. I shoulda left that out. But if the dystopian predictions are true, we’ll need water from somewhere.
Garrigus Carraig
Oh this is choice. An atheist drives an Ill. state legislator into fits. “It’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!” There’s audio!
Rick Taylor
I’m surprised no one’s brought up the video from CNN of McCain, no stranger to incoming fire, handling a student heckler
They also came to his defense when he mistakenly associated Al Qaeda, even going so far as to splice together tape to mitigate his gaffe. And they’ve ruled use of his one hundred years comment as an unfair attack. Meanwhile, Tapper writes an article on cigarette gate. I think we can see how the election coverage is going.
qwerty42
Here is the link at Sullivan. And here is the story. The Army is being ground down. The Army’s Vice-Chief-of-Staff (Gen Richard A. Cody) in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee:
The pretense this war can be continued indefinitely, is grotesque. We’re already using mercenaries. We will need a draft or assistance from other countries to sustain this. Such assistance is unlikely. The strange cheerleading we constantly hear from those who favor this seems unconnected to reality – not just in Iraq, but also here. The war is not simply unpopular (it is hugely unpopular), it is also unsustainable. I guess we get a “So?” to that as well.
b. hussein canuckistani
Krista –
Utshay-the-uckfay-upay. Don’t draw their attention up here.
Nothing to see here! Just some wacky Canadians. Who wants a beer and a toque, eh?
Gus
Krista, is that an invitation?
Dennis - SGMM
Too late! 54 40 or fight, muthafuckas!
Billy K
Oh, we know all about your precious shale. When oil hits about $125 a barrel, I suggest you start learning to speak English.
jnfr
At least here in Colorado, where we’ve signed on for wind energy and for a while paid a small premium for it, we’ve actually had months lately where we got a small rebate because natural gas prices have gone up so much. So wind is at least holding its own here.
Here’s a good recent article on breakthroughs in solar panel materials that are going to bring the prices down remarkably. And this technology is really just getting started. It’s only going to get better from here.
Billy K
Let’s liberate Canada!!!
RSA
The subtitle of Kagan’s article:
Kagan doesn’t seem to realize that rational, moral human beings (unlike himself) are by nature “antiwar”. By the second paragraph he’s comparing people against the Iraq war with Neville Chamberlain, so he seems to be trying to make the point that being anti-war is a bad thing in general. IMHO, pro-war is much worse.
Ninerdave
Speaking of Canucks
Saw him at Sadly, No the other day. Cracked me up.
jake
Fixed.
Dennis - SGMM
Look, I’m telling you that if the Chinese loan us the money and the Belgians loan us the troops we can take Canada.
sparky
teh US of A: going into debt and getting killed so Iraq n Iran can sell their oil to China while we stand by with some worthless dollars. i swear, the more powerful this country gets the dumber it acts.
Buck
Losing wars is bad but starting wars is dumb and losing a war you started is embarrassing.
Declare victory and redeploy.
Billy K
Totally not necessary, dude. Just wait til Saturday night, when they’re all passed out drunk on Moosehead, and we move our stuff in. By the time they realize what happened, we’ll already be flying the 51-star flags.
Rick Taylor
That is one incredibly dumb article. No attempt to define what winning is, what the objective we’re trying to meet is. No analysis of how what we’re doing is supposed to fulfill our goals. No attempt to assess the costs. No attempt to attempt to judge the likelihood of various outcomes, or to compare various strategies. Just the bald assertion that unless those who oppose the war can prove that things will be better after we leave, then we have to keep fighting. And at the end, the imprecation to ignore the question of whether it was a good idea to invade in the first place or who pushed for this clusterfuck we’re in the midst of, now that we’re in all of that’s irrelevant.
“Losing wars is always bad” was the position of all the Republican candidates for president save the Libertarian. There are one or two Republicans who are more thoughtful, Richard Lugar for example, but they were weren’t represented there. The Republican party has become a joke.
Svensker
The most succinct summation of the Iraq debacle I’ve seen.
Garrigus Carraig
Or Boréale Rousse!
Ted
I love how the RNC is flipping-out frantic to reel that McCain comment back in.
Rick Taylor
qwerty42 wrote:
And yet McCain, who is unapologetically for continuing the war without condition is ahead of both Democratic candidates in polls. Of that won’t last long once the primaries are over, but why is it even close?
crw
Keerist. These guys are Example A on the sunk cost fallacy. The real question is can we possibly recover the accrued an ongoing costs of the occupation (including our hits to international credibility and the risks of a broken army that can’t respond to a crisis closer to home), or are we better off cutting our losses and taking the hit (even if it means Iran ascendant and increased regional instability and oh noes OBL gloating on teevee) so we can more profitably invest our resources elsewhere. For a bunch of self professed economic conservatives…
Ninerdave
…and that’s different from any winger argument from the last five years how?
Rick Taylor
And things are looking worrisome in Iraq (ht Atrios):
Hopefully it’s just empty posturing, with the elections coming up.
Punchy
to be honest, sherman is a complete fucking asshole. he’s sued more cities over trivial shit than anyone in history. talk about THE most hated man in the NW ‘burbs.
Krista
Pfft…it’s all part of my master plan. Get a bunch of blog-commenting rabble to embrace the idea (no offense, guys — you know I love you.) If the blog-commenting leftist rabble publicly suggests the idea, it’ll automatically be dismissed out of hand by the “serious” people. It’s a controlled grassfire, so as to avoid the uncontrollable conflagration later.
Reverse psychology, bitches!
/munches on maple-glazed donut.
The Easter Bunny
So I guess you fucking hippies decided to wake up and smell the maple-flavored coffee. Guess what? I’ve been up here for years, tail-deep in moose shit and elf guts, fighting the good fight against impossible odds while you douchenozzles sat at home sipping lattes and having gay sex on your fancy countertops. And now you suddenly want to help? Fuck that noise! I don’t need a bunch of Canucki-loving Fifth Columnists infiltrating my army.
Besides, the Surge is working; I drank a bottle of that shit, felt my whiskers start to vibrate, and the next thing I knew I woke up with bloody paws in the middle of dozens of dead Canuckistani terrorists. At least I think they were terrorists, although I’m not sure what they were planning to do at that shopping mall. Anyway, the point is, I don’t need your fucking help, but if you want to send me a case of energy drinks and some medication for the heart palpitations that would be OK.
Peeps, bitches!
mac
Wow, he shoots down some really potent straw men!
paraphrase:
If we stopped paying for war, that doesn’t mean we could spend the money on schools. A suggestion to spend more money on schools is an argument for a tax increase, which is a totally different debate!
Wow, what mad arguing skilz!
Rick Taylor
McCain said:
Newsflash: Americans are being injured, harmed, wounded, and killed in Iraq. Can we leave now?
Josh Marshall did a video analyzing this to death for anyone who insist they can’t understand it.
Delia
How dare anyone say McCain wants us in Iraq for 100 years. When he was questioned further about this statement, he said he meant we should stay 10,000 years if need be. Or, um, even a million.
Dennis - SGMM
Well, I’ve been listening to the Pet/Crock show all morning. So far, the Republicans (And Lieberman – natch)are unanimous that we’re winning and we can’t leave now. Senator Wicker is comparing the effort to the Civil War and the American Revolution. Petraeus is saying that the troops are the “new Greatest Generation.”
Setting up the “We were stabbed in the back because the Democrats lost the war,” meme.
trevalyan
Krista:
A maple-glazed donut??… Oh, I get it. Yeah. You’re one of THEM.
Canadians: the Cylon infiltrators of the United States. Frakking freezers.
jrg
Maybe he’s right. Our men and women in uniform do appear to be ready to throw the GOP on it’s tail. Maybe it’s the troops’ calling to finally end this idiotic ’60s era “culture war” once and for all.
Not that it matters. Republicans will continue to put words into the mouths of the troops regardless of how they vote or what they say.
empty
The reason he and others will not be asked those questions in any significant way by our
mastersrepresentatives is that the answers are relatively well known . And they are answers that are not palatable to the American public. We are so immersed in the idea of American exceptionalism that the concept that we could be conducting military campaigns to promote causes that have nothing to do with defeating tyranny and promoting democracy is not palatable to us. No, I am not saying the purpose of the war was to grab oil for the American companies – that was just one of the pleasant side benefits. What it was about, and the reason our representatives went along with it, was the consolidation of American power into the next century by establishing bases from which we could project power when necessary. It was always accepted that we would be there permanently – McCain actually was being a straight talker with his 100 year comment. Or if you don’t like the word “permanent,” how about “enduring.” I don’t think any of the presidential candidates will voluntarily withdraw from Iraq. I have more hope with the Dems because their base is more strongly opposed to the occupation of Iraq than is the republican base and therefore, hopefully will be better positioned to exert pressure on them.Withdrawal means accepting the limits of our military power and therefore weakening what these folks see as our strongest hand in the geo-politics of today. We are by far the pre-eminent military force in the world. Our establishment’s views on the benefit of the military was very accurately conveyed by the immortal words of Madeleine Albright “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about, if we can’t use it?” I am sure many of these people truly believe they are working for the greater good of the country. I personally think they are very very wrong. And by focusing on only military power they are displaying contempt for the creativity, ingenuity, and the work ethics of the American people – which I think are stronger hands. They also display contempt for us when they put out this crap that is being put out today instead of engaging with us.
/soapbox
DougJ
Cheer up, people. Only two hundred Friedman units to go!
Grumpy Code Monkey
Germany and Japan seemed to make out okay.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
post-1782 Great Britain didn’t do too badly either.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
200 FU = 1 MU (McCain Unit).
By the way, how is that British occupation of South Africa going, speaking of wars that happened about 100 years ago?
jake
From Yahoo!s front page:
benr242
I thought this was supposed to be a ‘hearing’. Seriously, does Petreus even need to be there? Couldn’t all the Senators just as easily talk to a picture of him on the wall? I watched for 20 min, 3 of the Senator’s ‘questions’, but none of them had a question mark. Patreus is just there so everyone knows which way to face, apparently, as they give their own views on the war.
Xanthippas
Do you think there were maybe a few people in Germany in 1945 who thought that losing a war could sometimes be a good thing? Oh, but they were traitors of course.
Xanthippas
Sorry, I now see other commentators making the same point. But to clarify in case there is difference, what I’m saying is I think that there are many Germans who would agree that Germany was better off having lost the war and been rebuilt as a democracy than they would have been had the Reich endured even another decade or two. Of course, this applies only to West Germans, as East Germans surrendered their own tyranny for the Soviet kind.
Delia
The problem, of course, is that it really sucked to be in Germany, as a German, in 1945. As in, you were either starving, freezing, permanently displaced from your home and wondering where the hell you were ever going to live, or all of the above.
Now, so far losing in America in the 20th/21st centuries seems to mainly entail Finding Somebody Else To Blame while you (generically speaking) sit at your keyboard reading Michelle or in front of your teevee watching Fox and rant about the various and sundry traitors who are undermining good and redblooded Americans such as yerself.
I truly hope that it won’t take an utterly catastrophic loss such as Germany and Japan suffered (and which entails US troops being stationed in their countries to this day) to bring us to our senses about this sense of exceptionalism about which empty writes so well. But I’m afraid that it might. It’s been indoctrinated into all of us for a very long time. I well remember some film way back in the first grade that my whole elementary school had to watch about America The Beautiful and Those Who Would Do Us Harm. It made a big impression on me, but fortunately I outgrew it. Perhaps another less catastrophic scenario involves us spending all our treasure in unending wars until we’ve wasted away into a third world state and everyone starts ignoring us. Then we just spend the rest of our alloted time telling ourselves how great we are while our workers try to steal across the border into Mexico looking for jobs.
Brachiator
The Brits lost the American Revolutionary war and barely noticed it. We lost the War of 1812 (the Brits having decided that a truce was as good as kicking our ass) and it had little negative affect on either side.
But we went to Iraq over some faked BS. No one in Iraq asked us to depose Saddam or to fight Al Queda “over there.” And now we have Kagan and other goons insisting that we continue to fight against nobody in particular to achieve nothing other than the dubious notoriety of declaring ourselves the winner of … something.
This is utterly absurd. The sad thing is that few have the courage to really want to stop this madness.
D-Chance.
Nothing on “B. Hussein Obama” supporter Jay Rockefeller’s “smearing” of John McCain’s military service as a “hit-and-run aviator”?
Eh, I can’t get worked up over it, either.
a) It was Jay Rockefeller’s words, not Obama’s. Let Jay do the apologizing, if necessary.
b) McCain WAS an aviator who dropped his munitions from 35,000 feet and didn’t have to look at his targets’ faces.
c) I remember all those “John Kerry, who PURPORTEDLY served in Vietnam” smears from Limbaugh and his ilk in 2004.
What’s sauce for the goose…
Escariot
Bill K
earlier when I read your comment to the esteemed panel I was reminded of an old post from ClusterfuckNation. April 12 2004:
“A big part of the American public, meanwhile, still wants to celebrate diversity while motoring in air conditioned comfort with the cup-holders full of iced drinks and old Beatles hits on the stereo — give peace a chance! These are the people who complain because the Iraq war is “all about oil.”
Okay, then, fine. Give up your big cars and air conditioning and iced sport beverages and walk to work from Cherokee County, Ga, to Dekalb, if you still have a job in a post-oil economy.
The news is that defending the way of life we’ve grown accustomed to is going to be very costly. We’re in Iraq because we need desperately to maintain a police station in the Middle East, especially next door to Saudi Arabia, so the whole region doesn’t fall under the sway of jihad, taking the stability of the global oil markets with it. That was the reason from the start, whatever the window-dressing of politics might have been.
If the Democratic Progressives want to grow up and act like a respectable and responsible opposition, they might quit being crybabies about the war and commence some public reflection on the insanity of our current way of life, which has no future under any circumstances. I’d like to hear the Democratic Progressives talk about restoring passenger railroad service and public transit. I’d like to see one Democratic politician stand up against WalMart and the forces that destroy local economies. I’d like to see one of them talk about stopping subsidies to suburban sprawl. I’d like to hear one define a new national purpose beyond bargain shopping and trips to Las Vegas for “excitement.”
Until that happens, I’ll stick with Condeleeza Rice.”
yep. gotta say he has a point. basically we’re screwed.
Bruce Moomaw
Well, McCain himself has deprecated his Vietnam serviec, saying that his “main accomplishment was to run my plane into a SAM missile.”
As for today’s hearings: the most spectacular attractions seem to have been:
(1) McCain and Lieberman both doing honest-to-God, flat-out Mortimer Snerd imitations (not that the press will call them on it).
(2) Petraeus flatly refusing to take Lindsay Graham’s bait when the latter asked him to say that starting to pull out troops in January (as a certain two Dem Presidential candidates are promising) would be strategically disastrous. Petraeus is clearly the Vicar of Bray with battle ribbons; he’s setting himself up so that he can cheerfully say that he agrees completely with WHOEVER is in the White House come January.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
I blame the self-esteem movement. This is the end product of all those soccer games and science-fairs where everybody gets a trophy, because nobody is a loser. Damn liburls.
/snark
Tony J
Well, there is the little mentioned but quite relevant fact that, prior to the Bushwars, the Islamic world had more or less rejected the idea of Jihaddist extremism as extreme and self-defeating. The likes of Osama and his al-Qaida brethren had tried – and failed – to spread Taliban-style government to other parts of the muslim world, and were widely despised as nutjobs who brought only chaos and slaughter with them (see: Algeria). Hence Osama’s oft-quoted policy of attacking America directly in order to goad its leaders into military action.
It was only after the US declaration of Forever War against the mythical ‘Global Caliphate’ that Brand Al-Qaida got enough PR to give their paranoid delusions about evil Crusader States allying with Israel to subjugate Islam the veneer of credibility. After all, when there really is an alliance of non-muslim states invading, occupying and destroying muslim states under the leadership of an overtly Christian regime allied to Israel, there’s always enough stupid people around to take it as read that the rest of what you’re offering as a solution is the right way to go.
In other words, “maintaining a police station in the Middle-East” by putting troops into Iraq has only fed Jihaddist recruitment, and will keep on doing so until the US and her allies pull them out. Which is why the Jihaddists don’t want them to.