Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Brilliant Petraeus

Wait for Petraeus. Wait until September for the report from the great genius, General Petraeus. The brilliant Petraeus was here. And Petraeus spoke to us. And nothing has changed. According to the polls the majority is still against the Iraq War. However, more Americans are aware that there is an Anbar Province in Iraq. And now we learn about the brilliance that made Anbar a “success.”

Noah Shachtman of Wired's Danger Room, has visited Iraq and he said the following in one of his recent blogs:

Sunni political and tribal leaders are increasingly throwing in their lot with U.S. forces here against Al-Qaeda in Iraq and other insurgent types. But, to get them to come over to our side, the American military has fed them a steady diet of anti-Shi'ite propaganda.

Arrests and killings of Shi’ite militants are announced from loudspeaker blasts; President Bush’s bellicose rhetoric towards Shi’a Iran is reported on friendly radio programs. But the majority of this country is Shi’ite. Are we setting ourselves up as the enemies of the majority here? Are we priming the pump for an all-in sectarian battle royale? It seems like a possibility.

So, it turns out that the general's brilliant strategy is to feed the Sunnis hateful propaganda against the Shi'a. No wonder the Sunnis are joining Americans. And what can we expect the Shi'a to do? When the Shi'a complain what will we do? Feed them hateful propaganda against the Sunnis?

Is this what is supposed to lead to reconciliation? No way. It will lead to more explosive combat than we have in Iraq today. We can't "win" or reach "success" by playing one sect against the other.

We do not need the "brilliant strategy" of General Petraeus. Let's get out from being in the middle of a civil war. Let's bring our troops home now.

Posted by Paul Siegel at September 18, 2007 6:15 PM
Comments
Comment #233338

Paul
You appear so eager to accept any negative information regarding our attempt to give the Iraqis a shot at freedom. And you seem like you would be satisfied if we were to lose the war so you could hang that defeat around President Bush’s neck…regardless what the consequences would be for the Iraqis or our security here at home.
You’re going to need some professional help after we win this war, aren’t you…?

Posted by: Snardius at September 18, 2007 6:24 PM
Comment #233339

Before turning to journalism, Shachtman worked as a professional bass player, book editor, and campaign staffer on Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign.

That’s a real objective source you got there, Paul. Any chance you read anything from any of the troops on the ground…just to get both sides of the argument?

Posted by: Snardius at September 18, 2007 6:37 PM
Comment #233344

Snardius-
A shot at freedom? They deserved better than a shot. They deserved for America to send the troops and the expertise into Iraq necessary to keep things together from the beginning. Neither the Iraqis, nor our soldiers deserved to be involved in a war where the leaders were so wrapped up in their own politics and ideological agendas that they refused to admit they needed help.

I can speak for myself, and I will assume on Paul’s part, that neither of ever wanted to see America lose, much less have this country lose a war so we can hang the failure around Bush’s neck.

If anybody’s hung this around his neck, if anybody has been reckless about the consequences of his actions, it’s been Bush himself.

As for what the troops on the ground have said? It varies. In truth, some come home and raise holy hell about how screwed up things are. Some come home ready to canonize Bush. And some? some write letters to the editor.

I don’t speak for the soldiers. I’m a fellow in his late twenties who sits behind a computer in suburban Texas, who’s grandfather, much admired by him, fought in WWII. I’ve always respected the military, and have done my best not to talk from ignorance. People on your side of the fence talk about General Petraeus, but there are plenty of Military officers, retired and active duty, who have come out against the surge. I’m sorry to be poking your sacred cow with a stick, but this war has not been well-managed.

It continues for the same reason it got started and got screwed up: because the leaders in the White House think the rest of us Americans are eejits, and they feel it necessary to do their best to saddle us with this war permanently.

Frankly, my reaction to that news above is not surprise. We’ve been arming these guys. We’re taking both sides in this conflict, and we’re making them stronger. Since they haven’t exactly kissed and made up, this strategy, even if it buys short term reductions in violence, only ensures things get worse over the long term.

But hey, Bush doesn’t have to worry about the long term for much longer, now does he? No, but that’s always been his problem. He’s been fighting this war in three month chunks the whole time. Tell me, how does such a vigilant and wise commander in Chief manage to run out of soldiers? That’s what gets me. It’s all nice to talk a good game, but where’s the fricking followthrough? Is it enough for you that he’s stirs your heart with words of strength, or do you actually require results from the fellow?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 18, 2007 7:15 PM
Comment #233346

Pardon me:
And some? some write letters to the editor.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 18, 2007 7:16 PM
Comment #233347

Paul

Noah who?

This guys seems to know nothing much and what he does know he seems to have made up. I just do not know where to start. There just is no truth to Noah’s story on this.

Posted by: Jack at September 18, 2007 7:30 PM
Comment #233350

Do any of you actually believe that if a democrat is elected to the presidency in 2008 that much will actually change in our war on terrorism? The new president, from whatever party, can not abandon what has been started without grave consequences all over the world in increased terrorist acts and only God knows what price increase to the energy that drives our civilization.
The recent home loan situation has caused quite a problem in our economy but is miniscule compared to what will happen if the U.S. and our allies give up in Iraq and abandon it to Iran and other enemies to freedom. Please try to think and comtemplate beyond your short-sighted presumed pleasure from seeing the Bush administration, and consequently the nation, humiliated. And also please have some sympathy for the millions of people who will be adversly affected all over the world. Politics should never trump common sense and self preservation. We must all assume a world view of this war on terror and put aside our hatred for each other while we are all in peril. We can get back to the name calling and blame game later.

Posted by: Jim at September 18, 2007 7:36 PM
Comment #233362

I don’t care if you put Bush down or any other politician for that matter, but when it comes to putting down the military or persons therein, that makes you no better than Bush or any other scum bag politician. They are doing their job to the best of their ability, so they don’t need any arm chair general putting them down.

Posted by: KAP at September 18, 2007 9:33 PM
Comment #233363

Jim-
You’ve invested yourself way too much in one man, and have let yourself be truly terrorized. I think Bin Laden’s happy that he can scare us into continuing a war that’s clearly a bad deal for us. There’s no reason to believe that the Sunni have much love for al-Qaeda. The folks in Anbar rose against them on their own, remember?

You talk as if the country hasn’t yet been humiliated, as if people haven’t already been adversely affected, the chaos not already begun. The real trouble here is that you don’t see how insufficient the Bush plan has been to his goals. If Bush is so ready to fight this war to the end, why has he continued policies throughout the war that are now leaving his army unready to fight it, or any other war for that matter?

So many of these problems with the war are self-inflicted, the result of clear policy decisions made by the administration over the objections and advice of those outside the President’s inner circle. All too many of these failures in Iraq were predictable surprises, yet the Administration has mechanically stumbled into one pitfall after another, ceaselessly trying to prove their critics wrong, and paradoxically continuing to prove them right.

You appeal to bipartisanship and unity, but unfortunately, you do so having basically told us that we’re all obsessed with getting Bush, that our policies would lead to the ruin of the country. Given the track record of predictions we got right and you folks got wrong, why should we drop everything and agree with you for the sake of unity? I don’t think you folks have proven the reliability of your theories to the point where people have the patiences or inclination any longer to follow your lead.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 18, 2007 9:34 PM
Comment #233364

This is a lot like that kid’s game of “telephone.” Only a lot sillier.

An American blogger (who I’m sure must speak excellent Arabic) hears announcements on a loudspeaker (we’re not told where) of arrests and killings of Shia militia members. He also hears reports on “friendly radio stations” about Bush’s remarks on Iran.

Then he goes on to say that these remarks are “bellicose”—again, because like most American bloggers, his command of the nuances of the Arabic language is truly excellent and he can easily detect “bellicose” language in Arabic news reports.

Not satisfied with these sketchy facts presented on a blog, yet another blogger (Paul Siegel), declares:

1). That announcing the arrests and killings of Shia fighers is “hateful propaganda” against Shias. That saying anything against Iran is also hateful propaganda against the Shias in Iraq.

2). And further, with no evidence whatsoever, that this is the “general’s strategy” in Iraq.

We’re never told, however, if or how Petreaus is in any way involved with what independent albeit “friendly” Iraqi radio stations choose to report on the air. We’re just asked to believe that he—the general—is behind it. That it is in fact the “general’s strategy” in Iraq to spread “hateful propaganda” against Shias.

Anyone looking for “hateful propaganda” can find much clearer examples of it right here in Paul Siegel’s underhanded smears against General Petreaus.

Posted by: Liam at September 18, 2007 9:39 PM
Comment #233366

They deserved for America to send the troops and the expertise into Iraq necessary to keep things together from the beginning.

That horse is dead. Stop beating it.

Neither the Iraqis, nor our soldiers deserved to be involved in a war where the leaders were so wrapped up in their own politics and ideological agendas that they refused to admit they needed help.

But they are at war. And they definitely don’t deserve to have their mission undercut to serve the short term political gains of Democrats who want desperately for this war to end in disaster for their own country!?!

But hey, Bush doesn’t have to worry about the long term for much longer, now does he?

This cheapens your argument so much that it doesn’t require a response.

Tell me, how does such a vigilant and wise commander in Chief manage to run out of soldiers?

I understand that there is no shortage of soldiers willing to defend their country…but who knows, if you keep up your defeatist diatribe…you may succeed.

Is it enough for you that he’s stirs your heart with words of strength, or do you actually require results from the fellow?Is it enough for you that he’s stirs your heart with words of strength, or do you actually require results from the fellow?

He gave you results this past week but your hatred of the man blinded you to any hope you may have taken away from Patreaus’s report. You see, I view your position as anything that shows America’s failure in Iraq is good for you, politically. I choose to view ANY success in Iraq as good for America.

Posted by: Snardius at September 18, 2007 9:45 PM
Comment #233373

Given the track record of predictions we got right and you folks got wrong, why should we drop everything and agree with you for the sake of unity?

War is an ugly, unpredictable business. And anyone who volunteers to predict it’s outcome is on a fool’s errand. You shouldn’t “drop everything and agree with [us}” on the war but you could at the very least drop everything that encourages our enemy to continue to fight us until you convince us to surrender to them.

You have a right to speak your mind. You do not have the right to behave in any way that endangers our troops while they are at war defending your right to speak your mind…no matter how right you feel you are.

Posted by: Snardius at September 18, 2007 10:08 PM
Comment #233374

Stephen, I don’t happen to think that changing poll numbers in the American’s attitude toward Iraq and the tendency of Democratic partisans to predict every single conceivable calumny and setback in the war effort means that Democrats have a superior “track record” in getting things right.

Democrats have at one time or another predicted everything from huge and devestating WMD attacks on American troops, to tens of thousands of American troops killed, to millions of refugees, to burning oil fields. War proponents have made bad predictions too, but Iraq is still a work in progress. It’s not the Democrats’ “predictions” I worry about. When you predict everything bad that might occur, you’re bound to be right when the subject of your predictions is anything so messy as a war. Plenty of people predicted losses in say, WWII or the American Civil War. You can be right in some of the particulars and still be completely wrong in the big picture.

It’s their desire to set the stage for their predictions to come to true in order (they think) to reap political gain from a defeat of the American military that is troubling. And as far as the American attitude to the war—that will follow events, for good or ill.

Posted by: Liam at September 18, 2007 10:22 PM
Comment #233375

In war there is no winning. Only degrees of loss.

Posted by: Las Vegas Guy at September 18, 2007 10:26 PM
Comment #233378

Liam-
Or, he can ask a translator sitting beside him. But I suppose you’re going to ask whether the translator has a bias now.

Perhaps you have point about Paul’s interpretation of the words and the broadcasts, but if they’re basically broadcasting stuff that reflects poorly on their Shiite neighbors, it’s not exactly going to encourage peaceful relations with them.

Getting beyond the broadcasts, there’s no denying that we’re basically funding the arming of both sides. That is an incontrovertable fact.

These two sides are hostile towards each other. Am I wrong?

If I’m not wrong, then how does arming both sides, increasing their firepower and ability to fight, not run the risk of worsening the already bad sectarian conflicts, once we leave?

But hey, such facts and their consequences don’t matter, right, just whether Paul is nice to the folks that folks like you have declared to be sacred cows. God help us if we suggest that Petraeus is wrong, or that the President he serves has a tendency to sell wars by pumping sunshine up America’s backside.

Snardius-
Did they or did they not deserve for the Americans who promised to protect them, promised to help them rebuild, promised to help them become a shining beacon of democracy to fulfill those promises? It would have been a lot easier to enlist their help when they could point them and say that we did all these things for them. If they could point to us and say, these guys got the power going, these guys got our sewer working, these guys have kept our streets safe, kept our borders sealed against our enemies, things would be going much better for us.

There as here, they respect people who can get things done.

You know little of what most Democrats want, hell, what virtually all Democrats want, if you believe that we want disaster upon our country, defeat in war. Hell, for many of us, our motivation is that Bush has brought these things on us! We seek to end the war to put that policy out of our misery, to end the fiasco he’s gotten us into.

Of special concern to me are our soldiers. Bush has deployed reservists, deployed national guardmen and women, deployed soldiers on multiple tours, and done just about everything to avoid admitting to the problem that now we find impossible to avoid.

The chickens have come home to roost: In April of 2008, we will simply not have enough troops to keep in rotation to maintain the surge. A brigade a month comes home during the course of the rest of the year.

Now you can say this is a defeatist diatribe, but in fact, it’s a logistical reality, and the fact that Bush is going to be drawing down troops during the rest of the year, despite loud protests earlier that withdrawing or reducing numbers would help the enemy, would indicate to you how real this problem is.

My view is that goals have to be met, that it’s not good enough to make progress. If I had a child and he were to come home with 75 on all his grades, I wouldn’t exactly celebrate if he comes back six weeks later, with three points of improvement in a couple subjects. I’d want mid to high B’s across the board, and I wouldn’t call it a success until I had those results in hand.

What you fail to understand is that my grievance against Bush isn’t founded on a tolerance of this war’s failure, but on the exact opposite impulse: my intolerance of the failures of this war. I wish we were winning right now. I started writing on this blog in part because these failures grew too sickening in their frequency, and too profound in their effect for me to stay quiet.

I started talking about this at a time when dissent and raising question were not popular, but I felt it had to be done, because these problems were harming our ability to win, and all the yes-men seemed either content to let things fester, or too afraid to point out the problems they saw.

I didn’t even get around to really considering Iraq a lost cause until mid-2006. Until that point, I actually entertained notions that things could be salvaged, if the president were willing to dedicate efforts to get things done.

It’s easy to vilify us, but if you had cared to address our real concerns earlier, neither the war nor your Party’s fortunes would be in such pour shape.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 18, 2007 10:51 PM
Comment #233380

Stephen

Noah’s grasp of Arabic is not the issue. His getting it wrong is the issue. It is beyond silly to believe this guy. Do you really believe the U.S. has set up loudspeakers to trash the Shiites or that the U.S. Army is spreading anti-Shiite propaganda?

We are working to build local institutions. Guys like Noah mistake this for something evil. It is really annoying that anybody takes these guys seriously. What they say is a kind of blood slander.

And Noah’s qualification? He has “been to Iraq”. I know dozens of people who live in Iraq. None of them has seen anything like that. I suggest that Noah is misled or misleading. He probably knows a lot about geeky technologies. He should stick to what he knows.

Posted by: Jack at September 18, 2007 11:02 PM
Comment #233381

Liam-
No, this is not something so random. For example, take the Shia’s welcome. Neocons Predicted roses at the Soldier’s feet. They got skeptical hesitation instead. Utterly unpredictable? Only if you forgot what happened last time we encouraged them to rise up.

Folks said they needed more soldiers than this invasion had. Come time we get to Baghdad, we’re unable to stop looters, when we should be imposing martial law.

Somebody says, guard those ammunition dumps, it might come back to haunt us. They aren’t and it does come back to bite us on the rear.

Jay Garner tells him, don’t disband the army, keep the police force. Limit your de-baathification. Bush administration comes in and ignores him on every count. Sunni insurgency starts.

Sunni insurgency catches a group of Blackwater security personnel, the unfortunate souls get killed, burned and mutilated. Bush overreacts, and against the advice of officers on the ground, sends soldiers in, and then, again, against advice of commanders on the ground, takes them out with the mission incomplete, and leaves the whole thing to stew for half a year afterwards.

No dealing with the political situation, rampant corruption, rampant waste of taxpayer dollars, and at the end of the day, what do we have to show for all that? A situation that gets worse and worse, until one day, somebody bombs a holy shrine, and everything goes to hell.

Bush has embarrassed himself, and this country by putting us through all this, by failing to follow a greate military victory with the follow through that would have kept everything from going to hell.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 18, 2007 11:06 PM
Comment #233382

Jack-
The other person was arguing that he could not possibly know the sense of what he they were saying. Your grasp might be crucial, though. How do you know he’s getting it wrong? How many of the sources that you pay attention to come from Anbar?

Your criticism ought to be more critical in its thinking, because right now, I don’t see the facts that would convince me that there really was a misunderstanding on his party, rather than a partisan assumption on yours.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 18, 2007 11:10 PM
Comment #233386

Stephen,

I fear the only one with a “partisan assumption” is you. Your willingness to revisit mistakes of the past to bolster your argument that all is lost and we should surrender is breathtaking.

Just for fun, why not explore possibilities that don’t involve bashing Bush and just may conclude in us winning this war before we withdraw?

Posted by: Snardius at September 18, 2007 11:36 PM
Comment #233397

Paul, good article.

Stephen the saddest thing is that two of the soldiers who contributed their thoughts to that NYT op-ed you linked to, Sgt. Omar Mora, and Staff Sgt. Yance T. Gray were killed in Iraq just recently.

Lost Voices
Why the deaths of Yance T. Gray and Omar Mora are particularly galling.

Snardius wrote:
“You’re going to need some professional help after we win this war, aren’t you…?”

Doesn’t this seem a lot like a critique of the messenger, rather than the message?

Posted by: Adrienne at September 19, 2007 1:58 AM
Comment #233400

“I fear the only one with a “partisan assumption” is you. Your willingness to revisit mistakes of the past to bolster your argument that all is lost and we should surrender is breathtaking.”

No, what is truly “breathtaking”, is the naive assumption that an inept leader with a policy of “stay the course” in the face of continual mistakes, and a complete lack of progress would pull off this grand experiment.
I don’t “hate” Mr. Bush as much as I love my country, and I don’t feel the need to love Iraq.

The “Mission” in Iraq was to depose Saddam. That mission was completed 4 years ago.
What followed has been a massive waste of human life, money, and world wide political currency, and our efforts in the “war on terror” have suffered because of it.

Do we continue to follow this latest policy of “stay the course” on the assumption that even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally?

Just how many times do we need to hear “trust me, I know what I am doing”, before we realize that trust has been misplaced?

Saddam is dead and gone. It’s long past time to let the Iraqis build their own country, in their own way.

Posted by: Rocky at September 19, 2007 5:10 AM
Comment #233405

Snardius, your flame baiting use of the word ‘you’ toward others here, and your critique of the character and motives of other participants here violates our Rules for Participation. Comply with our rules or lose your privilege to comment here.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at September 19, 2007 5:37 AM
Comment #233426

Noah’s grasp of Arabic is not the issue. His getting it wrong is the issue. It is beyond silly to believe this guy. Do you really believe the U.S. has set up loudspeakers to trash the Shiites or that the U.S. Army is spreading anti-Shiite propaganda?

I can not say that this report is 100% accurate. But I can ask why you would not think our military capable of using propaganda to further an agenda. We dumped plane loads of propaganda leaflets over North Vietnam. We used radio as did they to serve an agenda. Our approach was a bit more subtle than that of the North Vietnamese. But never the less it was aimed at serving an agenda. The use of propaganda in war is nothing new and certainly should not be ruled out here. I find it incredibly naive on your part that you find such tactics above reproach by our military. You can not deny that we are arming these groups to fight each other. That in itself is a form of psychological posturing. We are encouraging violence with violence. As a result we are shaping hatreds and false beliefs that in the end whoever wins will be seen as the good guys. But what we are really after is the extinction of one party or the other, if not both in the hopes of eliminating a problematic factor. Can these things be considered ethical by American standards? Or are ethics of no concern where military intervention is concerned?

Posted by: RickIL at September 19, 2007 10:20 AM
Comment #233427

“Do any of you actually believe that if a democrat is elected to the presidency in 2008 that much will actually change in our war on terrorism?”

Come on Jim, you know better than that.
A dem will win in ‘08 and much concerning the war on terrorism will not change a whole lot. The dem’s are just laying a foundation so that when the dem President screws up, and he or she definetly will, alot, they can still blame it all on Bush.
And, with a dem as President, the MSM will start showing more success stories coming from Iraq and the Dems will be able to take credit for all the “new” good news.
Its all a political game to them and they play it better than anybody else.

Posted by: kctim at September 19, 2007 10:21 AM
Comment #233461

Rocky

…what is truly “breathtaking”, is the naive assumption that an inept leader with a policy of “stay the course” in the face of continual mistakes, and a complete lack of progress would pull off this grand experiment.

I think Bush changed course earlier this year (remember “The Surge”?) and there has been progress (though the Left and the media are so invested in defeat that they refuse to acknowledge it).

What is truly stunning in all this discussion about the war is that the Democrat Party, every Democrat candidate for president, the Left, all the major newspapers, and ABCCBSNBCCNNMSNBC are unabashedly rooting for this country to be defeated in Islam’s war against us.

None of them will address the consequences of what will happen to this country, its citzens, our economy, our way of life, and our security if they succeed, we surrender, and al Qaida is victorious in Iraq.

Posted by: Snardius at September 19, 2007 2:03 PM
Comment #233467

Withdrawing is not surrender.
Sure, the world and AQ will see it as a defeat and will even use it to enhance recruitment, but to be honest, I don’t give a rats ass about what others think of the US and want my friends brought home.

Posted by: kctim at September 19, 2007 2:31 PM
Comment #233474

kctim, AQ will call anything we do, including victory a defeat. So, yes, you are dead on right about that. The rest of the world is not monolithic. Our adversaries will call it something adversarial. Our allies people’s will call withdrawal conducted appropriately, “America regaining its sensibilities”.

I am with you. AQ and the Rest of the World aren’t paying the price we are. If they are committed to our staying there, let them step up as we step out, putting their money and lives where their mouths are.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 19, 2007 3:06 PM
Comment #233475

Snardius said: “I think Bush changed course earlier this year (remember “The Surge”?) “

Wow, doing more of the same with 23% more troops is still following the same course with more troops. A change in course is like Kuwait, or home, or Iran. Staying in Iraq is not changing course, that is just staying put, while making ourselves a bigger target. Each month this year violence has risen over the same month last year. And I am sure you would call that progress like Bush does, right?

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 19, 2007 3:12 PM
Comment #233478

“What is truly stunning in all this discussion about the war is that the Democrat Party, every Democrat candidate for president, the Left, all the major newspapers, and ABCCBSNBCCNNMSNBC are unabashedly rooting for this country to be defeated in Islam’s war against us.”

This is just crap.

Am I to believe that all Republicans, and FoxNews support the war, and all Democrats are invested in America’s defeat?
Surely you can do better than talking points.

“None of them will address the consequences of what will happen to this country, its citzens, our economy, our way of life, and our security if they succeed, we surrender, and al Qaida is victorious in Iraq.”

And what exactly are these consequences “they” need to address?
Will we have al Qaeda under our beds?
Surely the right doesn’t believe that.

We won in Iraq.
I distinctly remember Mr. Bush on the deck of that aircraft carrier in front of a banner that read “Mission Accomplished”.

Posted by: Rocky at September 19, 2007 3:39 PM
Comment #233536

David,
You consider a change of course withdrawing to Kuwait or coming home? That’s not a change of course, that’s surrendering. It’s not redeployment, it’s surrendering. Call it what it is…leaving Iraq to fend for themselves before they are ready is a betrayal of what we promised to them and a defeat in the eyes of the world.

And it’s more violent because we’re killing more of the enemy because we changed course and are taking the fight to the enemy.

Until Iraq can defend themselves, we should stay.

Posted by: Snardius at September 19, 2007 8:02 PM
Comment #233540

kctim,

“Withdrawing is not surrender.”

Then what is it? An advance to the rear?

“Sure, the world and AQ will see it as a defeat and will even use it to enhance recruitment,…”

Do you understand the consequences of that development? Are you prepared to fight a bigger war, without any allies, perhaps on our own soil, against a nuclear armed force?

” …but to be honest, I don’t give a rats ass about what others think of the US and want my friends brought home.”

The quickest way to do that is to support their mission and make sure they know you’re behind them.

Posted by: Snardius at September 19, 2007 8:13 PM
Comment #233543

Rocky,

If all Democrats aren’t invested in our defeat in Iraq, why are they doing everything they can (except cut off funds for the war) to prevent our victory? They want an immediate withdrawal of troops before the mission is complete…what is that if it’s not defeat?

And the consequences that Democrats need to acknowledge is that, if they get their way, Iran will fill the vacuum left by our withdrawal…they’ve said so publicly.

What follows from that is the Arabian peninsula aflame as Iran moves to establish their dominance of the region, $200-$500 per barrel oil, the collapse of economies around the world, and a nuclear armed al Qaida bent on destruction of all “infidels.”

Sadly, we won’t have an ally in the world willing to trust us…and Israel will be a smoking, radioactive hole in the ground.

That is why we’re in Iraq and why we must stay until they can protect themselves.

Posted by: Snardius at September 19, 2007 8:26 PM
Comment #233565

Paul Siegel- Some of these posts in the past few days look as

if they have come straight off the presses at the

Republican disinformation center. Just look back

a day or two, you can’t miss some of them.

Posted by: -DAVID- at September 20, 2007 4:52 AM
Comment #233568

“What follows from that is the Arabian peninsula aflame as Iran moves to establish their dominance of the region, $200-$500 per barrel oil, the collapse of economies around the world, and a nuclear armed al Qaida bent on destruction of all “infidels”.”

And, just where do you think al Qaeda will acquire this nuclear weapon from?
Certainly not from Iran.
It would be more likely they acquire a WMD as a result of a coup in Pakistan, our supposed ally.

You do realize that with the majority of Iraqis being Shi’ite an Iraqi alignment with Iran is an inevitable conclusion to any scenario.

Unless, of course, you believe America has the right to occupy Iraq forever.

Posted by: Rocky at September 20, 2007 5:42 AM
Comment #233599

Ok Paul other then quoting someone else info do you have any direct information on what the other person said is valid and correct, or are you just repeating possible misinformation?

Oh have you spent anytime in the Military?

Posted by: KT at September 20, 2007 12:48 PM
Comment #233608

KT- Most folks have enough common sense an the
ability to smell a troll bater before they step
on one, an fall far over the line of being considered an imbecile or an idiot. Sometimes it’s
the question asked rather than the answer that must
be worthy of a response.

Posted by: -DAVID- at September 20, 2007 2:49 PM
Comment #233619

Snardius-
You talk about the liberal media because the only alternative is to talk about the results of the Bush administration’s policies. If you do that, you get hammered by a rather painful fact: they really haven’t worked. Whatever goal they’ve set, they’ve fallen short.

You talk about Surrendering. What exactly would we be surrendering now? We’ve never had real control over Iraq. Bush let the country descend into chaos. We’re referees here, not conquerors, the frustrated spectators of a brutal, genocidal civil war that our increased presence has hardly put the brakes on at all. We can’t even get their leaders to reconcile, which would be the very basis of any end to that violence, and the beginning of workable governance in Iraq.

Yes, leaving Iraq is going to be a bitch. No doubt about that. Tell you a little secret: I would have never asked America to leave this way, given a choice. Trouble is, we don’t leave, we begin to put our own country, and our working interests at risk. A win at the expense of our best interests is bad enough, but continuing this failure of a war at such a price?

As for the breathless predictions you make? Iran has already filled much of the power vacuum in Iraq. Both Iran and us are backing the same man in Iraq, the same parties. What did you think would happen when you turned over the country to the Shia?

Which brings me to another point: Iran is mostly Shia itself. To the Sunni, at least the more extremist among them, Shia are heretics. Bin Laden and al-Qaeda are an extremist Sunni terrorist group.

This is the trouble with all that Islamofascist bullshit. It allows the unwary listener to get fooled into believing there’s a common agenda, a common cause where there’s not.

It’s Pakistan you’d have to be worried about in arming al-Qaeda. But then, you’re not worried about where al-Qaeda actually is in regards to the central front in the war on terrorism. No, that would make things too simple You’re off wasting our resources, our intelligence gathering resources on a threat that’s about a single percentage point component of the war in general. It’s like shooting at the bear paw instead of the bear. Even if you destroy the damn thing, you have to deal with the rest of the beast.

Don’t talk to us about surrender until you’ve got us fighting the right war. Otherwise, I’ll call this withdrawal what it truly is: the end of a disastrous, counterproductive distraction.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 20, 2007 4:10 PM
Comment #233652

David,

“Some of these posts in the past few days look as
if they have come straight off the presses at the
Republican disinformation center.”

Were you hoping for a Democrats & Liberals Echo Chamber?

Posted by: Snardius at September 20, 2007 5:59 PM
Comment #233653

Rocky,

“And, just where do you think al Qaeda will acquire this nuclear weapon from?
Certainly not from Iran.
It would be more likely they acquire a WMD as a result of a coup in Pakistan, our supposed ally.”

So you agree that our leaving Iraq would present a nuclear/WMD threat to the region but wonder about where they’d get the bomb?

“You do realize that with the majority of Iraqis being Shi’ite an Iraqi alignment with Iran is an inevitable conclusion to any scenario.”

I don’t realize any such thing. If Iraqis wanted to be aligned with Iran the “majority Shi’ites” would have elected a government that would give them that when they last voted.

“Unless, of course, you believe America has the right to occupy Iraq forever.”

I believe we should honor the promise we made to them when we freed them from Saddam’s tyranny…that we’d stay until they could defend themselves and be an ally in the terrorist war against us.

If we abandon them, we won’t have an ally left in the world.

Posted by: Snardius at September 20, 2007 6:12 PM
Comment #233661

“So you agree that our leaving Iraq would present a nuclear/WMD threat to the region but wonder about where they’d get the bomb?”

Absolutely not!

Iran doesn’t have the capability yet, and not discussing it with them surely won’t keep them from trying.
Exactly why would you think that our being in Iraq is a deterrent to Iran from acquiring WMD?
I’ll let you in on a little secret, it isn’t.

Iran, according to the CIA can put up an army of over 25 million troops.
Surely you don’t think our presence of less than a 10th of that is a deterrence.

“I don’t realize any such thing. If Iraqis wanted to be aligned with Iran the “majority Shi’ites” would have elected a government that would give them that when they last voted.”

They already have, and apparently you missed it.

“that we’d stay until they could defend themselves and be an ally in the terrorist war against us.”

I do hope you’re not holding your breath.

Posted by: Rocky at September 20, 2007 7:40 PM
Comment #233662

“Surely you don’t think our presence of less than a 10th of that is a deterrence.”

Actually that should be less than 1/100th.

Posted by: Rocky at September 20, 2007 7:42 PM
Comment #233674

Snardius- Yes I did prove a point. I told some of

my colleagues that you would respond, they on the

other hand, said you would not.
-

Posted by: -DAVID- at September 20, 2007 9:31 PM
Comment #233694

David,
You give yourself too much credit…I wasn’t giving your comment credibility so much as asking why you object to someone who doesn’t buy into your fantasy.

Posted by: Snardius at September 20, 2007 11:59 PM
Comment #233717

Snardius said: “You consider a change of course withdrawing to Kuwait or coming home? That’s not a change of course, that’s surrendering.”

Says you who is so willing to kill thousands more. Our troops were victorious in deposing Sadam and routing his army. That wasn’t enough for you, now you want our troops to die for nation building, something Republicans ran against in 2000. The hypocrisy is pinnacle.

The mission you seek accomplished in Iraq is not in our soldier’s power to accomplish. They are not nation builders, politicians, or political diplomats capable of forcing the Iraqis to recreate America there. You kill our troops for nothing by supporting this impossible mission which was never in our soldier’s power to accomplish.

Supporting our troops means giving them missions for which they were trained to accomplish and removing them from harm’s way when that mission is accomplished. Their mission was accomplished 2 years ago. But, you won’t give them that credit nor support them and reward them by bringing them home or redeploying them on missions for which they were trained and are capable of accomplishing with minimum harm.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 21, 2007 9:09 AM
Comment #233777

David R. Remer- Excellent post David, an I hope

your positive thinking will become a contagious

ability for more of us participating here.

Posted by: -DAVID- at September 21, 2007 3:24 PM
Post a comment