November 30, 2005
Winning in Iraq
The President has laid out a good plan to win in Iraq. Some of the plan against the insurgency builds on the successful tactics we used to defeat the insurgency in South Vietnam. Clear. Hold. Build. It works. This time, if we show the political will, the good guys will win all around.
The terrorists think Iraq is the central front in their war against our civilization. We must treat it as the central from in civilization's war against terrorism. And we must make sure that this time our side wins.
Heritage also did a good seminar on winning in Iraq. Read about it.
I encourage everyone to read what the President actually says and look at the plan he advocates. Otherwise opponents will once again be pursuing chimeras and complaining about things he didn't say.
Not to mix topics, but the U.S. economy grew at a faster pace during the third quarter than initially thought, despite the the Gulf Coast hurricanes. 4.3% - not bad. GDP growth has been great over the past two years, fluctuating between 3.3% to 4.3% in 9 of the last 10 quarters. What about that other quarter? Oh yeah that one was 7.2%.
Not just complaining BUT claiming they came up with some of it first.
Since Bush & Co. kept many things quiet - because some things needed to be kept quiet and outweighed our ‘right to know’ - the Dems will be able to continue their claim that THEY had a plan.
Posted by: dawn at November 30, 2005 11:59 AMHi Jack,
The Iraqi government is dominated by Iran friendly, terrorist friendly officials.
Assuming that these terrorist friendly Iranian allies remain in power we’ve lost the war……I mean lost big time.
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 30, 2005 12:01 PM
Jack,
“The terrorists think Iraq is the central front in their war against our civilization.”
I’ve heard President Bush state that Iraq is the central front in our war on terror, I’ve yet to hear the terrorists make the same claim.
Being that they are terrorists, who hate America, would’nt it make sense that they would want to be fighting here, or striking here?
I hope that we win the war in Iraq. I have yet to hear anybody who has fought there say we should “cut and run”, they(the soldiers) are the people I would trust to make the decision. I just wish we never went in the first place.
Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at November 30, 2005 12:15 PMJack,
For the sake of balance, which I’m sure you are all for, here’s another take on how “good” this “plan” is.
Dawn,
Democrats have been publicly laying out their plans for victory in Iraq for weeks now. It is only because of the pressure put on the administration by Democrats that the administration felt the need to put out any kind of strategy - even this half-ass version we see today. To say that the Democrats have not had a plan is ignorant.
Posted by: Burt at November 30, 2005 12:16 PMJack Said:”Some of the plan against the insurgency builds on the successful tactics we used to defeat the insurgency in South Vietnam. Clear. Hold. Build. It works.”
According to the history books I have read the “insurgents in Vietnam were so effective that we had to tuck our tails and run. We failed to “to win the hearts and minds” then and it is not woorking as a whole now. I, personally think the plan the president laid out is what the public wants to hear. The only way to win is to commit to a defined plan. This has never been stated. Finish the job. Stay the course. All the same phrases repeated. Every course has an end. A plan for finality is not a bad thing. Letting the troops know why they are there and what the real goal is and allow them to get it done. Use our ability to fight not police. This is a clash of cultures and the “hearts and minds” cannot be won without a complete understanding of THEIR culture without imposing OURS.
Posted by: thomas g at November 30, 2005 12:16 PM” It is only because of the pressure put on the administration by Democrats that the administration felt the need to put out any kind of strategy ….”
-If you say so Burt.
What do we need out of a plan? Objective, dates, a schedule, all of which can be change, but all of which are there to perform some function that contributes to overall victory.
Vagueness will lead us to defeat, Jack. The president still can’t reel off all the things we need to do, all the systems we need up and running. He still can’t give us the real shape of our victory beyond rhetorical prescriptions of fuzzy goals and fuzzy definitions of success.
What this government has not succeeded in doing are the little things that make the bigger things easier to achieve. That simple.
Giving more specifically defined goals means we we can know progress when we see it. It means we know what to defend, and with what priority. It means we’re not trying to bring success out of the thin air, but have some idea of where to focus our efforts.
And if the plan doesn’t work? Change it. Learn from your mistakes.
Of course, If Bush gets more specific, people can actually ask him why things aren’t getting done as planned. Of course, if its criticism he wants, he gets that just fine now. Nothing the president is doing right now, being so generalized, so non-time specific,has kept the enemies from steadily making progress.
It’s easier to get people to stay the course when they can be given some indication of what has to be done, that it can be done, and here’s how. Without that, you cannot blame people for not jumping on your bandwagon with enthusiasm.
Oh, by the way- get a source that isn’t behind a paywall.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 30, 2005 12:29 PMJack,
“Not to mix topics, but the U.S. economy grew at a faster pace during the third quarter than initially thought, despite the the Gulf Coast hurricanes. 4.3% - not bad. GDP”
Just a question.
If the economy is doing so well, why are there pickets outside the Maryvale Post Office here in Phoenix?
I would think that, if the economy was doing so well, that the Government would be reaping the benefits of the increased revenue, and thus the post office wouldn’t be short of help.
More on the subject, where was this plan when we invaded?
Why haven’t we been implementing this plan for the last three years?
One would think that this “plan” is exactly how you should run a war.
How come the Republicans are refusing to rebuild the levees in New Orleans?
Clearly going to war is more important to them.
Posted by: Aldous at November 30, 2005 12:54 PMRocky,
“If the economy is doing so well, why are there pickets outside the Maryvale Post Office here in Phoenix?”
_______________________________
You don’t think that a 4.3% GDP growth in the third quarter which had two (devastating) hurricanes, rising energy costs, looming inflation and (supposedly)a housing boom is an economy that’s doing well?
Face it, this is a good economy and it’s only going to get better, Rock. And, you bring up union strikes?! There’s always a strike (somewhere), no matter what the economy is like.
Posted by: rahdigly at November 30, 2005 01:04 PM“-If you say so Burt.”
No….They say so:
Now, you can disagree with one, or all, of these plans. But to claim that Democrats have not been coming up with solutions of their own is, again, ignorant.
Posted by: Burt at November 30, 2005 01:05 PMrahdigly,
“Face it, this is a good economy and it’s only going to get better, Rock. And, you bring up union strikes?! There’s always a strike (somewhere), no matter what the economy is like.”
Let me think,……..these guys are Government employees, they provide a service for which we (you and I) pay.
Posted by: Rocky at November 30, 2005 01:18 PMBurt,
You can add in John Kerry as well; however, all of these Dems are saying the same thing as the President. That’s what Kerry did in the 2004 election year. He said we need to build up Iraqi forces, help with the political process, etc. This is what the President has said and is doing!
I think the timing with Rep Murtha talking about troop reduction was way too fishy; especially, 3 weeks before Iraq is going to have their (big) elections. Now the dems are trying to inch their way back in the American people’s eye to see that they’re for war and they had a plan. Uhh, wrongo!!
It’s easy to see that’s what they’re doing…
Posted by: rahdigly at November 30, 2005 01:24 PMHere’s the thing:
Consider the possibility that Bush has really screwed the pooch on this one…..Just consider it as a possibility.
The threat that Iraq has posed to us has steadily increased since we’ve been there. When we went in Iraq wasn’t much of a threat (relative to Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sololia).
Now Iraq poses a very serious threat to us and, as I said, it’s been getting progressively worse since we’ve been occupying Iraq.
I, of course, hope that the trend reverses. Is there any reason to think the trend is going to reverse?
Can anybody on the right address these ideas honestly?……I think I’ve raised some serious issues here and I’m curious about what the right wingers think.
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 30, 2005 01:28 PM
Stephen,
“And if the plan doesn’t work? Change it. Learn from your mistakes.”
This is the root of the problem. The Bush administration’srush to war has been their down fall. This is where the divide between those who support the war and those who oppose it happened.
This is where this administration started manipulating intelligence, bullying allies and detractor’s, chose to poorly plan the war in favor of selling the war, dismissing the power of a multinational coalition in favor of going it alone. etc.
It’s been three years and no lessons learned, no changes, no admission of mistakes made.
Combine this with Haliburton suspicions, cover-ups, missing money, lack of armor, ignoring his Generals and no WMD and you create a more divided nation that has no reason in the world to back a President that we have no confidence in.
People who are against the war are not against victory or our troops or the Iraqi’s gaining Democracy. We simply doubt very much that that is the Bush administrations real focus. We wish we were not there in the situation we are presently in. We hate watching billions of dollars we could use here going for a war we do not agree with. Most of all we hate to see people die for a cause we either don’t know, understand or believe.
Hi rahdigly,
“the political process”
The political process in Iraq is putting members of Iranian anti-American terrorist groups in power.
Do you ever consider the possibilty that Bush has screwed the pooch on this one? All sorts of Pentagon strategists have raised the possibility.
General Zinni and others have indicated that Bush may well have made a horrible misttake.
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 30, 2005 01:32 PMI do not think we’ll be able to withdraw from Iraq anytime soon. I think we’re going to be stuck in Iraq for years to come.
One of the reasons I thought going in was going to be a REALLY BAD IDEA was that I thought that once we were in we’d be stuck there for a long time.
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 30, 2005 01:34 PM
LouisXIV,
You sir are psychic. We’ll be there for approx. 2 more years.
This war sucks. This president sucks.
“The Bush administration’s rush to war”
You mean the one that took the Democrats over a year to authorize? The one we had to go back and forth to the UN for useless resolutions that allowed Saddam to plan? That one?
“manipulating intelligence”
You mean the exact same intelligence put forth by British, French, German, Czech etc. intelligence and the Clinton Administration, which Congressional Democrats had full access to? You mean that “manipulated” intelligence? What utter nonsense.
“bullying allies”
You mean our “allies” who were being made billionaires by Saddam’s “oil for influence” program? Those “allies”? And I’m sure our “allies” couldn’t possibly be influence by selfish interest, particularly those with Muslim populations prone to riot?
“poorly plan the war”
Seems to me it was planned pretty well - the regime fell in what, four weeks?
“dismissing the power of a multinational coalition”
Yes, we’re the only ones there. Except for all the 20+ other nations I mean. Do you have any idea what you’re writing or are you just cutting and pasting from a Howard Dean website here?
“People who are against the war are not against victory or our troops or the Iraqi’s gaining Democracy.”
Really? You certainly could have fooled me. You’ve done everything short of strapping bombs to yourselves. This war is going well in spite of you people, and could have ended long ago except for the daily aid and comfort given to the terrorists by the lunatic western left.
“Most of all we hate to see people die for a cause we either don’t know, understand or believe.”
I agree with you that you definitely don’t understand this war and I’m fairly sure you don’t understand much of anything else, for that matter.
Aldous said:
“How come the Republicans are refusing to rebuild the levees in New Orleans?
Clearly going to war is more important to them.”
Truth be told - No one wants to rebuild the levees and put all those people back in a soup bowl.
Except you ….
Jack:
“The President has laid out a good plan to win in Iraq.”
Nonsense! He has done nothing of the kind. He has said nothing new whatsoever, and has not laid out a single new strategy.
That speech and the 35 pages of supposed fighting strategy they gave out says nothing but that they intend to increase the numbers of Iraqi troops and try to equip and train them. How long have they been telling us that? Only three months ago it was announced that there was only 1 trained battalion and now were supposed to believe there are 120? Who could possibly believe that? It says that a democratic government is being created, and we all know that isn’t true, because instead it’s a theocracy. That Iraq’s economy is being rebuilt, which we know hasn’t been occurring. And that U.S. military and civilian presence will change as conditions improve — exactly what they’ve been saying all along.
Bush’s speech and that worthless 35 pages is nothing but the administration once again making the same damn arguments for their disaster of a war — and is a half-assed attempt to explain their “existing strategy” which has been utterly worthless and nonexistent.
Stephen:
I agree with you. Because there were no WMD, and because the conduct of the war has not been smooth, there needs to be a much shorter leash. That means more transparency. It wont be pretty as when objectives are not met on time, or changed there needs to be more explainationa and more criticism. But there needs to be more measurement and accountabilty. All of this of course in a way the protects the troops.
This could actually be a way to regain credibilty. Over time if critics are too intense, and there is a clear documented measurable progress people can support the effort, now that we are there.
In light of the tremendous loss of credibility because of WMD, more accountability should be expected and should be forthcoming from this adminstration that previous wartime administrations. This should not be resented by the right.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 30, 2005 02:11 PMCraig-
You’ve hit upon a major flaw in the Republican approach to the war right there.
In this image and marketing-saturated culture, it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that actions speak volumes more than words. I think it takes an inordinate amount of effort to avoid public reproach by such means, instead of getting things done.
Actions carry risks, though, and another idol of the mind, career ambition, rears its head. People protect themselves from risk by talking and sending out memos, rather than acting. But again, ironically, it does little to protect these people from criticism.
What these things do, instead, is waste our time, our money, and our strength, both economically and as a nation.
All that, unfortunately, has been all I’ve seen from this administration. Hell, it’s taken it to new heights. This is how we lost the Vietnam War: we never had a clear purpose, a clear understanding of the way to win. Everything was obscured by politics, ass-covering, inaction on the part of our elected officials, and ultimately a notion of victory that had more to do with keeping up the appearance of a winning war, than actually doing the things it took to seize victory.
I had hoped that within my generation, we would not be ensnared in such trap. Unfortunately, it has happened anyways, not the least because many people took the wrong lesson away from our past failures, and concentrated on artificially hyping morale, rather than doing what it would take to win. We need to have the morale courage here to say that we have isn’t good enough, and the guts to go through and do what needs to be done. There will be risks, but seeing as how we have already risked our security, the Middle East’s stability, the lives of our soldiers, and the United State’s reputation, I’d say we’re not raising the stakes much by taking a chance to do what needs to be done.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 30, 2005 02:48 PMYou mean the exact same intelligence put forth by British, French, German, Czech etc. intelligence and the Clinton Administration, which Congressional Democrats had full access to? You mean that “manipulated‎ intelligence? What utter nonsense.
Oh really? From the mouth of Dick Cheney in a 9/9/02 TV interview:
LEHRER: You said several times just now we know, we know, we know. Are you and the President prepared to tell the members of Congress and the American public, and the international community…are you going to lay all this information out in a way that we can all see it?Posted by: womanmarine at November 30, 2005 02:52 PMCHENEY: We are certainly going to share a good deal of information with selected members of Congress; we’ve got a problem here. When we learn information from sensitive sources about what Saddam Hussein is doing with respect to his weapons program, it has to be treated in a confidential fashion or it will destroy our ability to continue to collect that information.
If you brief 535 members of Congress, it will probably stay classified - and I don’t mean to be critical members of Congress- I was one for 10 years - but that many people, you’re likely to have a leak in very short order. So there’s some happy medium here…you brief just the senior leadership, for example, of the Congress, the big four - the Speaker, Minority Leader in the House and Majority/Minority Leader in the Senate, and maybe key committee chairmen, ranking members…there are certain pieces of information that are highly classified and need to remain highly classified, in terms of our ability to continue to work these problems.
LEHRER: So then it could come down in the final analysis to you and the president saying you just have to take our word for it?
CHENEY: No…We’ll get as many members of Congress read in to what we know as we can. But there has to be some kind of understanding that there’s a limit beyond which we can’t go without destroying our capacity to be able to know what’s going on in a crucial, crucial area.
“you’re likely to have a leak in very short order”
The man knows what he’s talkin about!
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 30, 2005 02:56 PM
I don’t know how to tell you this Jack, but we didn’t hold nothing in Vietnam. With a screwball like Lame Brain Johnson micro managing the war all we did is waste over 58,000 lives.
The Marines lost hundreds of men to hold Kha Saun. Johnson gives it to the VC.
The Army went in to the Au Shau Valley twice, loosing about a thousand men. Both times we give it back to the NVA.
These are only two of the places where we lost good men just to pullout and give it back to the enemy.
No Jack, We didn’t hold a thing.
Stephen:
I agree. And it is both parties,and the culture. Sensationalization is a part of what we do.
In concept, I don’t see how hard it is to win in Iraq. We have 220,000 Iraqi’s at least in Uniform and with minimal training. As long as the numbers AND QUALITY of the Iraqi military continue to increase, eventually there has to be a tipping point where they can stop the flow of foreigners, and begin to dry up the bad guys.
I do think the execution of the war is hard, and I don’t mean to minimize it.
I also believe a price needs to be paid for being wrong on the intelligence. You and I disagree on what happened. In the end I am not sure it matters because whether it is intelligence failure or active misleading or both, the logical consequence is higher accountability.
This 35 page report that was forced by Congress is a good thing, as a beginning. It is just a few years to late.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 30, 2005 03:07 PMOnly someone who has never been to New Orleans would say dont rebuild. Most major cities in the world are built on the coast and just as at risk of being hit by extremely bad weather and destruction.
And of course there’s lots of money for homeland Insecurity and the war in Iraq but no money for new levees.
Its just like when my friends who smoke complain they have no money and then pull out a 8$ pack of cigarettes, A real leader would say i doubt no how we are gonna pay for it but we will rather than leave everyone in N.O. thinking they’re abandoned.
Brian,
You can try to sound convincing by being condescending and sarcastic, it only demonstrates a weak argument.
Rush to war. Selling the war. Manipulated evidence.Pushing toward a pre-decided outcome by this administration. It happened.
“Seems to me it was planned pretty well - the regime fell in what, four weeks?”
Hey genius, are you aware that that is the easy and least important phase of the war? Winning hearts and minds, policing insurgency, rebuilding infrastructure, defeating insurgency, prisoner detainment, oil field security,securing borders. etc.
“Except for all the 20+ other nations I mean.”
If you and Rush Limbaugh want to pretend that this is a coalition, feel free, You may want to look up coalition in the dictionary before you do.
“You certainly could have fooled me. You’ve done everything short of strapping bombs to yourselves.”
Over-hyped rhetoric that is mimicked by all the right-wing talk show hosts and their Bush following minions.
“I agree with you that you definitely don’t understand this war and I’m fairly sure you don’t understand much of anything else, for that matter.”
Why not really display your lack of knowledge on the subject of world events and just say:
I know you are but what am I?
“are you aware that that is the easy and least important phase of the war?”
Oh sure, it was a cakewalk. Could have sent the girl scouts. That’s why people like you and your Democrat buddies were saying that we’d need tens of thousands of body bags and 10 years to win. You people aren’t just Monday morning QBs, you’re there all the way up to Saturday - you’re just never there when the game is actually played, you’re sitting on the sidelines whining when you aren’t cheering for the other team.
“You may want to look up coalition in the dictionary before you do.”
Gee Andre, which dictionary are you reading from? Mine reads: “a temporary alliance of distinct parties, persons, or states for joint action.” Sounds like exactly what we have. But maybe I’m not consulting the left wing, weasel words, revisionist history dictionary of lunatic non-arguments.
“I know you are but what am I?”
OK intellectual Pee Wee - back to the playhouse with you.
Hi Brian,
“when you aren’t cheering for the other team.”
You’ve confused Democrats with your mother.
Is it just me, or does Bush’s “plan” actually not contain anything resembling a plan? I just finished reading it (yawn) and it seems to me like it’s just a rubber stamp on not changing a single thing, am I wrong? It reads like a press statement, not a course of action. Mostly it talks about how successful we’ve already been, which most Americans wouldn’t agree with.
Posted by: Michelle at November 30, 2005 04:23 PMJack,
Here is my idea for winning in Iraq.
In discussion with the Iraqi leaders say that at the first of the year you will be completely in charge of these areas. Many factors can help decide which parts we assign to them.
Then we can consolidate our troop closer together so they are not so spread out and give better protection to themselves and the Iraqi people in their areas.
Through doing this we can see how well the Iraqis are doing and be close at hand if they need more support in the case of an emergency.
Then set rough timeline goals for increasing the areas that Iraq is in charge of i.e. no coalition troops in those areas. Increasing their areas on control every 4-6 months
As they start increasing the areas they can control (I believe that they can control most of the country with in a year) start drawing our troop level down (with in six months) with the promise that if they ask us to retrain a certain level or bring the level back up to give them more time and support. I do not think that they will need to ask us to bring anymore back or retrain creation level, but just the commitment to be there if they need will make it clear we are not just cut and running. I feel that we can have all troops out within 18-24 months. With a small group on call to go in and give support if we are asked.
Craig hit the nail on the head:
“Because there were no WMD, and because the conduct of the war has not been smooth (‘Snort!’ from phx8), there needs to be a much shorter leash. That means more transparency. It wont be pretty as when objectives are not met on time, or changed… But there needs to be more measurement and accountabilty….This could actually be a way to regain credibilty.”
I’ve read the 35 page report. Sounds good, especially in light of my having ust finished “The Sling and the Stone” by Hammes, on Fourth Generation Warfare.
The problem is credibility. The strategy sounds good, but I’ve heard this before. As many, many people note, the Bush Administration is going to have to do something to make themselves believable- for example, publicly announce metrics, for better or worse.
No one believes over 100,000 Iraqi security forces are ready to go. No one.
Yesterday Rumsfeld said the Airport Road is safer. No one believes that.
We’ve heard it before. And we’ve heard the defenders of the adminstration, attacking critics and slurring the patriotism of anyone who notices Iraq is not going well.
Yeah, it sounds good, but this is a question of credibility, and I’ll believe it when I see it.
Posted by: phx8 at November 30, 2005 04:40 PMAnd to say something about the economy, after reading the post i could not help myself.
Not to mix topics, but the U.S. economy grew at a faster pace during the third quarter than initially thought, despite the Gulf Coast hurricanes. 4.3% - not bad. GDP growth has been great over the past two years, fluctuating between 3.3% to 4.3% in 9 of the last 10 quarters. What about that other quarter? Oh yeah that one was 7.2%.
I believe the Hurricanes do not hurt the GDP, in fact they help to feed it because of the generous nature of our country. How much did we donate, buy and sought to help those in need. Then afterwards there are great contracts and jobs to be done in clean up which also helps.
In most cases when a country is at war their GDP goes up because of the governments increases spending. Thus, we should see the GDP growth during the last ten quarters.
The comsumer index is raising, this shoppong season will give a better picture of just how the country feels the ecomony is doing since most do not see the GDP effecting them directly. There is growing fear about our debt load and words of caution about this from Greenspand.
Posted by: jp at November 30, 2005 04:46 PMBrian-
The UN resolutions would have gotten us help, and more importantly given us leverage against our critics on the security council. But more importantly, taking the time to build a good case on the right grounds would have made it easier to kick that son of a bitch Saddam out on his kiester without tarnishing our image, and reducing the power and influence that come from that. As for Saddam’s plans- a hell of a lot of good they did him. The conventional part of the war was over in a month. The rest could have been over just as quickly, had we gone in with enough soldiers. I wouldn’t have minded that kind of victory.
As for that “exact same intelligence?” Bull. Give me the security clearances back to every member of congress. Give me the intelligence agencies of other countries not warning us off evidence. Give me a declassified NIE that looked just like the Classified one, minus the sensitive sourcing and whatnot. Then we’ll talk equivalent information.
As for those allies, lets be realistic: they’re interests and ours weren’t perfectly aligned. that said, it’s better have people on the inside pissing out than the other way around. Alienating these people has only served to distance them from our influence.
The planning of the war was great, if all you wanted to do was destroy the regime. Unfortunately, we also wanted to set up a Democracy in its place, restore the infrastructure and the buildings, and secure the place from terrorists and insurgents.
As for that multination coalition, name any of those involved right now who have more than 10,000 troops in country. Then try 1000. Then see how many of those who are left out depend on us for their military protection (making their forces ours, in essence). Then go and look at the gulf war.
As for strapping bombs to ourselves, you really don’t understand what motivates us, and haven’t been listening to what we’ve been asking for. You’ve got yourself so roundly convinced that we are secretly fifth-columnists, that nothing we can say or do will convince you otherwise.
The common theme of our arguments on the left has been greater capability to fight the war, greater synchrony between plans and achievements, and a take-charge now attitude, rather than wait and see. Most Democrats, like myself, recognize the need to put Iraq back into some solid shape, before we knock out the stops and leave it to take the pressures of defense, maintaining an economy, and running a government themselves. In fact, we’ve been more detailed orient on that than you vaguely supportive super-patriots have been.
Y’all are so wrapped up in the rhetoric that you fail to see that Bush and the Republicans have done little but co-opt Democratic suggestions, conveniently forget their origin, and then fail utterly to carry them out fully.
Every time we’ve complained about some practical concern, your strategy has been to criticize us for being pessimists, even as our intent has been to make things better. Now, as the violence increases, and the chances for victory seem to slim, you blame it all on bad morale and Democrat resistance.
The fact of the matter is, the Republican party has not had its head in the game. It’s been too concerned about shaping public perception by its words and its rhetoric to take care of the meat of its practical and policy work. The unpopularity of this war and other Bush/Republican policies is only the inevitable result of this negligence.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 30, 2005 04:54 PMBrian,
I guess the football analogy was supposed to replace a reasonable, logical response?
1) Bush ignored the CIA, his own Generals and advisors in order to “RUSH” the United States into invading Iraq. It’s been well documented.
They hide that information from the Bush supporters in thing like books and Newspapers.
2)The invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam was not very difficult. Remember his troops surrendering to camera men during the Gulf War.
Girl Scouts at least have a uniform.
You do realize that there was no plan after the initial invasion and the “Iraqi people welcoming us as liberators?”
3)This coalition is comprised of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, tens of thousands of British troops, and a sprinkling of engineers, soldiers and supply and mine sweepers and equipment from other countries.
“The size and capabilities of the Coalition forces involved in operations in Iraq has been a subject of much debate, confusion, and at times exageration. As of July 1, 2005, there were 26 non-U.S. military forces participating in the coalition and contributing to the ongoing stability operations throughout Iraq. These countries were: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, United Kingdom, and Ukraine.
Update:
The Kingdom of Tonga’s contingent of 40+ troops returned home on December 17, 2004. Hungary completely pulled its troops out of Iraq by December 22, 2004. Portugal withdrew its contingent of policemen after having been in Iraq for 15 months in February 2005. Moldova withdrew its contingent of 12 in February 2005. Fiji initially deployed 150 troops to Iraq, and later an additioanl 90, but they are there under UN banner (UNAMI) and are therefore not be counted in the coalition. Singapore deployed a ship to the Persian Gulf on Nov. 27, which returned home in March 2005 but since the country does not actually contribute troops on the ground in Iraq, it was not included in the coalition count. Armenia deployed 46 troops to Iraq in mid-January 2005. A new arrival to the list is Bosnia and Herzegovina which deployed an EOD platoon to Iraq in June 2005.
Countries which had troops in or supported operations in Iraq at one point but have pulled out since: Nicaragua (Feb. 2004); Spain (late-Apr. 2004); Dominican Republic (early-May 2004); Honduras (late-May 2004); Philippines (~Jul. 19, 2004); Thailand (late-Aug. 2004); New Zealand (late Sep. 2004); Tonga (mid-Dec. 2004) Hungary (end Dec. 2004); Portugal (mid-Feb. 2005); Moldova (Feb. 2005);
Countries planning to withdraw from Iraq: Poland (starting Jan.05 and completed by end.05(?)); Bulgaria (end of 2005, depending on circumstances); Ukraine (entire contingent, in stages until ~ Oct. 2005)
Countries which have reduced or are planning to reduce their troop commitment: Ukraine (-200 during Fall04 rotation); Moldova (reduced contingent to 12 around mid-2004); Norway (reduced from ~150 to 10 late-Jun.04, early Jul.04); Bulgaria (-50, Dec.04); Poland (-700, Feb.05); Italy (-300 expeted in Sept. 05(decrease appearently began in mid-Aug. 05)); Netherlands (reduced from ~1,345 to 4; ~Mar. 2005)
This according to: globalsecurity.org
Very little support in the beginning and rapidly dwindling.
4)You say that those of us who protest the war are, and I quote, “You’ve done everything short of strapping bombs to yourselves. This war is going well in spite of you people, and could have ended long ago except for the daily aid and comfort given to the terrorists by the lunatic western left.”
Please show me any shred of evidence that the war could have ended long ago if Myself and the rest of us who do not support the war would have waved our little flags and kept quiet.
Um, hold on some of my friends from Al Queda are here to get comforted.”Hillary, Mr. Moore could you give the terrorists(Freedom Fighters) some soup and a few blankets?”
I’m back.
This quote from you says it all:
“I agree with you that you definitely don’t understand this war and I’m fairly sure you don’t understand much of anything else, for that matter.”
Sweeping, statement meant to silence and belittle an opinion that differs from yours. A sure sign of an inability to see beyond what you want to see and hear what you want to hear.
Jack,
A: The economy really won’t be doing well until we are out of debt right? Why aren’t Republicans outraged by the debt we’ve accumulated? Insisting that the economy is doing great… well, that’s just not going to fly.
B: Here’s the strategy you refer to in its entirety, the security track part anyway:
* The Security Track involves carrying out a campaign to defeat the terrorists and neutralize the insurgency, developing Iraqi security forces, and helping the Iraqi government:
o Clear areas of enemy control by remaining on the offensive, killing and capturing enemy fighters and denying them safe-haven;
o Hold areas freed from enemy influence by ensuring that they remain under the control of the Iraqi government with an adequate Iraqi security force presence; and
o Build Iraqi Security Forces and the capacity of local institutions to deliver services, advance the rule of law, and nurture civil society.
Clear, Hold, and Build. Brilliant. Now… how are we going to do that exactly? I kind of expected that to be a part of the plan. In a strategy usually the wheels touch the ground. This is just PR nonsense.
Stephen, just a few thoughts, you sound awfully hawkish now that the situation in Iraq is improving. Re: your statement of co-opting the Dems plans; what Dems would that be exactly, the Lieberman Dems or the Pelosi Dems. It appears there is quite a fraction in the current minority party as they all will be scarmabling for life boats soon. Re: your statement on the critics from the UN security council; do you think the billions of illegal dollars the French, Germans and Russians were making off of the Oil for Food scandal clouded their judgement a little? Do you think that might have “tarnished” their image a bit or “alienated” them from the civilized world, or do you even entertain those thoughts?
Posted by: Jay at November 30, 2005 06:01 PMStephen:
Y’all are so wrapped up in the rhetoric that you fail to see that Bush and the Republicans have done little but co-opt Democratic suggestions, conveniently forget their origin, and then fail utterly to carry them out fully.
I disagree with this part of your reply. There isn’t a democratic party position. Democrats are all over the board from Pelosi today saying she backs Murtha, to Biden who is for a gradual reduction to Lieberman who is “stay the course”.
That is why the Democrat message until lately has been mostly criticism. President Bush’s handling of the war is the only point of agreement in the party.
Craig
My position has always been that Iraq is a Republican War. Republicans and Republicans ALONE should reap the benefits of Iraq.
They deserve it.
Posted by: Aldous at November 30, 2005 07:29 PMJay-
What makes you think my hawkish position is recently minted? Look through my entries, in the archives section of the Blue Column. You will find I’ve been very consistent. From the start, I’ve been a critic of Bush’s policies, but an advocate for winning the battle, on account of the consequences of leaving a failed state behind, regardless of how our invasion was justified.
As for the UN and the nations involved, I don’t expect the kind of purity you seem to expect from them. I just don’t see what we gain from the kind of wholesale bridge-burning that Bush and Company inflict on our international relationships. God knows we have enough people in this world who don’t like us. As it is, they are rivals on occasion. Do we need full fledged enemies?
A little thought experiment: what could we have done with the Oil For Food Scandal, had we not burned our bridges? I think we could have taken better advantage of that, even made it part of our reason (before the fact) to oust Saddam. Unfortunately, you guys seem bent on making us look bad instead of our enemies. You want to look tuff, and flex America’s muscles. Unfortunately, when America gets caught off guard, it makes us look weak. We look stronger when we’re the one who suddenly grabs somebody’s arm and twists without breaking a sweat.
That’s power. That’s what Democrats want for us in the world. That’w why we’re so concerned about the mess you’re making of these alliances we’ve had for the last half of the previous century.
Craig-
Why does this “new” presidential address sound so much like something I’ve been writing for half a year now? That’s my basis for saying that. Just read through what Democrats have been saying for most of 2005, and you’ll see what I mean.
Jack,
The President may of attempted to put the best spin on the policies set forth by others over the last few years as good objectives; however, his words have never matched that which has become known as the absolute truth before so why can you trust him at his word with your family’s lives?
Senator Biden made a prepared remarks on 11/21/05 that paints a major gap between what was presented to Congress and that which the President is stating. His “Stay the Course Plan” which has lead to a 750% increase in attacks over the last year and lack of targeting rebuilding projects for the citizens of Iraq.
Max and many other Liberal and Conservative Americans recognize that our Troops are doing what we need them to do. We also recognize that the President still has not developed a serious Take and Establish Plan of Attack that will win the peace in Iraq and allow us to continue to take on Al Qaeda and Kin. Because if you think that just by keeping Irag in “Centerfield” will win the War than you are mistaken.
OBL’s game plan is not written that why? Restore peace in Iraq and Iran raises up. Or terrorists begin to take on Spain, Eygpt, or just name a country. Therefore, it is in our national security interest to get President Bush to public accknowledge the fact that while winning the war on terror is important to all Nations of Humanity, America and our policies dealing with our role in Igaq and the withdrawal of our troops our no way to be considered inseperateable(sp). In layman’s terms, we can win the peace in Iraq and deal with the organizations of the world which use terrorist tactics at the same time and according to our Troops we are trying to do just that. Sloppy at times, but we are making headway.
Now, why can’t the Republicans just admit that is what America needs to do.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 30, 2005 08:27 PMBush Sr. went to war with Iraq, and wanted to finish off husein. The UN said no, so we left Iraq and let husein keep doing his thing.
Bush Jr. gets approval from the UN. The UN backs out after France, Russia, and Germany decide to keep getting rich with husein.
Domocrats and Republicans acuse Bush Sr. of not finishing the job after the UN said no, and Bush Sr. complied.
Now Bush Jr. said with or without the UN. , We are going to Finish off sadam, and gets hammered for doing what the American public wanted to do the first time around. Go figure.
ps. no war has ever gone smooth.
Posted by: rick at November 30, 2005 10:03 PMIt’s remarkable the administration waited so long to announce its strategy for Iraq. There’s no way- no way- that the military just now figured this out. So why the announcement? Politics. Low approval ratings. Lack of public support.
It’s speculation, but a number of stories (started by right wing blogs) have been floated concerning the detachment of Bush from the situation. Supposedly he no longer communicates with people outside a very small circle.
Along the same speculative lines, stories have been floated that the Murtha announcement came from general at the Pentagon. Unable to reach Bush, they went through Murtha to make it clear; we need to withdraw.
We’re fighting a long-term insurgency, but even a casual consideration makes it obvious the US is not in a position to succeed against 4GW in Iraq.
Our military spends large sums of money procuring high tech weaponry. But we have to fight the enemy we have, not the enemy we wish for.
It is not possible to fight this war spending over $4 billion a month. The insurgents spend a tiny fraction of that amount. In terms of economics, this war is a losing proposition for the US taxpayer.
(It is, however, a big win for American Big Oil! Boo-yah! US companies will replace the Russian & French oil companies which were about to bid for access to Iraq’s oil fields. Once an Iraqi government is elected, the American oil companies can sign legally binding, long-term, multi-billion dollar contracts, PSA’s. Woo-hoo!)
Anybody catch the comment on oil in the report? We intend to increase Iraqi oil from 2 billion barrels/day to 5 billion.
Maybe some of you believe it is worthwhile for the American taxpayer to pay for Big Oil’s opportunity with money and with blood.
But I digress… We’re not in a position to pay for the war, and we’re not in a position to fight it. Part of the point of the Murtha announcement was to give Bush that message: the military cannot support a long-term fight in Iraq.
We’re unwilling to consider a draft.
Some Democrats take a tough pose, suggesting we just need to put more boots on the ground. They’re dead wrong.
We need less boots on the ground. We’re fighting an insurgency, and ‘boots on the ground’ are just targets on the ground. It’s stupid. Withdraw troops. Withdraw targets. Put administrators in place to train the Iraqis. There are tens of thousands of troops already in Iraq; it’s just that they belong to militias, and are loyal to various ethnic & religious groups.
Fighting insurgents is fundamentally stupid. We want to leave. They want us to leave. When we leave, the insurgents will still be there. Why not co-opt them?
There is a simple answer: withdraw troops, bring insurgents into the political process- all of them, even the Baathists, even the local religious crazies; and let the Shias, Sunnis, & Kurds take care of Zarqawi & the foreign jihadists.
A British military historian just called the invasion of Iraq the biggest military blunder since the Romans sent troops into the northern forests in 9 BC.
Posted by: phx8 at November 30, 2005 10:05 PMStephen:
Craig-
Why does this “new” presidential address sound so much like something I’ve been writing for half a year now? That’s my basis for saying that. Just read through what Democrats have been saying for most of 2005, and you’ll see what I mean.
You and many others. It’s a pretty basic policy.
Here is John Broder’s take from the washington post:
It has taken a long time, but the Democrats finally have come close to defining a sensible common ground on the issue of Iraq.They were badly divided from the opening debate on the decision to go to war, when House Democrats opposed President Bush’s request, 126 to 81, while Senate Democrats supported it, 29 to 21. In last year’s campaign, the incoherence of the opposition party was capsulized in Sen. John Kerry’s notorious comment that “I actually voted for the $87 billion” to fund ongoing military operations “before I voted against it.” Lacking any consensus and without any mechanism for resolving their internal debate, individual Democrats have been offering a jumble of views, even as the public displayed increasing doubts about administration policy.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 30, 2005 10:45 PMRick,
“Bush Sr. went to war with Iraq, and wanted to finish off husein. The UN said no, so we left Iraq and let husein keep doing his thing.”
Sorry, not even close.
From wikipedia;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Storm#Diplomacy
“Various peace proposals were floated, but none were agreed to. The United States insisted that the only acceptable terms for peace were Iraq’s full, unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait.”
Commitments are commitments, these were the groundrules that we agreed to abide by. Like it our not, We set the rules, we stopped at the border.
Saddam, had been an ally, and while we didn’t sell him weapons, we did support him in his war against Iran.
Lesser of two evils.
Posted by: Rocky at November 30, 2005 10:47 PMIn my simple way of thinking, it seems to me that the war is about defeating terrorism, and doing away with sadam.
If we win a major war in Iraq, We put a huge dent in the terrorist attempt to end all free countries, and get-rid of sadam all in the same war. Two birds with one battle in the war on terrorism. Then we can look to the future and see what, or who is next.
And keep the war from being on our soil by keeping the enemy buisy in Iraq, and wherever else. Provided we can continue to keep them off of our soil. One thing for sure is we will all wait and see.
Posted by: rick at November 30, 2005 10:55 PMRocky,
Thank’s for the reminder of that situation. I remember it now. However, I thaught I remembered Bush Sr. saying that he wanted to go into , or would have gone into Iraq if the UN said he could. Maybe it was a media statement, or a dreem, or too many nights sleep since then. I know you have more knoledge than I do in this situation. Being ex military, which I think you are, I’m sure you paid close atention to it. I was just getting serious about politics at that time, so I am behind the 8 ball in some issues. that’s why I am into this blog . So I can learn and undeerstand more , and state some views.
Posted by: rick at November 30, 2005 11:10 PMPhx8
The military has been following the clear/hold/build strategy for some months. Condoleezza Rice has referred to it. You are right that it is not a new strategy. In fact is it fairly old. We used it in the latter years of Vietnam and it was a success. But then we lacked the political will to back it up as needed.
The good news in Iraq is underreported. We are winning against the terrorists step-by-step. The election in two weeks will be another big step in the right direction. Iraq won’t be perfect, but it will be much better than under Saddam and much better than it would have been if we had pursued the other dead end alternatives available at the time.
George Bush made the mistake of not being more proactive in explaining and defending his policies. He will be explaining his policies better in the next couple of weeks. He won’t convince his critics, but he will get on the record.
It was a mistake for Augustus to send his legions into the German forests because there was nothing there to win for the Romans. And they didn’t have much to lose by withdrawing. Our situation is analogous in neither respect.
Jay,
do you think the billions of illegal dollars the French, Germans and Russians were making off of the Oil for Food scandal clouded their judgement a little? Do you think that might have “tarnished‎ their image a bit or “alienated‎ them from the civilized world, or do you even entertain those thoughts?No, I don’t, because the U.S. got at least as much nourishment from the Oil-For-Food feeding trough as did those countries:
We aren’t going to hear much about the corporations that paid bribes in the Oil-for-Food scandal because Bush’s family, friends and closest advisors are in it knee-deep, along with some Democrats.
It didn’t affect our judgement, did it now?
I find it interesting that the people that claim that France et al were unwilling to support an invasion of Iraq because they were profiting from the status quo…are many of the same people who refuse to acknowledge that perhaps profit was one of the motivations for us wanting to invade Iraq in the first place.
Posted by: Charles Wager at November 30, 2005 11:25 PMThe biggest reason the French opposed the liberation of Iraq was not the number of French politicians and businesses on Saddam’s payroll but the French population’s fear of the huge unassimilated mass of Muslims in their midst.
I understand it perfectly, actually. France probably had the most to lose of any other European country because had the French supported the Iraq war, Al Qaida would be all over them like fleas on a dog. France’s policies, like they have been for a long time now, are based completely on fear and appeasement.
Al Qaida could move easily in out of France, mixing with all of the immigrants who live outside the gaze (or control) of the feckless French authorites. And unlike the Islamic poplations in other European countries, those in France have next to nothing invested in their host country because the French are likely the biggest racists in the entire world and much push all non-whites to the margins of society.
Posted by: sanger at December 1, 2005 12:04 AM
rick:
Being in Iraq is irrelevant to our security in the US. What Iraq does is create terrorists who will go to the surrounding countries but not to the US. The terrorists who will attack the US will have as little to do with Iraq as Saddam did in 9/11.
Posted by: Aldous at December 1, 2005 12:07 AMJack,
“It was a mistake for Augustus to send his legions into the German forests because there was nothing there to win for the Romans. And they didn’t have much to lose by withdrawing. Our situation is analogous in neither respect.”
Well, there was more to it than that for the Romans, just as there is more to it than that for us, today. But the same reasoning applies. There was nothing for the US to win in Iraq (unless you count American Big Oil taking away those lovely PSA’s from foreign competitors).
There is nothing for the US to lose by withdrawing, either.
In the long-term, that is true. Withdrawal might blacken the reputation of Bush, but that is a short-term concern; presidents come and go; and after all is said and done, it won’t make much difference for national security.
The concept of resisting US military superiority with 4GW is not new. We’re sure to see this again, regardless of what happens in Iraq. So, nothing will change in that respect. The lesson of how to resist superior military strength was learned long ago.
The Bush administration was just too stupid to plan for 4GW. We’ve realized it now, but… too late. Declare victory, go home.
Terrorism won’t be affected much one way or the other. Sorry guys. US borders have been porous all along. There just weren’t that many internationally-minded jihadists in the first place, and what little organization they possessed fell apart in 2003.
Some of you are tightly wrapped in a comforting blanket of fear. Put it aside. Stop listening to the Bush administration. Forget the xenophobia. Forget the fear.
Aldous,
While you may be technicaly right between the two or groups of insurgents we are fiighting; however, can you tell the difference when both want to use violence to defend that which they can never own? Winning the Peace in Iraq (Civil Order) is achieveable long term and is best work on through our suits in the State Dept.
Now dealing with the gangs and Al Qaeda comes under what I would call Military SWAT Assualts so that our overwhleming force can save lifes. This is achieveable and considering that we need to build a global network of this MSA’s plans as explained by President Bush’s sudden found idea ofClear/Hold/Build Strategy
Yes Jack, President Bush and Company finally got around to accepting the facts that many Americans have known since the beginging of the war. BTW, do you know how many law enforcement agents there are in CA? Considering that it is about the same size than what possible reason can you come up with which can explian the President’s sending in only a handful of troops? Now maybe Americans can have a written detailed plan of how exactly he envisions all this playing out from now until November.
Simplely stated Jack, can the President and Republican Party create the reasonable conditions in Iraq to win the Peace and prove it by November 2006?
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at December 1, 2005 12:41 AMsanger:
As always, you’re ignorance of France is matched only by you’re willingness to believe in Bush’s Niger Claim.
France has the MOST authoritarian local government in Europe. The powers of the local police is second only to Israel in its ruthlessness. The odds of Al Queda attacking France successfully is miniscule. I would guarantee that the US is more vulnerable than France.
“Fear and Appeasement”, my ass!!! I really suggest you read up on the subject instead of relying on those Talking Points in your EMail. Its humiliating to think that some foriegner will read you’re post and think there’s a real Homer Simpson living in the US.
Posted by: Aldous at December 1, 2005 12:53 AMNo one who has not fought for and *earned* freedom will ever be able to appreciate what that freedom means. We’ve tried before, we’ve failed before. I’m sure we’ll have plenty of opportunities to try (and fail) again.
Look at America. The average citizen hasn’t tasted anything but freedom throughout the course of their entire life. Now we trade freedom for “security”!! As if that were possible.
‘‘They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither”
I believe this was Ben Franklin.
Moreover, their is absolutely no justification for having gone to Iraq in the first place. the current view of the international political system, which America accepts - the principle of national sovereignty, as I understand it, suggests that we have no business nor right to attack a country that has not attacked us first, without the consent (yes, I said consent- as in permission) of the international community. We did not have consent. This means we broke the (international) law. Since when was being in the midst of a crime a valid reason for continuing its perpetration?
The idea that this was meant to be a preemptive attack is moot - it matters little with the principle of national sovereignty - the international community didn’t agree, and the evidence didn’t bare out either. This is a war of aggression.
Furthermore, if we leave Iraq, there will be so much chaos that it will be decades before there is anything even nearly resembling an organization which would be able to coordinate an attack against America. The groups there have proven their inability to cooperate for even the most basic purposes. They will most likely return to an America hating - but also an America FEARING - dictatorship.
A little lessen on terror - terrorists can’t operate very effectively in a dictatorship. Dictators don’t use terror because when it’s traced back to them, their country gets leveled along with themselves. Where are the North Korean terrorist attacks? or any actual terrorist attacks stemming from Iraq?
Finally, a war on terrorism is not a war that can be won. Terrorism is a method of attaining a goal, so a war on terror is a war on a method… not a people that can be conquered or an enemy that can be killed. Trying only pisses off more potential terrorists.
Now, if pissing on the principles of national sovereignty is our goal - and I’m not entirely opposed to the idea - then why bother rebuilding Iraq when we could be preparing for our next conquest?
Posted by: Diogenes at December 1, 2005 02:27 AMDiogenes,
“Terrorists can’t operate very effectively in a dictatorship.”
Great point, an illuminating comment.
“… A war on terrorism is not a war that can be won.”
Very true. The Bush administration’s effort to create a Straussian, long-term forever war is ludicrous. We’re spending huge amounts of money to build F-22 air superiority fighters. Really, it’s insane. There hasn’t been an aerial dogfight in over a decade. We’re spending huge amounts of money, tens of billions, to build a new class of nuclear attack submanrines. WTF!!!
If you’re looking for an honest man in the White House, it’s likely to be a long, long search. I’m sure the Bush administration people belive they are doing what’s best for America. Unfortunately, their concept of America doesn’t include anyone reading Watchblog.
Posted by: phx8 at December 1, 2005 02:38 AMActually, I am in favor of the F-22 and Submarine Development Programs. History has taught us that technology made for war will sooner or later be used in daily life. It may be good in the long run.
Posted by: Aldous at December 1, 2005 03:16 AMBrian,
You mean our “allies‎ who were being made billionaires by Saddam’s “oil for influence‎ program? Those “allies‎? And I’m sure our “allies‎ couldn’t possibly be influence by selfish interest, particularly those with Muslim populations prone to riot?
First, please grown up, take responsabilities, don’t be a little boy too shy to write France where you mean it.
Second, provide link(s) to backup your claim that french were made billionaires by Saddam and that’s have influenced enough France foreign policy to oppose Iraq War in march 2003.
At best, you will find few french people suspected to have received millions (not billion, you fool!) and so far, they’re not proved guilty. Oh, BTW, americans businessmens are suspected too of the same. The only Iraq billions scandal these days are the one Halliburton got by overcharging services and goods and the ones that disapeared within former Iraqi ministers pockets…
Your frenchly,
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 1, 2005 05:08 AMSanger, thanks, I’m happy I can always count on your prejudice toward french.
The biggest reason the French opposed the liberation of Iraq was not the number of French politicians and businesses on Saddam’s payroll but the French population’s fear of the huge unassimilated mass of Muslims in their midst.
Replace liberation with bombing, please.
We didn’t oppose Iraq liberation of Saddam. Show me one french official declaration sad about Saddam!
We oppose war because of very doubtfull WMDs potential treats.
We oppose bombing iraqis civilians, we oppose iraqis children to be *again* the innocent victims of hypocrit foreign policy.
We oppose unilaterral pre-emptive doctrine. Aka shoot first, evaluate treat potential after.
We opposed US degrading herself her moral ground worldwide and taking other western countries with her.
We opposed US efforts to make us swallow lies to support their war case.
We opposed US because we hope she’ll listen others opinions.
We opposed war because we *do* know from experience what’s a military war on your own soil is when US don’t.
We opposed US because we’re free to have our own opinions. It’s even a duty.
Last but not least, *We* were not only french.
A majority of people all over the world opposed Iraq war.
France probably had the most to lose of any other European country because had the French supported the Iraq war, Al Qaida would be all over them like fleas on a dog. France’s policies, like they have been for a long time now, are based completely on fear and appeasement.
Funny. Really.
Don’t US fear fighting terrorism on his own soil so much that Iraq War was presented as offshoring war on terror by White House several time!
Who raise (and use it according to polical agenda) a Terrorism Risk Level?
Who fear about dirty bomber, since proved being a faked intelligence due to torture?
Who fear about mushroom clouds Iraq treat, unsupported by facts?
Who have the all new private security companies?
Who drive huge (and hungry) SUVs because they feal safer (and more powerfull) than in small (but more fuel efficient) cars?
Who have their own gun(s) because they fear their neighboor could hate them so much to shoot them first?
Who are running a policy of fear here? French??
You must be kidding.
What make sad is that some of today France policians are actually trying to use fear for their political agenda too. In short, trying to import US fear policy here. Not good.
What you also failed to acknowledge is french did actually fight terrorism in both foreign soil and his own during Indochine and Algeria wars and during 1994 Paris terrorists attacks. Before US was ever confronted to islamic terrorism. Maybe what we’ve learn then have some value, no?
Al Qaida could move easily in out of France, mixing with all of the immigrants who live outside the gaze (or control) of the feckless French authorites.
Well, like with any underground group, it’s hard to sort the muslims from the terrorists as your soldiers in Iraq should have learned since march 2003. But we still catch some of them on our soil. How many al-quaida members did you catch on your own soil? Do you really think there’s none!? If they were there in 2001, I’ll bet there’s some in 2005 too…
And unlike the Islamic poplations in other European countries, those in France have next to nothing invested in their host country
Please, backup this claim.
because the French are likely the biggest racists in the entire world and much push all non-whites to the margins of society.
We indeed have a racism problem. I’m not happy about it. I dunno how far we rank, though.
Sure, french are more racists than americans.
:-(
Your frenchly,
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 1, 2005 06:37 AMAldous,
“Actually, I am in favor of the F-22 and Submarine Development Programs. History has taught us that technology made for war will sooner or later be used in daily life. It may be good in the long run.”
Personally, I am looking forward to making room in my garage for my shiny new attack submarine.
Eisenhower was right.
Building expensive weapons systems, with the hope that they will never have to be used is ludicrous. In Iraq we are fighting folks that can build weapons in their back yard.
Does anyone remember how we defeated the “former” Soviet Union?
Aldous,
Actually, I am in favor of the F-22 and Submarine Development Programs. History has taught us that technology made for war will sooner or later be used in daily life. It may be good in the long run.
History has taught us that technology made for daily life are the quickest to be used in daily file. Sadly, it seems easier to fund military programs than civil ones. Someone know why?
Rocky,
Personally, I am looking forward to making room in my garage for my shiny new attack submarine.
LOL.
Eisenhower was right. Building expensive weapons systems, with the hope that they will never have to be used is ludicrous. In Iraq we are fighting folks that can build weapons in their back yard.
How true.
Except that the new military policy is to use them. Don’t US nukes are now classified as tactical weapons, not detterent ones anymore. Now that’s scary.
Does anyone remember how we defeated the “former‎ Soviet Union?
Building Gorbatchev? ;-)
Hey, at least the NASA programs were reusing military nuke rockets like Titan and Atlas… When great peacefull progress are made with former deadly stuffs, something is going wrong in the military industry complex…
Your frenchly,
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 1, 2005 07:04 AMRocky,
“Does anyone remember how we defeated the “former” Soviet Union?”
Uhh, building up Arms in the Arms Race.
Hey Rock, just want to say something about your response to Rick “Bush Sr wanting to finish off Hussein”:
“Commitments are commitments, these were the groundrules that we agreed to abide by. Like it our not, We set the rules, we stopped at the border. Saddam, had been an ally, and while we didn’t sell him weapons, we did support him in his war against Iran. Lesser of two evils.”
You are certainly correct that we stopped at the border; however, Rick is right, where the UN were unanimous in removing Saddam from Kuwait, they were just as unanimous (the other way) in removing Saddam from power. Now, Bush Sr has stated in his book that “it would have been going into a hornets nest”; however, we had plenty of man power and a good size defense budget to go to war with Saddam, we just didn’t have a strong leader with a backbone.
Posted by: rahdigly at December 1, 2005 07:07 AMMy attempt at a fair assessment of speech:
Plus - lot of detail about what is currently happening in Iraq
Minus - vague on future
Unfortunately, even the plus isn’t much of a plus, because I don’t know whether to believe it. I doubt whether most people believe it. My nightmare is that a few months from now we will find out it was mostly BS, and we will get caught up in arguments about things like the meaning of a “battalion” and whether Bush was lying or merely repeating misinformation. The Bush supporters will say how tiresome it is to call Bush a liar. And we’ll still be stuck with the guy for three years.
My I am morose this morning.
Posted by: Woody Mena at December 1, 2005 08:32 AMHi Jack,
“The good news in Iraq is underreported.”
That is true. It’s also true that a lot of bad news is underreported.
Most Americans aren’t aware that the Prime Minister of Iraq is a member of an Iranian anti-American terrorist organization.
Most Americans aren’t aware that Al Sadr (a vicious terorrist) is a very powerful person in the Iraqi government.
Becuase of the pro-war bias in the media Americans, in general, aren’t aware that our troops are fighting and dying to support terrorists in the Iraqi government.
If more Americans were aware of these simple truths do you think there would be more anger about the situation in Iraq?
What say you Jack? Do you think it’s a good idea for our troops to fight and die in order to support Iraqi terrorists?
Posted by: LouisXIV at December 1, 2005 08:47 AMPhilippe Houdoin
“What make sad is that some of today France policians are actually trying to use fear for their political agenda too. In short, trying to import US fear policy here.”
To this, I take offense. What a load of crap. In one breath you proclaim your freedom and right to your own opinion, and in the next, blame America for exporting fear-peddling as though France had no choice in the matter? Try to accept some responsibility - your government is your own doing. If they’re peddling fear, it’s your own fault.
Posted by: Diogenes at December 1, 2005 09:09 AMrahdigly,
“You are certainly correct that we stopped at the border; however, Rick is right, where the UN were unanimous in removing Saddam from Kuwait, they were just as unanimous (the other way) in removing Saddam from power. Now, Bush Sr has stated in his book that “it would have been going into a hornets nest‎; however, we had plenty of man power and a good size defense budget to go to war with Saddam, we just didn’t have a strong leader with a backbone.”
We stopped at the border because we said we would. America made a commitment and actually lived up to it. The decision to stop was the right thing to do.
What was wrong was our telling Saddam that we didn’t really care if he invaded Kuwaitt, and then getting pissed when he did.
What was wrong was asking the Iraqis to stand up and telling them we would stand beside them and then bailing.
I don’t blame Bush sr for that, I blame our State Dept.
Bush jr has a backbone. Give me a break.
Bush Jr. was annointed, he was given the Presidency long before the problems in Florida.
This man never earned anything in his life. If it hadn’t been for daddies rich friends he wouldn’t have amounted to anything.
Reasonable conditions in Iraq
Yes. Iraq by next year will be the most democratic Arab country in the history of Arab countries. Actually I believe it already is.
Diogenes
I know you think it is cut and dried, but international law is not so simple. In a court, you could argue that UN resolutions against Saddam gave the “permission” (which we don’t need, but you talked about). The Gulf War ended in a cease-fire, which Saddam violated on almost a daily basis. Then there is article 51 in the UN charter. You certainly have enough to create reasonable doubt and as you know the UN as a body has never officially criticized the U.S. action or called it illegal. So if you play the legal card, you lose.
Sovereignty has gotten messier lately too. What about the humanitarian intervention in Kosovo? We got no permission for that. We got no permission for Rwanda and now people wish we would have gone in. As the world’s only superpower, we can expect that we will get stuck doing some of the unpopualar things that need to be done and that those who benefit will criticize us for helping them.
Louis
Our goal is to make Iraq reasonably secure and reasonably democratic and we will achieve that goal. It is hard to see how the Middle East could be much worse than it was on the eve of the invasion. Medium term prospects back then were abysmal. We still have the specter of a collapse of the Saudi monarchy or instability in Egypt or Syria, but by next year we will be in better position to deal with it. Actually, we are in a better position to deal with it already. Imagine the consequences of a Saudi instability with Saddam or one of his psycho sons in power next door. Geopolitically, we are much better off now than we were three years ago. That will become increasingly apparent, but like the economy that has grow robustly for the last 10 quarters, it will be ignored by much of the MSM.
Diogenes,
To this, I take offense. What a load of crap. In one breath you proclaim your freedom and right to your own opinion, and in the next, blame America for exporting fear-peddling as though France had no choice in the matter?Calm down! Reread Philippe’s post—he said nothing of the kind! He said this it was sad that France was trying to import US fear policy, not that the US is trying to export its policy. See the difference? In other words, he is putting the blame on France. Lighten up!
Posted by: Charles Wager at December 1, 2005 10:57 AM
Jack,
Iraq by next year will be the most democratic Arab country in the history of Arab countries.
Already better than Morocco? Algeria? Turkey?
Actually I believe it already is.
Current Iraq government was not elected. Yet.
But we may see how democratic or not (theocratic anyone?) Iraq will become in the next years, indeed.
rahdigly,
It appears the US military agrees with your asessment that the good news in Iraq is underreported. In fact, they have been countering the negative bias they see with some home-brewed positive bias:
U.S. Military Covertly Pays to Run Stories in Iraqi Press
So, are we all “Fair and Balanced” now?
Posted by: Charles Wager at December 1, 2005 11:11 AMThe problem with fighting an insurgency, a classic example of Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW), is that the US does not dictate terms of the war.
We fight on their ground at the times of their choosing. We spend large amounts of money convincing the locals that they should like the government being imposed upon them by foreigners. Other locals spend small amounts resisting.
In practical terms, the insurgency could be stopped through mass depopulation. It could also be stopped, or least restricted to the first phase of 4GW, by Negroponte’s Central American solution; death squads, and perpetual brutal repression.
Curiously, when we withdraw, something odd will happen. Attacks against US troops will stop, because our soldiers will no longer be there to be targets. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy.
How bad will the ensuing civil war be? That’s up to the Iraqis.
But why does everyone dance around this? Iraq is not a matter of national security, and other than loss of honor & the humiliation of defeat, Iraq does not matter in the long run.
The question really is, will we learn? 4GW has been around for a while- Mao in China, Vietnam, etc. Will we turn away from dependence upon high tech for security, and address the problem posed by 4GW?
Posted by: phx8 at December 1, 2005 11:15 AM“Western press and frequently those self-styled “objective” observers of Iraq are often critics of how we, the people of Iraq, are proceeding down the path in determining what is best for our nation.
This was taken from an article titled:
“The Sands Are Blowing Toward a Democratic Iraq”
A phony news article written by the pentagon and distributed by The Lincoln Group to Iraqi media.
The Lincoln Group is a P.R. firm hired by the Pentagon.
The illusion of success in Iraq takes precedence over the reality in Iraq.
This sounds alot like Bush’s Iraq War plan from the beginning. Based on his speech yesterday, nothing has changed.
Rocky,
“Bush jr has a backbone. Give me a break.
Bush Jr. was annointed, he was given the Presidency long before the problems in Florida.
This man never earned anything in his life. If it hadn’t been for daddies rich friends he wouldn’t have amounted to anything.”
____________________________________
GWB definitely has a backbone; he has a backbone of steel! You name me 1 Democratic Senator (besides Leiberman) that would stay the course in a war that had causalties. Bush’s every move was magnified daily and with hateful vengance, I might add. He’s been called every name under the sun, yet he stayed the course and is committed to carrying out the mission; just as our military is as well. Yet, the libs want to label this a Republican war and get the troops out of there, without them completing their mission (the mission that they believe in and the libs don’t). Remember, when they do complete their mission it will be a major victory for Bush and the Repubs; not to mention the US and the troops.
Posted by: rahdigly at December 1, 2005 11:29 AMBush is nothing, money made him, and he didn’t make that money. You all need to wake up and smell what your dishing out. Bush said he was going to get Saddam 2 month after election. The bombing world trade center excuse [ Saddam ]
We will win the world in Iraq but 3 years down the road the Iraq soldiers will be ready. Bush don’t want us to pull out of Iraq completely.
My position has always been that Iraq is a Republican War. Republicans and Republicans ALONE should reap the benefits of Iraq.
They deserve it.
Posted by: Aldous at November 30, 2005 07:29 PM
In that case don’t buy ANY gas made from Iraqi oil.
Aldous,
“My position has always been that Iraq is a Republican War. Republicans and Republicans ALONE should reap the benefits of Iraq. They deserve it.”
This is what people are talking about when they accuse the liberals of politicizing the war. If it’s a “Republican” War, then how can the libs route for our troops to win?! That’s why you hear the dems attack our Pres w/ a vengenance b/c they want him to lose; however, what they’re really doing is routing against the US and the troops, whether they mean to or not.
You can’t do that. YOU CAN’T SUPPORT THE TROOPS AND NOT SUPPORT THEIR MISSION; it just doesn’t work like that in today’s era!
Posted by: rahdigly at December 1, 2005 11:57 AMTo all (whining) Liberals out there,
I just love how all the libs are making a stink out of the bias reporting from our military over in Iraq. Even if they’re reporting the positive and “backburner” the negative for psychological reasons (or whatever is being said), so what?!!! Our media has been doing that forever with the bad news (reporting excessively) and good news (underreporting). And, now the libs are up in arms and all over this. They’ll get to the bottom of this story? Ha! Ha! Nice.
There are some libs (on this blog) that’ve made a stink with Bush’s talk with the troops last month; upset b/c they felt it was staged. Well, how do the libs feel now that House Minority Rep Nancy Pelosi has sent Rep (and ex-Marine) Murtha to talk about withdrawl and redeployment, telling us how the war is a failure and we need a new strategy. Bull! That was staged and a set up just like Kerry being nominated b/c he was a Vietnam Vet and he was going against Bush who wasn’t. How did that work out for them?!!!
Keep it up libs! America knows who you are and we remember you come National Election time!
I think that there will always be terrorist. It’s too difficult to stop them. It’s too easy for them to attack. Look at Timmothy McVeigh. Is it better to go after all known terrorist, and the countries that harbor them? I believe we have cells in the U.S.A. But I don’t think we harbor them with open arms. Or is it better to just go after al qaeda?
What year did Twin Towers get attacked the first time? Was it 1992? Wasn’t it al qaeda that took responsibility for the first attack?
We deffinately have a history with al qaeda. osama declared war with the U.S.A. in 1990 something. Was it before or after the first attack on the towers?
I would like to know these answers, and opinions.
Posted by: rick at December 1, 2005 12:51 PMJack:
Your comment: “Some of the plan against the insurgency builds on the successful tactics we used to defeat the insurgency in South Vietnam.”
Defeat the insurgency? What???
If you will remember, we lost that war; the tactics were not successful. Cripes 58,000+ dead, the country in Viet Cong hands, and we were successful? Do you even realize the massive, festering error in this ‘thinking’?
The biggest stubbornly residual problem here is the rampant delusion and spin that clouds public opinion. Bush never appears infront of a real US audience: the audience that is now close to 70% against his mismanaged, arrogant bumbling. Why not? Because he woould be booed right off the podium! His manipulative handlers keep this incompetent man away from true public opinion landing him for TV spots in front of controlled military or hand picked audiences. It’s disgusting, it’s a ruse, it’s a very sad joke, it’s a propaganda tradgedy of epic proportions.
Discretion is the better part of valor.
Posted by: Blogical at December 1, 2005 12:59 PMCharles, touche.
Jack - unfortunately, nothing is ever cut and dried, i’m not nearly so naive as you assume. This said, in a court, with the right lawyer you could successfully argue that shit doesn’t stink. On the other hand, one could say that the truth is the truth, and there will always be someone to argue that it isn’t.
“Iraq by next year will be the most democratic Arab country in the history of Arab countries. Actually I believe it already is.”
Mere speculation - I don’t see a career in fortune-telling in your future. Furthermore, while by definition Iraq is the most democratic Arab country in the history of Arab countries, it is not the most free, open, and accepting Arab country in history… see Cyrus the Great and his charter of the rights of nations, known to be the first declaration of Human Rights. (nor is Iraq likely to become the most “”“” any time soon)
“What about the humanitarian intervention in Kosovo? We got no permission for that. We got no permission for Rwanda and now people wish we would have gone in”
Humanitarian intervention does not = war. We ‘got no’ permission for Rwanda, but then I don’t recall us asking, and as you said, we didn’t go. This argument does nothing to advance or support your point.
The ‘legal card’ - how do you go from “could argue” and “reasonable doubt” to “you lose?” this is a non-sequitur and is the equivalent of me saying; Iraq is in the middle east, therefore, you are wrong. When you present a point, please use a logical progression which allows us to understand how you came to your conclusion, so that we may judge your argument based on its merit rather than on your word.
FYI, the UN as a body has never ‘officially’ criticized the U.S. action because they wish to remain on friendly terms with the most powerful country in the world - you can understand that, right? A great many of the nations which comprise the U.N., however, *have* criticized the ‘action’.
By the way, UN resolutions can not be considered to constitute “permission” when we directly asked for “permission” and were told directly that we did not, in fact, *have* “permission”.
I could go on, but I have no interest in defending the UN any further.
To one particular (whining) armchair Republican out there,
I just love how all the libs are making a stink out of the bias reporting from our military over in Iraq.Ahem. Haven’t you been the one making a stink for weeks about how the media is biased against the Iraq war? We’re just trying to keep it fair and balanced, right?
There are some libs (on this blog) that’ve made a stink with Bush’s talk with the troops last month; upset b/c they felt it was staged. Well, how do the libs feel now that House Minority Rep Nancy Pelosi has sent Rep (and ex-Marine) Murtha to talk about withdrawl and redeployment, telling us how the war is a failure and we need a new strategy.I feel fine, thanks for asking. I’ll also be eagerly awaiting the “proof” I’m sure you’ll be posting that Pelosi planted the whole idea of bringing the troops home in Murtha’s mind. Wait…wasn’t it you who went on and on about how only those that served can speak with authority on Iraq? Didn’t Murtha serve? I’m confused now…are you saying this whole Murtha dilemma is a big conspiracy instigated by liberals and orchestrated by Pelosi?
You can’t do that. YOU CAN’T SUPPORT THE TROOPS AND NOT SUPPORT THEIR MISSION; it just doesn’t work like that in today’s era!Actually, yes we can…and yes it does. Bam!
Posted by: Charles Wager at December 1, 2005 01:16 PM
Blogical,
“Jack: Your comment: “Some of the plan against the insurgency builds on the successful tactics we used to defeat the insurgency in South Vietnam.”
Defeat the insurgency? What???
If you will remember, we lost that war; the tactics were not successful. Cripes 58,000+ dead, the country in Viet Cong hands, and we were successful? Do you even realize the massive, festering error in this ‘thinking’?
The biggest stubbornly residual problem here is the rampant delusion and spin that clouds public opinion. Bush never appears infront of a real US audience: the audience that is now close to 70% against his mismanaged, arrogant bumbling. Why not? Because he woould be booed right off the podium! His manipulative handlers keep this incompetent man away from true public opinion landing him for TV spots in front of controlled military or hand picked audiences. It’s disgusting, it’s a ruse, it’s a very sad joke, it’s a propaganda tradgedy of epic proportions.
Discretion is the better part of valor.”
___________________________________________
Name for me the battles we lost in Vietnam?! We didn’t win the war b/c of the politicians not listening to the Generals in the war. Sound familiar?!! Let the military do it’s job and (actually) back them and we will win any war. Once public opinion goes, so does our hope of winning. And, the enemy knows this by the way and the libs are playing right into their hands. Nice going libbies.
And, you’re right. Bush doesn’t go in front of the naysayers to give a speech, he does it in front of the troops (with loud, roaring ovations). However, the Democrats don’t go in front of the troops and give speeches either. Hmmm! Now, I wonder why that is? I mean, the libs are for the troops and all, right?!? That’s what I thought…
Posted by: rahdigly at December 1, 2005 01:21 PMRhadigly,
“Keep it up libs! America knows who you are and we remember you come National Election time!”
Do you realize that we “libs” are Americans just like you?
Do you realize that all of us love our country?
We “libs” could have been the person who stopped their car so that you could pull into traffic. One of us “libs” could be the person who helped out one of your friends or family.
Why do you feel like those who disagree with you are enemies of America?
I disagree with alot of people on alot of issues.
I’m sure that when I write about the abolishment of the welfare system, some people(“libs”) are going to think I’m very conservative.
In truth there are no liberals or conservatives, as you use the terms, because people could lean different ways on different issues.
I’m conservative when it comes to abortion/criminals/welfare. I tend to lean liberal on issues like war/civil liberties/wealth vs. poor and middle class/government accountability.
My point is that you and I are both Americans. You support the war and this president. I do not.
We’re still Americans you and I. I’m glad we are.
I would hate to not have your point of view or perspective. It helps me to question what I think and where I stand.
As long as you know us “libs” are always right in the end. ;)
Did you feel that it was disrespectful to not trust the soldiers who are fighting and dying in Iraq to answer questions candidly, but to have an aide stage the Qs and As?
Alot of military people did.
I did.
Well, I hit the nail on the head. You all might see articles tomorrow. It turns out some have already come out. We’re already implementing the death squad approach of counterinsurgency.
Nice.
Wonder if those are the same guys who torture prisoners to death with drills?
Posted by: phx8 at December 1, 2005 01:31 PMAndre, let me answers your questions:
“Do you realize that we “libs” are Americans just like you?”
Yes, I know liberals are Americans, though you might want to remind the libs that. I truly believe in free speech; however, hate speech and rhetoric in the time of war against our commander in chief and troops is unAmerican! It just is! You can disagree with this war, just don’t make “hateful” speeches and remarks that hurt our troops and their morale. Like “wrong war, wrong place, wrong time”, when you voted for the war and campaigned for it against an anti-war candidate in the primaries.
“Do you realize that all of us love our country?”
Yes, though some of us have a ridiculous way of showing it. Try to “love” your country by not “hating” your president and see how the troops and the rest of America responds to you.
“Why do you feel like those who disagree with you are enemies of America?”
Dissenters are not enemies, haters are. Disagree w/out being hateful; like me with former Prez Clinton. :o)
“Did you feel that it was disrespectful to not trust the soldiers who are fighting and dying in Iraq to answer questions candidly, but to have an aide stage the Qs and As?
Alot of military people did.”
Not this ex-military person. Also, I’m a personal trainer and I’ve been training this ex-marine from Iraq that’s training to go back in; he didn’t like that at all, either. And, no it was not disrespectful b/c they were coached on the questions not the answers. They were deciding who was best to answer each specific question while being able for each one to speak. The libs are ridiculous w/ this one, they say they support the troops and yet they don’t give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to rehearsing the questions not the answers. They just jump right on the story so they can embarrass Bush even more. In the meantime, it’s our troops that looks bad. That’s not Bush’s fault, that’s the libs that go through the troops to get at the Pres; and you libs know exactly who you are!
“I would hate to not have your point of view or perspective. It helps me to question what I think and where I stand.”
I love having dissenting opinions as well; that’s what makes it a debate and that’s how we all learn. However, you cannot hate and dissent at the same time; it doesn’t work that way. People don’t perceive the hate as dissent, they look at it as unAmerican. Sorry, that’s just how it works. Ask the majority of our troops who they want as Commander in Chief and they go for Repubs b/c the dems are viewed (especially by the troops) as anti-war. Not good libs…
Posted by: rahdigly at December 1, 2005 01:55 PMAll
Time for the Sicilian Eagle to join the fray.
I actually waited a while before writing anything today because I wanted to see what the media was saying.Here is my take:
1.I now consider John Kerry to be a traitor to the United States.
In my book he is aiding and abbeting the enemy.
This is the second consecutive war that he has done so.
Within 2 seconds after the president finished his spech yesterday he vomited his evil position.He is the epitome of evil partisian politics as is Howard Dean.I now believe that he is passively rooting for the United States to fail in Iraq for purely partisian reasons,making him a traitor to me.
2.I consider the publishers and editors of the New York Times guilty of treason as well.Publishing flight information of the CIA to European countries done nothing to aid the war effort.Quite the opposite.It endangers helpful European countries by making the enemy specificially aware of information.I am now calling for a boycott of the New York Times.Please spread the word…they are traitors to the United States.
3.Ted Kennedy is a traitor to the United States.He orchestrates everything Kerry has said .When Kerry lips move,Kennedy is speaking.
4.If the republicians here had any balls at all,they should now begin to publicially name names of people and organizations who are traitors to the Unites States.
Engaging in debate is one thing.Treason is another.We have many many traitors among us and we must now begin to call them out one by one.
Blogical
The county is in North Vietnamese hands - NOT Viet Kong. South Vietnam was conquered in the same way US Grant took Richmond. It was not a local insurgency. The local insurgency was largely crippled by the Tet offensive and then wiped out with counter insurgency tactics in the early 1970s.
One of the most pernicious false lessons from Vietnam was that the insurgency was a success. It is easy to see the source of the confusion but we should learn the correct lesson. The insurgency was a success politically, not militarily. It broke the U.S. will to fight. It did nothing to the U.S. capacity to carry the war. The lesson that many in the U.S. don’t want to hear is that the anti-war movement was the North Vietnamese fifth column. In the end, American public opinion was more powerful than the Viet Kong. And the same thing could happen today.
Diogenes
Cyrus the Great was a Persian, not an Arab. I specifically used the word Arab so as not to include Turks or Kurds, but it also leaves out the Persians. Besides subsequent history would not make you enthusiastic about what Cyrus said.
The legal card is … legal. You can’t go back and forth between the legal and what you consider the truth. Do you have an instance of the competent U.S. authority telling the U.S. that we did not “have permission.” Hint - no. I know this is a technicality, but if we are talking LEGAL, the U.S. can veto anything it doesn’t like. That actually is black letter international law at the UN. So that leaves you not liking the war, but you can’t call it illegal by any legal definition.
As far as humanitarian intervention, it can resemble war in every aspect. The only difference is what we perceive as the motives. Whenever a democracy defeats a tyranny it is a sort of humanitarian intervention. I support our actions in Kosovo, but there was no right involved in that one.
Sicilian,
May I suggest making an list of enemies? You know, Senators, Representatives, some newspapers, bloggers, in fact anyone who opposes the war. Yes, make a long list. Time to keep track. Time to name names. Maybe form a commission to investigate this treason. Remember, if you’re not with us, you’re against us!
Traitors! Traitors! They’re everywhere!
Posted by: phx8 at December 1, 2005 02:26 PMrahdigly
You can’t do that. YOU CAN’T SUPPORT THE TROOPS AND NOT SUPPORT THEIR MISSION; i