Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

>>Don’t get me wrong, this is exactly what I expected. But I am still amazed. Who are Democrats at war with?
Posted by Eric Simonson at February 18, 2007 02:24 PM

ES,

A better question…who was the enemy in Iraq before we showed up?

Terrorism is for law enforcement folks, not armies. Iraq was and is not our enemy. Anyone currently in Iraq who is our enemy, is so because we are in Iraq. I wish somehow you neocons would shake the webs out of your brain-housing groups and realize just how stupid this Iraq mess really is.

Bush has never fought the war as if he wanted to win it anyway, so most of the blame for “losing” it (if that happens) will have to fall on him, not the Democrats. The Democrats themselves have had minimal involvement at all, and that’s how they seem to like it.

On the other hand, Democrats have maneuvered themselves into a position which is truly sickening. The worst thing that could happen to their electoral prospects would be sucesses in Iraq, so they are all but cheering for setbacks and defeats.

I say a pox on both their houses.

At this point, the only reason for favoring the hapless Republicans in this dirty little squabble is that you don’t risk self-loathing in seeing a suicide bomber kill a couple dozen civilians and think “Hmmm… is that gonna win my side some votes?”

You know when you see an ES post with the word ‘Democrat’ in it, you know the word ‘surrender’ can’t be far behind.

Well, I can think of several words that could be linked to the neo-cons. How ‘bout ‘belligerent stupidity’?

I truly believe that the group of people that will have the final say on the Bush administration’s foreign policy will not be the Democrats. It will be the centerist Republicans, as evidenced by the seventeen House Republicans and the seven Senate Republicans (including my Senator, Gordon Smith) that have seen the writing on the proverbial wall. One could be cynical and say that they are facing stiff opposition for re-election in ‘08, and that they have taken note of the past November elections and are tacking accordingly.

But, I prefer to accord them more credit than that. They are beginning to see that the Republic is in the thrall of a dangerous ideological radicalism, a radicalism that not only refuses to ‘play by the rules’, in foreign policy, in economic policy, in social policy. They don’t believe that they should even have any rules. ‘Rules are for the lesser folk, we have an agenda to fulfill. We are your ideological superiors, sit down and shut up.’

Thus, democratic and legislative opposition is seen as treason, and questioning of failed policies are unpatriotic.

The neo-con sun is setting—things will never again be as good as they had it with this administration. In trade policy, in governmental policy, in foreign policy, the American people are beginning to examine the goods the neo-cons have been delivering for the past six years.

Blind allegiance and lock-step obedience to party objectives conjured by radicals in the GOP are every bit as unsavory and dangerous as the alleged
governence of the Democratic Party by the Left.

It is long past time to look at the problems facing the Republic as Americans, not as ideologues. I have been very critical of Gordon Smith and his unquestioning support of this Iraqi fiasco. Today, I congratulate him. For whatever reasons, be they political survival or poll-watching, Mr. Smith made a careful and judicious decision to vote against enabling the Bush administration’s disfunctional and damaging policy in Iraq.

Eric, there will be more Republicans that will turn away from this administration’s policies. Because, radicalism, however you dress it up, is not for American consumption.

Well we must admit the surge seems to be making things better.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Militants struck back Sunday in their first major blow against a U.S.-led security clampdown in Baghdad with car bombings that killed at least 63 people, left scores injured and sent a grim message to officials boasting that extremist factions were on the run.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070218/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

What is happening in Baghdad is what happens when you have a non-reality based president elected by people who think the world is 6,000 years old. NOT a god idea.

Bring em home NOW!

On the other hand, Democrats have maneuvered themselves into a position which is truly sickening. The worst thing that could happen to their electoral prospects would be sucesses in Iraq, so they are all but cheering for setbacks and defeats.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition

I don’t see it that way LO. You can’t win a Civil war. Being realistic and recognizing that is not a fault.

If your saying the democratic party should kinda let it play out so that the full failure of Bush and the Neocons can be seen and result in a success in 2008 then that would be a sad position to take.

The worse thing you can do is pretend that sending more troops to their deaths will help when every bit of factual evidence and logic says otherwise. That’s the Republicans position. I’m not sure how you would want the Democrats to get on that side and actually do the right thing. If you have a commander you insist you MUST win EVERY battle then you will likely lose the war. We didn’t win every battle in WW2 sometimes we re-directed our efforts.

The reason we sometimes think liberals are less than reliable is because of their tone. We see it here. They seem almost pleased when there is bad news. Whether or not you support the war in Iraq, remember who the bad guys are. When the terrorists blow something up, they are the bad guys and they are TERRORIST not insurgents or rebels.

Honorable rebels do not purposely murder their own people just to make a point.

Those who really think this is a lost cause should look at it in sorrow because the bad guys win, and I mean real sorrow, not “I am sorry that Bush is…” It is the terrorists who are killing people and it is they who will do even more of it if we leave.

It is a strategy of terror to murder so many people that good people just can no longer stand it. For the civilians deaths are not an unfortunate consequence. Killing civilians is their goal, their strategy, and it may be working. They figure if they kill enough we will give up and let them kill more.

There is also an important factor lost in the talk. People say that in Iraq we are not fighting those who perpetrated 9/11. This is incorrect. There were no operational links between Saddam and 9/11, but Al Qaida came to Iraq and they are the ones who provoked the current problems. It was their explicit strategy. That is why the killed so many Shiite civilians. They will fight us where we are and it is true that if we do not fight them in Iraq, we will be fighting them some other place.

Eric Simonson said: “Playing politics with soldiers lives is standard operating procedure for the left.”

Eric, that comment is 100% applicable to President Bush. We all know that Bush could have given our military the go ahead to launch bombing runs on Baghdad and al-Anbar Province at anytime which would have destroyed those populations and ended this Civil War in days. But, Pres. Bush has tied our military’s hands behind their backs refusing to give them the green light for victory.

And why? Because it would be an extremely politically costly move for both Bush and America in international affairs.

But, let’s be clear. The only person standing between Victory in Iraq and our Military, is Pres. Bush. The Pres. commands the most awesome firepower in the world. He won’t use it to allow our soldiers to claim victory. He prefers they die and get maimed in restricted and constrained role in this war that marks time until another president can take responsibility for the outcome of either unleashing our military or pulling out.

Go pedal your everyone but you and your leader are cowards crap to dummies who don’t what our military capability is, and that it is the politics of the President who refuses victory. No One Else.

Eric, based upon the Bush Administration track record it would seem the repubs can never again be trusted in matters of War either. Perhaps we should call it a draw and wage some peace for a change, maybe both parties can do better at that.

j2t2

You cannot just call it a draw and wage peace. The fact that Al Qaida et al came to Iraq indicates that they will follow. This will not be the end and Iraq was not the beginning.

We chose to fight in Iraq. Maybe it was a mistake, but the bad guys will chose the next place.

Jack,

Osama wanted us in Iraq. Al Qeada wanted us in Iraq. They wanted a war to weaken our resources, and knew it would lead to them getting more funding and troops.

I suppose now you would like to go into Iran, and continue being Al Qaeda’s puppet…

On June 8, 2006 the Iraqi Prime Minister confirmed that Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was killed in a United States Air Force F-16 airstrike at 6:15 pm local time (1415 UTC) the previous evening, June 7. In a statement posted on the Internet that day, signed by Al-Qaeda in Iraq’s “deputy emir,” Abu Abdel-Rahman al-Iraqi, al-Qaeda in Iraq pledged to “increase [their] persistence in continuing holy war so that the word of God will be supreme.” [55]

A document found in Zarqawi’s safe house indicates that the terrorist group was trying to provoke the U.S. to attack Iran in order to reinvigorate the insurgency in Iraq and to weaken American forces in Iraq.[56] “The question remains, how to draw the Americans into fighting a war against Iran? It is not known whether American is serious in its animosity towards Iran, because of the big support Iran is offering to America in its war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Hence, it is necessary first to exaggerate the Iranian danger and to convince America and the west in general, of the real danger coming from Iran…”. The document then outlines 6 ways to incite war between the two nations.

There’s a smart and dumb way to fight terrorism, and going into Iraq was the really, really dumb way. You don’t always win a war with fighting. I would have thought Republicans would have learned that from Ronald Reagan and Bush Sr. Please ask President Bush to stop doing Al Qaeda’s bidding.

Max

I wrote a post specifically explaining why we should to invade Iran. Nobody has said we will except people like you trying to drag a red herring across the trail.

We did not invade Iraq to fight Al Queda. There were lots of reasons at the time. I wrote a whole post about that too, talking about the Clinton era resolution for regime change etc. Al Qaeda came to Iraq (Zarkawi was there BEFORE we invaded) because they thought it was a place they could fight us. If not there, it will be somewhere else.

I am not arguing here whether or not we will succeed. I am arguing that you do not just get to turn this off and come home. The bad guys will follow.

Jack said,

but Al Qaida came to Iraq and they are the ones who provoked the current problems. It was their explicit strategy. That is why the killed so many Shiite civilians. They will fight us where we are and it is true that if we do not fight them in Iraq, we will be fighting them some other place.

Of the terrorists in Iraq, Al-Qaida is the worst. They and their partners will kill innocent civilians in order to create chaos and a civil war. They are atrocious, evil, they are the enemy of all.

And who gave them Iraq? It wasn’t the Democrats and our tone. It was George W. Bush and Co, and yes, Republicans who support the mess in Iraq and continue to perpetuate it as if there is some “victory” out there being spoiled by the defeatist Democrats.

Did the Iraqis ask us to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq? I am tired of even this version of a worn-out phrase. Maybe we should have fought them where they were, namely Afghanistan and Pakistan. Next time we decide to have a war with the terrorists let’s invite them to Karl Rove’s vacation cabin instead of the homes and lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Jack, your argument that al-Queda will follow us is BUSHIE BOGUS.

Fact is, al-Queda has cells all around the globe. Our NIE said this. They are the experts. They are here, in the U.S. despite our troops being in Iraq. That whole argument that all of al-Queda is concentrated in Iraq because our troops are there is factually bogus. Whether or not our troops are in Iraq, al-Queda cells will continue to push toward Canada, Mexico, S. America and the U.S.

Our troops in Iraq DO NOT PREVENT this. Your comments are full of wild Bush weed.

Jack, The point of my previous post was to add the repubs into Erics statement that the Dems could never again be trusted in matters of war. Certainly we can all agree at this point that the “War on Terrorism” as waged by the Bush Administration has led us down the wrong road. Unless of course the real reason we are in Iraq has more to do with oil supplies, neocon ideology, and imperialism than with the reasons Bush trumped up to get us into Iraq. So in my mind if what Eric stated has any degree of truth at all, why would we the people allow our elected officials of either party to deal with matters of war.
In addition I done believe the Bush mantra of fight them there so we dont have to fight them here”, I think its a neocon job on the American people.
So no leadership at the Federal level and no real reason for being there, to me, says the American people have one choice- wage peace. Work it out, buy the damn oil, but for crying out loud at least stop aiding the enemy with the foolish Bush schemes.

Jack
“killing civilians is their goal.” For us its just by accident so they’re not as dead and their relatives do not hate us as much. Right?

There are some Dems that voted to autorize the President to go to war if neccessary. Not the same as a declaration. There were also many that opposed it. There were also many,many Americans that opposed the invasion from the start. We yelled at the top of our lungs,”This is a mistake and will end badly.”Even the Dems that gave the war early support were surprised at the horrific incompetence of the Bush regime. The blame belongs to the Bush regime and its supporters . The blood is on your hands.At least be big enough to admit it and stop trying to blame shift. It is over. There are three ways civil wars end;one side wins;a political settlement(either a federation or division);or an forign occupation in perpetuity. Only the last requires our presence and that is politically,morally and economically untenable.

Chris2x

It really doesn’t matter who gave them Iraq or why they are there. Zarqawi arrived in Iraq before we did after we chased him out of Afghanistan.

All decisions are made about future, not past events. What do we do now? Will a quick pull out be make our situation better or worse? We now have Al Qaeda in Iraq. They came to fight us there. If not there is would be Afghanistan, Pakistan or someplace else.

David

I expect that Al Qaeda also has limited resources. The fact that they put so much effort into Iraq indicates that they think it is important to defeat us there and that they are not putting those same resources someplace else.

J2t2

Bush went into Iraq because it was a gathering threat and he felt that it would be better to deal with it before it became an imminent threat. Saddam was very destabilizing. He had been kept down, more or less, by sanctions, which were beginning to fray. Reasonable people believed Saddam had and/or was developing various weapons of mass destruction. Such weapons are not very useful militarily, but they are excellent terror weapons. In 1991 we underestimated Saddam. From 1992-2002 we overestimated him. That is the nature of intelligence.

BillS

There are many fewer. When you see those death tolls listed everyday - a dozen people killed by car bombs etc - none of those are killed by the U.S. If both sides behaved as we do, civilian casualties would be significantly less common than traffic fatalities.

The bad guys have won this. They are more willing to kill than we are to watch it. It is almost the complete opposite of a legitimate insurgency. When the Germans occupied Poland or Czech Republic, they would killed civilians and the underground insurgents would risk their lives try to save them. In Iraq the insurgents kill civilians and Americans risk their lives to save them.

The big shame will be if these bad guys prevail.

Don’t you liberals know that the only way to win in this world is through war?! Send in the 20 year olds! They volunteered! They want to fight! Why teach them to shoot if we don’t send them to war? What a waste of training that would be right? Talking and diplomacy and saber rattling never works! Kill! Kill! Kill!

Iraq is a glowing success, the media just won’t report the good news! There are no WMDs in Iraq right? Because of the war!

We’ve got bin Laden on the run!

We haven’t been attacked on our soil in over five years! Can any other president say that? Err…strike that question please.

Ron Reagan didn’t defeat the USSR without dropping a few bombs on them now did he…err, nevermind.

Signed,
Mr. Chicken Hawk

p.s. fight them over there not here (now if we could just figure out who “them” is).

I don’t see it that way LO. You can’t win a Civil war. Being realistic and recognizing that is not a fault.

What do you mean you can’t win a civil war? Of course you can. Civil wars are won and lost all the time. But of course, that isn’t the important question in this case.

Whether you should fight a war or not is a separate question, but for all the science and strategy (“strategery?”) behind the study of warfare, winning one is actually pretty simple. If you’re unable or unwilling to do either of the two following things, then you shouldn’t be fighting
at all and should be using other approaches.

1). Identify the enemy.

2). Injure and strike fear in the enemy to the extent that he loses hope of survival without making peace with you. As long as you have more to lose than he does, why should he make peace with you ever?

In the American Civil War, the Union didn’t win until Grant cornered Lee and gave Lee a choice of death or surrender and Sherman began burning everything in his path. Germany didn’t surrender in WWII until they had nothing left to throw into battle and their cities were scorched. Japan didn’t surrender until they started losing entire cities from single bombs.

Compare that the actions of the US military in Iraq and in the “war on terror.” You don’t win wars by “winning hearts and minds.” Hearts and minds are not battlefields that you fight on with tanks and missles. But that is the kind of war that George Bush in his folly has tried to fight.

This rhetoric about fighting the terrorists over there rather than over here is such bullshit. Should I be fighting with my wife in your house? The point, Jack, is for you, Eric, and others to stop clinging to slogans that make great sound bites but mean nothing.

Of course we need to fight the terrorists not create more of them, train them, and motivate them by creating the policies and conditions that kill their family members.

Until I hear something intelligent from the pro-war crowd why should I support this war? The best I can come up with is Powell’s Pottery Barn rule. We are on the hook to provide security for the Iraqis, the security this administration failed to provide. Now we are faced with a “surge” in American forces over there which sounds only like what we have done in the past. I still have not heard or cannot come up with an intelligent answer on how we will “win” in Iraq.

I do not support Democrats calls for opposing “the surge” because the surge is just smoke and mirrors, a way to frame the real issue by both parties in some half-palatable way to the American people. But if we cannot militarily provide “breathing space” or a “political solution” this year it would be criminal to support this administration any longer. I hope moderates like Jack and obsessed warmongers like Eric would wake up instead of supporting an endless war, killing or maiming tens of thousands of real people a year, because we couldn’t think of something better to do.

So, Jack, Eric, how do we win this war? Has the Bush amdministration let you in on it because I don’t see it. You think the Kurds and Shia are going to let AlQaeda take over? If this war is so critical to our security why do we not have a draft? Why aren’t Bush’s daughters fighting over there? Why don’t we have a war tax on the richest 1% who are so much better off as Jack has pointed out. WHY ARE WE NOT DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE’VE BEEN DOING? If you cannot answer that, then how can you support continually putting our troops in a “no-win” situation.

Jack
We are not likely to ever see the civilian death toll. I suspect numbers we have inflicted are not that far from those of the insurgencies especially if you take into account the initial invasion. A 1000 lb bomb takes a great toll,no matter how smart it is.

We can go back and forth I suppose. What really bothers me and the reason I expect the current Bush strategy to fail is the administrations refusal to bring Iran into the picture. Yea, they took American hostages. They did not cut their heads off. Their help in Iraq,Afganistan and in the global war on muslum extremeism could be invaluable. They offered assistence before and helped support the new Afgan government. They are one of the more democratic countries in the region,more so than most of our allies.Even with the mullahs they educate women etc. Nobody says we have to like them but they will be involved one way or another.They must.Looks like one more lost opportunity in a series of them and more GIs will die because of it.

This seems to be becoming a standard procedure. Eric gets the shit started and Jack defends it.

Read the sunday Doonesbury. It is exagerated, but only slightly.

It’s not that the terrorists, those currently in Iraq, would literally follow us back to the US that concerns me.

Once they didn’t have to deal with being killed on a daily basis at the hands of US troops, most of those guys would simply be too busy terrorizing and murdering Iraqi civilians while they’re setting up their dirty little Islamicist state.

No, the problem is what it says about American will if the strongest military on the planet turns tail and runs from a pack of cut-throats. If we show that kind of weakness, then yes, the war will follow us home because we will have demonstrated that bullying us works. Our enemies, as hideous as they are, are unfortunately better-led and more cohesive than we are. Why wouldn’t they attack us here if they get rewarded instead of punished for doing so? If we leave now, they SHOULD attack us. They’d have much to gain by doing so.

Do we “create more terrorists” by fighting? Of course we do. Just as “we created” panzer divisions by fighting Hitler, or Lincoln “created” the Army of Northern Virginia by invading the South. It’s only obvious that the enemy mobilizes their resources when they’re under attack.

The problem with Bush’s whole approach, and now with the “surge” is that rests on strategies which have never succeeded in the history of the world and which are based on fundamental errors of both politics and warfare. Sooner or later, whether it’s Bush or somebody else (probably somebody else, and probably much later) we’re going to wise up, and by then the cost is going to be enormous. The learning curve here is simply pathetic and sad.

Bush went into Iraq because it was a gathering threat and he felt that it would be better to deal with it before it became an imminent threat. Saddam was very destabilizing. He had been kept down, more or less, by sanctions, which were beginning to fray. Reasonable people believed Saddam had and/or was developing various weapons of mass destruction.

Do you really believe this? I don’t. The intelligence analyst who said we had “slam dunk” evidence of Iraq’s WMDs now says he never meant to imply Iraq actually had WMDs, only that Bush could make a slam dunk case to the public. How disgusting. The Pentagon now says much of the evidence used at the time was fabricated.

So, in a best case world, Bush “believed”, contrary to any real known evidence, that Iraq had WMDs, and decided to manafacture evidence to use the nation’s grief after 9/11 to draw us into a war. You can give him the best of intentions, but its still criminal.

Thank God many of you above are not some of our Generals on down that are in charge of fighting this war. From the above postings and on other occasions there are so many of you that would truly make havoc of our military. Groan, grumble, grouse and gag all you want, but I have heard nothing, absolutely nothing contributing to a victory in Iraq.

LO
I am a bit surprised but you did finger one of Bushes gravest errors. He did not identify the enemy correctly. Saddam,may he burn in hell, was not the enemy in the “war on terror.” He was contained,was not connected to Al Queida. Bush took his eye off the ball.

tomh
A victory in Iraq? That opportunity has long since past.

LO
OK,lets look at our civil war. What if the British had intervened? They considered it. It probably would have made the war go on much longer. Most likely the N.and S. would have wound up shooting at them. If they had stayed they would have expected to run the country no matter who won.They were to smart to get trapped like that. Are we?

Eric-
We tried to find WMDs. Failed, because there were none. We tried to end a collaboration between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Failed, because there was none. Worse than failed because our inability to secure Iraq allowed al-Qaeda and others agents to penetrate the country.

We tried to set up a Liberal Democratic Republic. Nobody’s seriously talking about that now. We tried to contain the violence. It’s only gotten worse. We tried to prevent a civil war, and failed.

Virtually every goal we’ve set for ourselves, we’ve failed at. Because we didn’t believe hard enough in the mission? No, because most of the errors that cost us dearest were at the beginning of the war, when it was still popular and a political positive.

The real pattern I see is this: a failure to understand the battleground, a failure to bring the proper resources to bear- essentially, the leadership on this war was better prepared to talk about the war and make all this rhetorical noise about loyalty to our soldiers and the politics of the situation than it was to actually run the war itself.

America’s losses in this war were not inevitable. America is not incapable of winning the war on account of a lack of stomach, a lack of resolve, or a lack of a sycophantic media. The real problem is that the people who have run this war think that our main problem is psychological, not logistical or political. They think it’s about being held back. Trick is, the only people I’ve seen holding back in this war have been the President and his subordinates.

How many times did Democrats ask for more soldiers in Iraq? How many times did we complain about waste and mismanagement? How many times did we ask you to get off your ass and actually win the war? No, you guys were too busy waiting for things to get better. WAITING. That’s all these strategies are about, and it’s fricking absurd. Oooh. Let’s lowball the troops again and see if we can win by making a lot of noise about some anorexic surge. The Bush White House then goes into gossiping housewife mode, and starts telling a bunch of stories to try and get people interested in yet another war with us already fricking fighting another two. Has it occured to you that dividing our intentions and our forces between wars is a good way to lose wars?

You guys are like a ten year old kid flexing his skinny arms and beating his skinny chest in front of a mirror. Sure, acting macho and saying you’re not going to lose is a manly thing to do, but if all you’re going to do afterwards is bide your time until you leave office with a weak-ass strategy like yours, all you’re doing is showing the world that your leadership is weak, vain, and in utter denial.

There’s something worse than admitting a weakness: There’s demonstrating weakness to the world, then going into complete denial and screwing things up even more. Those who can admit to weaknesses can address them. Those who don’t just make bigger jackasses of themselves.

America is sick of losing, and the Bush administration has leached most people of the faith that we can win our way out of this war, by continually failing to turn the fortunes of this war around.

You can’t expect people to support a war forever when their support is not rewarded with progress. Why should America reward past incompetence with future patience?

>>I have heard nothing, absolutely nothing contributing to a victory in Iraq.

Posted by: tomh at February 18, 2007 10:23 PM

tomh,

You cannot claim victory when your motives and aims are not honorable. A ‘win’ now would be shallow indeed…

BillS, I meant to imply that Bush did indeed fail to identify the enemy correctly. As many comedians have pointed out, how do you fight a war on “terror?” Terror is an emotion. Why not fight a war on boredom while we’re at it?

We fought a war on “terror” for a couple reasons. 1). We are too PC to name who we actually mean, and 2). Many of those responsible for that “terror” are so-called US diplomatic and trade “partners.”

It’s as if Roosevelt had declared a war on “sneak attacks” after Pearl Harbor in order to avoid offending the fanatical followers of the Emperor and to ensure that we could go right on trading with Imperial Japan while we pretended to fight a war.

Your analogy to Britain and the US Civil War doesn’t hold water for a number of reasons. Had they entered the war it would only have been to defend their trade interests in North America because there was no possibility at all by that stage of them regaining and administering their former colonies. Great Britain didn’t enter the Civil War on the side of the Confederacy despite the Confederacy’s attempts to lure them in not because they feared establishing British authority here but because they actually needed Northern grain more than they needed Southern cotton, and because by that time the English population had no sympathy for the institution of slavery.

As for Saddam, that’s another issue. I think he was correctly identified, and the fight against Saddam was not the problem. The problem was the ill-advised transition to “nation-building” which followed.

Did you see that House vote? The vast majority of Republicans voted no. REPUBLICANS WENT ON RECORD SAYING THEY DON’T SUPPORT OUR TROOPS. Those dirty un-American bastards.

We fought a war on “terror” for a couple reasons. 1). We are too PC to name who we actually mean.

I don’t get this. Dawn said it too in another post. What does this mean? Who is the enemy anyway, can you tell us? I thought it was Al Qaeda, and that Bush couldn’t say that because he damn well knew there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq.

BillS

Actually, the bombs can be very precise. I was recently in Belgrade where I saw a the defense ministry building that was nearly completely destroyed, around it almost nothing was touched. This is no longer like WWII.

You read what I wrote re Iran. I do not advocate invasion, but I do not expect the Iranians to help, even if John Kerry had asked them very nicely.

Jlw

When Eric makes a good point, I defend it. I would even defend a good point if you guys made it.

Max

If you look at the SOTU speech in 2003, you see the variety of reasons. Yes, we thought he had WMD. Yes the CIA told the President that it was a slam dunk. The CIA director, BTW, was a Clinton appointee. This is no surprise since Clinton also thought there was WMD, just like almost everybody else. But WMD was not the only reason.

Jack,

Even if Bush really did believe Sadaam had WMDs (a big if, considering Scott Ritter, the chief inspector there said they did not), it still doesn’t excuse manufacturing evidence or implying that Iraq was connected to 9/11, which in my opinion he sure did.

So what was the motivator? It’s surfaced that Bush and team planned an Iraq invasion, and had been talking about it for years before he became president. He just simply believed his father was wrong to have left Iraq, and believed it would be a great test case to prove his neo-conservative principles. Money, prestige, and political capitol basically.

Here’s Cheney’s plan for Iraq. It shows that he was thinking there would only be 5,000 soldiers left in Iraq about a year ago. Hubris, recklessness, and poor judgement have led us into this war.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB214/index.htm

So Jack, if the president believed there were WMDs in Iraq, does that mean it was okay for him to lie to the public about the facts when making his case? He either lied or was incredibly poorly informed.

I am fine with the stand taken by right wing conservatives, absolutely fine. Their position is understood.

The results of the 2006 midterms delivered a message, loud and clear. Right wing conservatives choose to ignore it. Not a problem.

The nature of federal government makes it almost impossible for the legislative branch to force the executive branch to stop waging a war, especially if the minority branch of the legislature chooses to use the filibuster.

Keep it up, Republicans, by all means, keep it up. As difficult and as painful as it may be to wait, let the voters decide in 2008. I will be satisfied to go that route. Will you?

tomh. That is exactly the problem my friend I too have not heard anything that would contribute to victory in Iraq. Not from Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice, the neocons none of them. Yet thet continue to make the claims and beat their collective chests as if their latest scheme is working. Are you sure they are on the side of the American people.

Eric and Jack must be right.

Mitch McConnell said today on CNN Late edition, “the fundamental decision after 9/11 that the president made, and the Congress initially overwhelmingly supported was to get on offense, go after the terrorists in Afghanistan, initially, then we widened it to Iraq. The result of that, of course, has been 100 percent protection here at home.”

Just remember those words “100 percent protection here at home”.

The transcript is here:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/18/le.01.html

Somehow, I’m also sure that we Democrats are 100% responsible for the conditions facing our injured troops at Walter Reed:

Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration At Army’s Top Medical Facility
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172.html

In fact it’s probably all Murtha’s fault.

Any comments on how the war in Iraq is doing at fighting Al Qaeda? I’m really glad we basically abandoned Afghanistan. That really worked for us.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 — Senior leaders of Al Qaeda operating from Pakistan have re-established significant control over their once-battered worldwide terror network and over the past year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials.

American officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan. Until recently, the Bush administration had described Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri as detached from their followers and cut off from operational control of Al Qaeda.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/world/asia/19intel.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

KansasDem,
It is pretty silly, is it not? Neither the Iraqi nor Iranian governments, and not even Hezbollah, have a record of attacking the US on American soil. The only way they ever attack American troops is when we situate them in their land. The terrorist attacks came from Al Qaida & Osama bin Laden.

SECDEF Gates stated there are four conflicts within Iraq: Sunni v Shia, Shia v Shia, Arab v Kurd, and Sunni v US. General Casey testified that only 3% of the fighters consist of Al Qaida in Iraq & foreign jihadists. That is who we refer to when we talk about “terrorists” om Iraq. Although car bombs make headlines, the most common cause of violent death among Iraqis is gunshot wounds, not explosives.

Over 70& of the Shias want the US out of their country, and over 90% of the Sunnis feel the same way. But more remarkably, 95% of Iraqis detest Al Qaida in Iraq & the foreign jihadists.

There is no chance- NONE- that Al Qaida in Iraq and the foreign jihadists will ever be welcomed by Iraqis. The “terrorists” are despised by Iraqis. The Republican talking points about terrorists are so grossly ignorant and display such a gross lack of misunderstanding of the situation, it is hardly suprising we are in the current situation.

The 2008 elections will decide the matter once and for all. After all the wasted lives & broken lives and lost treasure, the only upside I see is that the voice of conservatives and Republicans will be swept away for decades to come.

As I mentioned in the earlier comment, I hope they keep it up, and make their position understood loud and clear. Absolutely. Despite the terrible short term consequesnces, in the long run, it is the best possible thing that could happen to our country. Let the voters decide in 2008. Let”s do it.

Jack naively said: “I expect that Al Qaeda also has limited resources. The fact that they put so much effort into Iraq indicates that they think it is important to defeat us there and that they are not putting those same resources someplace else.”

Jack, first of all, al-Queda hasn’t the remotest hope or thought of beating us in Iraq. It simply isn’t in the realm of logistical possibility and they know it as well as we do.

What makes you think they have put “so much” effort into Iraq. I recall bombings in London and Saudi Arabia and Indonesia during this time. They are there to keep us there. Pure and simple. The longer we stay in Iraq, the more the people of Iraq and other Middle Eastern and Islamic nations turn against us.

And, no, you are flat out wrong about their presence in Iraq detracting from their establishing presence and violence and resources in a number of other nations as well. It comes with a decentralized organization, Jack. Stop projecting our military strategy and tactics on al-Queda. That is incredibly naive.

As naive as the British projecting their strategy and tactics upon Washington’s and Benedict Arnold’s armies, and why the British lost. The British held nothing but contempt and disrespect for Colonialist hit and run by day and, sneak away at night tactics, which falsely buoyed the Red Coat’s sense of superiority and confidence. Right up to, and including the Yorktown battle which changed the balance of the war in our favor, upon Cornwallis’ surrender, thanks to some naval help from the French and a bit of bad weather.

al_Queda is not fighting this war on our terms, in our chosen locations or, by our rules, tactics and strategies. How they define victory is not even remotely the same as how we define it.

For them, to simply obstruct is a victory. For them to demonstrate sneak attack prowess is a victory. For them, Abu Ghraib and GITMO headlines were a victory. Rendition was a victory for them. For them to cause a trillion American dollars to be spent on them and not on our own people is a huge victory. And for many of them, to die is a victory.

In other words, to incite us to wield our massive wealth and military might and invite us to breach our own rules, treaties, and Constitution because no one can stop us from doing so, is a major strategy of al-Queda. And to so incite us to anger as to cause us to turn world opinion against us by our own actions is their stealth tactics. And the sooner our government leaders wake up to this, the sooner we might actually be able to get the upper hand, and stop being our own worst enemy.

The war on terror must be fought primarily through international policing and intelligence sharing. Using our military as a blunt instrument on innocent populations is precisely how we give victory to the terrorists by turning public opinion against us.

In the end, we will end up diminishing terrorist organizations using the same policies and many of the same strategies as Clinton’s administration and the British. Albeit with a far better organized and trained intelligence community, which is still in the making 5.5 years after 9/11.

To the patriots out there:
I seriously think now is the time to make sure we are armed well and our arms are true and accurate. I hope for the best, but I expect the worst.

To the others (and you know who you are):
We have defended you in all wars past and we will do it again when the enemy comes to our shore. If that should happen, don’t try to hold me back. You might become my enemy then.

People to put it in terms anyone can understand is simple. We are at war with an enemy that makes Hitler look like a elderly grandmother,we can’t afford to pull out now it would wreck all of our efforts and unless you hate the idea of a standing professional Army protecting you let us win give us the support we need and the tools not polatics. From Iraq good day

Jack said:

I expect that Al Qaeda also has limited resources. The fact that they put so much effort into Iraq indicates that they think it is important to defeat us there and that they are not putting those same resources someplace else.

I don’t want anyone to miss this link showing how wrong that statement is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/world/asia/19intel.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Tomd,

We have defended you in all wars past and we will do it again when the enemy comes to our shore. If that should happen, don’t try to hold me back. You might become my enemy then.

No one is suggesting we don’t fight terrorism. We’re saying that being in Iraq is not accomplishing that. We are flushing vast amounts of money down the toilet (more than this nation has or can safely borrow) on Iraq. That money and our attention could be used to more successfully fight against terrorism.

Because of this war, we haven’t even implemented the most basic recommendations of the 9/11 commission. We haven’t secured our borders. We don’t have the leverage, respect, or time needed to organize international task forces. Our forces are depleted. We are in massive debt. We’ve instituted laws and procedures which contradict our American values (surrendering in a way). We’ve ignored other threats that we would normally have dealt with (e.g. Katrina) or that we would be dealing with (e.g. Global Warming).

Al Qaeda wanted to lure us into a long prolonged fight abroad. Bush did their bidding! Zarqarwi actually made plans to lure the US into a war with Iran, and we are heading in that direction! How stupid can we be? If the enemy comes to our shore, it’s support for this president that’s made it possible.

We’ll protect you too Max

Max

Your article does not show how “wrong” the statement is. Reverse your point of view. Take the Al Qaeda perspective. Do you think they would contemplate withdrawing from one battle field in hopes that we would leave them alone in another? And does the fact that the U.S. can engage in both Iraq and Afghanistan indicate that we are not making resource allocation choices? Do you think that they are thinking that since we are still fighting them in both places, the best thing to do would to pull out?

Re Iran - I addressed that many times. You have created this straw man out of your projections of what you would do if you were George Bush. If we invade Iran, I will criticize it, although since the U.S. is MY country, I will try to make the best of it and not try to help it fail.

The current strategy is to squeeze Iran with economic and political pressure. It is to interdict Iranian forces in Iraq. It is to engage the Iranian people with information campaigns. It is to work mulitlaterally. The Europeans have had the lead for years. Which part of that strategy do you dislike (besides that it is a Bush policy)?

Why do we waste our time arguing in threads like this? Look at the idiotic title of the article: “Democrats Promise Surrender.” The shortest of comments are all that are needed to respond to trolling such as this. For example:

On Bin Laden and Al Qaeda:
“I truly am not that concerned about him.”
“But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became — we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore.”

The Iraq “insurgency”:
“I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.”

Afghanistan:
Tora Bora

Homeland Security:

9/11 Commission Recommendations — ignored.
“You’re doing a heckuva job, Brownie.”

Seriously all we need do to respond to this crap is fling short phrases, or the words of our obviously retarded Republican leaders right back in their faces.

During the past few days there have been the following major terrorist attacks:

Iran: about a dozen Shias killed by a blast set off by an Iranian Sunni group. Whoops! This does not fit into the American world view AT ALL!

Thailand: over two terrorist dozen bombings,and at least seven dead, most likely carried out by Sunnis. The bombs exploded around Thailand almost simultaneously, a modus operandi typical of Al Qaida.

Pakistan: another dozen Shias killed by a blast most likely set off by a Pakistani Sunni group.

India: About 67 people horribly burned to death on a train, caused by a terrorist bombing. The terrorists may have been Muslims, but there is a good chance they could also have been Hindu nationalists.

Draw your own conclusions.

TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH—I AM NOT ALL THAT CONCERNED WITH bIN LADEN.

The Administration and flunkies argue that we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq rather than here in America and that Iraq has become a giant terrorist magnet. At the same time, Al Qaeda’s leaders, bin Laden and al Zawahri are rebuilding their organization and re-establishing contact with their operatives around the world. The Administration knows that the bases are training more operatives for strikes around the world. However, Pakistan is our ally because they don’t have oil and when the terrorists strike again it can be blamed on Clinton or the Democrats.

‘Al Qaeda wanted to lure us into a long prolonged fight abroad. Bush did their bidding!’

…and the Dems are doing it now!!

Republicans have certainly made some “dumb” comments during this war; however, the “slow bleeding” process, by the Democrats, to take the US out of Iraq is (by far) the most ridiculous act against our country, thus far.

This is not courage; courage would be to cut off funds and “go with the polls” and end this war. Yet, the dems aren’t doing this. They just continue to “claim” that they are supporting the troops and that they’re doing what’s best for the country.

In all of the Democratic pronouncements, I’ve never heard a plan that addressed the fact that there are groups out there who want to attack us and kill us. What do they plan on doing about that? What do they plan to do to help the Middle East become a safe place to live?

Tomd,

Why aren’t you in Afganistan or Pakistan then? You really are off your rocker when you start coming up with paranoid scenarios and threatening your countrymen. Don’t worry, if Al Qaeda invades our shores I would gladly defend my family and countrymen.

The whole question in Iraq is how are doing defending this country from terrorists? Quite miserably by most benchmarks. How about lives lost and destroyed? Are you the judge of the world who gets to say 3,000 lives in the World Trade Center is worth hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and over 3,000 American soldiers lives and counting?

I’d like to know more about the scenario you envision of “the enemy” coming to our shores. Are we about to be invaded by an AlQaeda or Iranian Army? If some terrorists blow up the Los Angeles International Airport are you going to go out and shoot everyone in a turban? If I “get in your way” for indiscriminately rounding up people or killing them that would probably make me your enemy but it would make you the enemy of all Americans, the Bill of Rights, and civilization itself.

LO,
Are you too PC to name who you actually mean?

Eric the topic was “Democrats promise surrender” Not “What is the Democrats plan for dealing with those groups that want to attack and kill us”

Does this administration have what it takes to win this war?Today’s headlines seem to suggest otherwise.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 — Senior leaders of Al Qaeda operating from Pakistan have re-established significant control over their once-battered worldwide terror network and over the past year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials…

The new warnings are different from those made in recent months by intelligence officials and terrorism experts, who have spoken about the growing abilities of Taliban forces and Pakistani militants to launch attacks into Afghanistan. American officials say that the new intelligence is focused on Al Qaeda and points to the prospect that the terrorist network is gaining in strength despite more than five years of a sustained American-led campaign to weaken it.

Jack

“e Iran - I addressed that many times. You have created this straw man out of your projections of what you would do if you were George Bush. If we invade Iran, I will criticize it, although since the U.S. is MY country, I will try to make the best of it and not try to help it fail.”

To help it fail Jack? This neocon ploy to shirk responsibility and make dems look like unsupportive patriotic wimps is getting very old, very lame and has most definately been overused.

As most people, regardless of party affiliation see it, the problem with this misled and mishandled republican coerced mistake is that it was a failure a long time ago. Anyone with any common sense can see that it is time for us to swallow our pride, admit our mistakes, regroup, refresh our military and take an intelligent approach to the fight against terrorism. Of course an intelligent approach would require an administration with diplomatic negotiating powers and non alienating policies of which this current administration quite apparently is mostly devoid.

The fact that this mess is a failure is in no way the result of those of us who oppose. The failure is the result of creating and hurriedly rushing illprepared into an unwarranted and ill advised conflict. And who at this point can honestly and confidently say that we were not led astray as to the reasons why.

This opposition is not about party affiliation, Bush bashing or the right to say I told you so. It is about the realities of failed policies, wasted lives and a s—tload of money which we feel could be better spent here at home.

And if it turns out we are right, of course we will say we told you so. That is just human nature. However to imply that this right is somehow our motivation to oppose shows neocon shortsidedness and is just plain foolish.

Jack: You said that Al Qaeda had no resources and were putting them all in Iraq. The article says that Iraq has plenty of resources and is setting them up in Afghanistan. The fact that you can’t even admit a simple error speaks volumes. I guess I finally see what you share in common with this president.

I’m expecting another “Mission Accomplished” photo op soon. I mean, Bush today compared himself to George Washington with typical Bush Hubris. It now looks like we have Putin right where we want him.

Yeah, I like it! Mission Accomlished!

We’ve achieved the goal of truly reviving the Cold War! Detente’s for wimps! It’s a MAD, MAD world!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070219/ap_on_re_eu/europe_us_missile_defense;_ylt=AmQcQ4neIWwySEg36LqB1cTMWM0F

tomd-
When do you expect the Iranians or anybody else to cross the Atlantic, make it past our Air Force and Naval Defenses, invade a technologically sophisticated superpower and lay waste to the populace?

The case for foreign invasion is thin. Just because 9/11 happened, and 9/11 was unimaginable, doesn’t mean that every horrible outcome that’s unimaginable or unlikely could come to pass.

Jack-
A government should have a solid practical basis for action in war, and a solid political basis if it is a war of choice. Bush has neither. Like I said in a previous post of mine, We should give up on Iraq, rather than lose in Afghanistan.

It’s not my job, or anybody else’s to support a mistake. A true leader earns support with the quality of their work and the persuasiveness of their arguments for it. The alternative is what’s torn your party apart: artificially maintaining support for policies that they ought to have been pushing for improvements in, just as forcefully as the Democrats. Party loyalty can kill a war with love, by overlooking strategical and tactical mistakes at a time when they should be recognized and resolved.

Rahdigly-
The irony is that Murtha plan poses a problem for Bush’s policy only because Bush is running the army ragged. That’s the dilemma that the Murtha Proposal creates, and it’s kind of ingenious.

All Murtha wants to do in this plan is bring units home and allow time to refit, recuperate and rest, which is consonant with what was done in times past with wars. Bush, though, has tried every trick in the book (extended tours, repeated callbacks, use of the national guard and Army and Marine reserves) to cover up for an army that is clearly not large enough to maintain a war of even Iraq’s size for the years that Bush wants.

It’s only Bush’s failure to expand the ranks of the military, to come up with a sensible manpower plan for Iraq that makes this proposal a potential war-ender. If Bush’s policies actually made some military sense, It would hardly put a dent in things.

The proposal exposes the central hypocrisy of how this president wages war: he supports the soldiers with lip service, but has created a system that has absolutely dropped military readiness through the floor. If he were truer to his commitments, if he had the courage of his convictions to deal with the manpower problem, bringing soldiers home from the war to rest, rearm, and recuperate, he would have nothing to fear from Murtha’s proposal.

How do you defend a lack of military readiness? Do you want us to get attacked? Do you want to embolden our enemies?

Eric-
First, we can’t make the Middle East a safe place to live. The residents must do that. I wouldn’t mind helping, but I don’t call multiple Bush-Doctrine wars help.

Second, we’ve made plenty of plans, you just ignore the ones that don’t look like yours.

Max

Read more carefully. I said Al Qaeda has limited resources. This is true of any organization. The reason I compared it to the U.S. is to show that even the U.S. has limited resources. I do not know how to explain that to you. If you spend resources one place, you are not spending them in another. You may well have enough to do many things, but how you allocate your resources indicates what you think is worthy or important.

ILdem

We are speaking of a hypothetical invasion of Iran, which I do not think is a realistic possibility. I agree with you that it would be a bad thing to invade Iran. You really do not get to argue that point or call Bush dumb for doing what he has neither done nor threatened to do.

Chris2x

The enemy will not invade as a conventional invasion occurs. They are here now! And they continue to enter our country. They will do some dastardly deed not from an invasion force, but by small groups either as suicide mission candidates or to regroup and redo.

KansasDem

Bush apparently holds himself in high regard. I find it astounding that someone of such limited capacities can be elected twice let alone once. I too have noticed and am concerned about the apparent erosion of diplomatic good tidings between our two countries. However I am not surprised as Bushco has proven to be diplomatically challenged in all areas. Lets hope we can survive another 22 months of his leadership.

Someone should mention to him that self righteousness is not a virtue. But I seriously doubt he would make the connection.

Stephen,

“The irony is that Murtha plan poses a problem for Bush’s policy only because Bush is running the army ragged. That’s the dilemma that the Murtha Proposal creates, and it’s kind of ingenious…All Murtha wants to do in this plan is bring units home and allow time to refit, recuperate and rest, which is consonant with what was done in times past with wars.”

Do you think Murtha’s plan would have worked in WWII?!

rahdigly, slow bleeding, really? Pray tell what do you call what the Bush Administration has been doing to this Country in Iraq the past 3 years? It certaingly hasn’t been a fast bleeding but it has definetly been a bleeding none the less.

LO
I used the British/civil war anology as a means to show our unfortunate position in Iraq. Obviously the Brits did not intervene for the reasons you pointed out plus ,I would submit,they were smarter than our current leaders.
I am curious as to the geneal direction of your post. Do you think we should have just nuked Falluaja etc.? Kill all the Muslums?Kill all the Sunni Muslums?I hope not. A pathway back to the dark ages (with a radeoactive glow) is not what I would give my children.

Jack

“ILdem

We are speaking of a hypothetical invasion of Iran, which I do not think is a realistic possibility. I agree with you that it would be a bad thing to invade Iran. You really do not get to argue that point or call Bush dumb for doing what he has neither done nor threatened to do.”

Jack my reply was meant to coincide with the fact that the mess in Iraq is what is leading to Iraq. I am not calling him dumb for doing something that he has not yet done. And my main point is that referring to dems as unpatriotic because we do not believe in a failed cause is totally wrong and shortsided.

Tomd, post#208799
Glad to see patrotism still alive out there.
Steve, post # 208805
Thanks for your service over there in Iraq! There are a lot of us behind you here in the states wishing you and your brother soldiers victory and a safe return home.Give em Hell!

Rahdigly-
They had a draft in WWII, rather than rely on an all volunteer army of limited size for an extended period of time. I greatly doubt that the cabinet secretary in charge of the Army was bargaining down Eisenhower before D-Day on the number of troops he would send across the English Channel.

I was reading that article about the conditions at Walter Reed hospital, and besides gettin pissed off as hell that this is what happens to our soldiers after all they’ve done, I noticed what some guy said about this war’s peculiar nature:

Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman, commander at Walter Reed, said in an interview last week that a major reason outpatients stay so long, a change from the days when injured soldiers were discharged as quickly as possible, is that the Army wants to be able to hang on to as many soldiers as it can, “because this is the first time this country has fought a war for so long with an all-volunteer force since the Revolution.”

Since the revolution. Do you guys have any idea of what you’re doing? There’s a reason that hasn’t been done, and it’s at the heart of what makes Murtha’s policy so dangerous to your president: to keep fresh troops in the field takes a great number of soldiers. A small, volunteer army works if you’re not going to fight a lot of big, extended wars. But it doesn’t work if you do things Bush’s way.

Why does Bush see fit to ignore 200 years worth of wisdom as to how to run a war?

tomh,

I understand we cannot be invaded by AlQaeda in a conventional war sense. I am just trying to point out tomd’s emotionally overwrought response to the terrorist’s attack on our shores (911) represents a lack of thought. His need to get his gun ready and threaten those who get in his way implies what if we are not fighting a conventional war? Is he talking about rounding up all muslims in this country at the point of a gun? If I stand up for a fellow American’s rights will he shoot me?

This kind of crap thinking on his part is why we are in this mess in Iraq and many Americans still think Iraq had something to do with 911.

just a note,
feb 19 1945 was D-Day on Iwo Jima
1st day 566 killed 1,755 wounded.

BillS, I haven’t advocated nuking anybody so I don’t really follow your drift.

I do think though that recent technological advances in warfare have caused all of us to entertain ideas about waging war which simply do not make sense.

Had they been available, neither World War II or the American Civil War (since we’ve been using those examples) could have been won using precision guided missles or standards of engagement which sought to sort out military and civilian targets as if they were completely separate and had nothing to do with each other.

I consider it a largely unproven notion that an actual war of conquest (as opposed to a punitive actions as were directed against Serbia) can be won without—in some measure—setting out to deliberately demoralize the enemy’s civilian population and motivate them to sue for peace and to rise up, if necessary, against their own government in order to secure their own survival. This does NOT mean indiscriminately targeting civilians—far from. But if the enemy’s civilian population still fears their own government and/or the insurgents fighting amongst them more than they fear you, you have an insurmountable problem.

I’m not saying that the US SHOULD try to kill civilians, but going out of the way to spare any damage to civilian infrustructure and to leave social and economic systems intact is simply folly in most cases. Afghanistan may be a unique case in this regard since the Taliban really was a relatively weak centralized government dominated by foriegn influences (Pakistani) which was already fighting a civil war against a mostly indiginious army. In that situation, a nudge and war of half-measures made sense.

In most cases though, if confronted with an enemy who we’re not willing to fight “total war” with, then we should simply not fight that war. We should ONLY go to war when the threat to the United States is such where we’re willing to play for keeps.

I supported the war to remove Saddam for a few months—that is, until it became apparent that smashing his regime was only the first step in a long chain of folly. At the stage we’re at today, there are no good options, and simply leaving would be the worst of all. It’s not about making excuses for Bush OR simply wanting to see him fail. What he’s doing in Iraq may still succeed—and I hope it does for all our sake—but I’ll never think it was gone about in a sensible way.

Stephan,
Their was a draft in WW11 but I would say a majority of the troops enlisted. In my families case, my dad was drafted in 1942 and my 2 uncles enlisted in 1943. It was a different time though, people were more patriotic as a whole.

“I am just trying to point out tomd’s emotionally overwrought response to the terrorist’s attack on our shores (911) represents a lack of thought.” There you go again… assuming I meant something other than what I said. My “emotionally overwrought response” is to the increasing attitude of cowardly behavior I see from the left.

” Tomd,

Why aren’t you in Afganistan or Pakistan then?”

I’ll compare resumes with you if you like, but are you saying I shouldn’t voice my opinion if I don’t go and fight?

“His need to get his gun ready and threaten those who get in his way implies what if we are not fighting a conventional war? “

How does that imply a conventional war any mort than any other type of war?

“Is he talking about rounding up all muslims in this country at the point of a gun? If I stand up for a fellow American’s rights will he shoot me?” Please point out where I said anything that would give you that idea.

Talk about paranoid.

Jack said:

I expect that Al Qaeda also has limited resources. The fact that they put so much effort into Iraq indicates that they think it is important to defeat us there and that they are not putting those same resources someplace else.

1. Al Qaeda is ramping up, building new bases.
2. They are putting more and more of these resources in Afghanistan.

It’s not the money that bothers the dims about the war in Iraq. They waste more money in a week than has been spent in the war on terror with their social ills.

It’s not the men and women killed in the line of duty. More people die in LA in a month than since the war began.

It is the fact that they hate America for what it stands for and wants what pol pot, Hitler, and Stalin had. COMPLETE AND TOTAL CONTROL OF OUR LIVES.

What a bunch of jackasses.

Stephen, I’m still not sure, after all this time, if you’re comments are about our country at war or just bashing Bush.

Every war there is fatigue and battle weary amongst our soldiers. It’s clear that the US Military doesn’t want to institute a draft; the morale and the results are better with volunteers. And that’s what we have.

Murtha’s plan would be futile to victory (in any War), b/c it’s based off pulling out before the mission is accomplished.

Do you truly think that these troops want to pack it in and lose this War just to get some (well deserved) rest? The troops want to accomplish their “mission”. Period! They know what’s at stake; they know the soldiers who have died and been injured; they know the time they’ve spent away from their families. All they need from the American people is to support their mission and they’ll accomplish it. That’s all they need from us.

If they didn’t like their commander in chief, they’d vote against him (2004). They didn’t. They know their mission, so let’s back them and stop bickering about the Administration.

Rahdigly said: “The troops want to accomplish their “mission”.

There mission is what their commanders tell them it is. Your belief that our soldiers define their own missions is faulty in the extreme. If the President says tomorrow there mission is to exclusively train Iraqi Army troops and nothing else, that becomes their mission and they will do their very best to accomplish it with the resources put at their disposal.

Their mission is what the U.S. Government tells them it is. If the mission changes, they won’t be demoralized. That is a complete fallacy of understanding promulgated by many who have never served.

im said: “It is the fact that they hate America for what it stands for and wants what pol pot, Hitler, and Stalin had.”

Man, what an ignorant statement that is. If it were true, their would be mass emigration by Democrats to other nations more to their liking, like CUBA. The facts just don’t support such a proposition.

Comments like this show rejection of their very own Party leaders, the vast majority of whom (Republicans) said on the Congressional Floor that disagreeing on the war in Iraq is not an unpatriotic act, nor is ignorantly supporting a lost cause.

LO
Thanks for clearing that up. Options are indeed limited including the option to”stay the course”. We the people will just not stand for that.

David R,
I did serve same time you did and you are correct, their moral and belief in their ability to defeat the enemy will not change. They will however remember the politicions playing politics that could prevent them from victory over our enemy.

David
Didn’t a lot of liberals promise/threaten to leave the country if George Bush was reelected? I know that not many really did (they believe in talking about things but not doing them), but they are ones who started the silly game.

Max

It is just a matter of math. They do not have limitless resources. They are choosing to commit resources presumably where they are most interested in getting what they want. If they can ramp up simultaneously in very many places, I think we have to worry even more about the global war on terror and need to ramp up ourselves.

Jack, tell me which Democrats of consequence said that? Any of the leadership? Any politicians? Any precinct captains. I mean, Timothy McVeigh was a Republican. Should he be permitted to speak for Republicans and you in word and deed?

Give it a break.

Dolan, your comment lacks any credibility. Our troops don’t define foreign policy, nor would most of them presume to. Most of them are intelligent enough to admit they don’t have all the facts and information to make such decisions, though they may have opinions just like you and I.

You don’t have a clue what our troops think. The polling research organizations do, because they asked them in significant numbers. The majority response was the surge won’t work, and we will not succeed fighting the Iraqi’s civil war for them.

I haven’t seen the polls on the following question but, I suspect if asked if they can handle al-Queda, their response would be “Just point them out!”

Our soldiers are intelligent enough to distinguish between combat against the enemies of our nation and the combat against a nation divided amongst each other. Regretfully, many civilians here aren’t.

Jack said: “It is just a matter of math. They do not have limitless resources.”

Neither are ours. From what I read, their resources are growing, ours are diminishing. I mean, what is their national debt up to, now? OURS is approaching 9 Trillion dollars, a 70% increase since 2001. You do the math.

Was he a Republican? Hitler was a vegetarian and an animal rights advocate. So what? That is not what they are known for.

I didn’t say Democrats; I said liberals. Not all Dems are infected by liberalism. Take a look at your/our own blog if you want to see that loose talk about leaving the country. We should be free of many celebrities by now if they kept their words. I never thought anybody would actually go and made fun of them at that time too.

David R,
You presume to know where I find my information without knowing anything about me.I do not have any close friends that are not either vets or are presently active duty now. I would say you base your opinions on polls and you anti war beliefs you held before you were a soldier and as a demonstrator. You are an over educated intolerant self proclaimed expert. Dont ever tell me what I think lacks credibility and that I dont have a clue you dont know me sir! I have treated you with respect as to your opinions before but no more.

Jack
“infectd with liberalism” My,aren’t we fiesty this evening. American Heretige Dictionary..2.a”.A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties,government by law with the consent of the governed,and protection from arbitrary authority.”

Care to question the source?Does the dictionary have a liberal bias? Those are founding princples and not archaic. It also says we believe in the gold standard. Hadn’t thought about that for awhile.Useing”liberalism” as a perjoritve is something you most often eschew,instead relying on reasoned persuasion. I hope you return to that vane.

We have defended you in all wars past and we will do it again when the enemy comes to our shore.

LOL! Let me know when you sight the terrorist invasion fleet, tomd.

Seriously, at what point did Americans become so afraid? We won two Great Wars and a bunch that weren’t as great, and all of a sudden we’re skeered of a few hundred assholes sittin in a cave somewhere. God help us…

But Dolan, your anecdotal opinions still do not override empirical statistical polling. I know from your comments that you don’t know what you are talking about when you speak for all the troops. Because what you have to say contradicts the polls by those whose bread and butter depends upon accurately assessing opinions of far more troops than your little circle of friends.

Logic is logic, Dolan. One can refuse to use the rules of logic, even make up their own rules, but others will neither comprehend nor agree with one who does that.

Jack, 7.2 million Americans have left the country to live overseas. My bet is, there is no significant weight one way or another as to whether they were liberals or conservatives. Probably the same mix as the 300 million who haven’t left. A bit wealthier though, perhaps.

Marysdude,

A better question…who was the enemy in Iraq before we showed up?

I don’t know, can we ask Hillary?

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people.

… In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. ~Hillary Clinton, not too long ago

David,

Eric, that comment is 100% applicable to President Bush. We all know that Bush could have given our military the go ahead to launch bombing runs on Baghdad and al-Anbar Province at anytime which would have destroyed those populations and ended this Civil War in days. But, Pres. Bush has tied our military’s hands behind their backs refusing to give them the green light for victory.

What?!

David, are you saying that your method of dealing with the insurgency would be to obliterate entire populations of Iraqis? Why not just nuke a few cities whle we’re at it. That would end all the violence.

dolan,

“just a note,
feb 19 1945 was D-Day on Iwo Jima
1st day 566 killed 1,755 wounded.”

If this is a comparison to our current situation in Iraq, it is apples and oranges.

At Iwo Jima, an island that is 21sq kilometers or about 8sq miles (by comparison the island of Manhattan is 20sq miles), America committed approx. 110,000 troops and secured the island in 2 months.

Iraq is 169,234 sq miles, and America and it’s allies committed only 3 times that many (300,900) to take and secure a country about the size of California, and nearly 4 years later Iraq still isn’t secure.

I think the key word here is commitment.
Those that lead us don’t seem to be interested in doing whatever it takes to assure a victory in Iraq.

The mission in Iraq wasn’t hamstrung by Congress, or the lack of support of the American people.
It has been the policies of this administration, Messrs Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, that has caused the failure.
The lack of commitment to do whatever it took to assure victory in Iraq starts at the top.

Those on the right want to point to WW2 as an example of how terrible war can be.

Despite being dead for 60 years FDR could run this “war” from his grave better than this crop of bozos.

So, Jack, Eric, how do we win this war?

We are winning. Name a battle we have lost. Name a mission where insurgents defeated our troops.

tomd,

Nice try but you still haven’t answered my question. Here is what you said,

To the others (and you know who you are): We have defended you in all wars past and we will do it again when the enemy comes to our shore. If that should happen, don’t try to hold me back. You might become my enemy then.

What are you talking about besides you are pissed off at liberals? Why would I hold you back, under what hypothetical scenarios are you talking about? I offered a couple of scenarios because I don’t know why I would be your enemy or how I would “hold you back”. Obviously, we are not in a conventional war so what are you talking about besides being acting like a blow hard?

“Nice try but you still haven’t answered my question. Here is what you said,

To the others (and you know who you are): We have defended you in all wars past and we will do it again when the enemy comes to our shore. If that should happen, don’t try to hold me back. You might become my enemy then.”

If the sho fits…..

Rahdigly-
Claims of Bush-bashing seem to be a standard means of ignoring the fact that there are rational reasons for looking negatively upon Bush’s actions.

Fresh troops are not a convenience, but a necessity of long term wars. Do the research and you’ll find this out. War is stressful on the mind, the body, the unit, and the equipment the soldiers carry. It is not weakness to bring units home, but an opportunity to let the soldiers clear their heads of the stresses of the war, to let their bodies recover from that stress, to let their vehicles be repaired and retrofitted, to let worn-out equipment be replaced over an entire unit, rather than be replaced in a piecemeal fashion.

This has been what Bush’s policies have prevented, in the name of continuing the war. As a result, our readiness is in the toilet, which is bad news for us, and good news for enemies that want to start wars while we’re run ragged trying to start this one.

Like the man said in my quote, this country has not run a war for this long with a purely volunteer force since for well over two hundred years. There’s a reason: in all other wars, where large force presences were needed, the leaders bowed to military realities: a small standing army could not long fight these wars without breaking, without losing discipline, losing wars, and losing unnecessary numbers of soldiers.

The numbers of soldier we can keep in Iraq is determined by the number of soldiers we can cycle in and out, and Bush’s system has run that to its limits. Unfortunately, he’s not the bold leader you claim him to be. If he was, he would have long ago asked for an expansion of the volunteer army, and perhaps even called for a draft.

Should I have to remind you that we won WWII under a draft system? Drafts aren’t bad so long as long as the soldiers are motivated to fight, motivated to be part of a unit. They shouldn’t be called out for brief wars, of course, and it is more preferable to fight with well-trained professionals, but sometimes necessity requires that we put aside preference for what’s needed.

What we needed in Iraq and never got were the numbers of troops necessary to take over the country wholesale.

This president never gave his soldies what they needed to win: security in Iraq. Instead, he went about this war in a way that allowed extremists to take up arms and take over. Bush put our armies in a weak position, and that weakness, not any weakness in the coverage or the public, is what has lost us this war.

And yes, it is lost. You define victory in terms of not giving up. But perserverence is not everything. There have been armies ground into the dust despite their best intentions. No, there’s another element, on which you have ignored: success in the object of battle.

One can win nearly every battle and lose the war, if none of those battles achieves what’s necessary to win. Did all our victories prevent civil war? Did they prevent the Sunnis and Shia from becoming further estranged? Did we create the liberal democratic republic we promised to? Did we wrest control of Iraq from the militias and the sectarian powers that be? Did we replace Saddam’s government with one strong enough to function in our absence? If we’re winning, why do we need a surge?

There’s a dangerously seductive quality to the rhetoric of the right at this point, one that lulls one’s senses to the facts on the ground, that promotes a certain amnesia regarding what has come before. We would like to believe that this time things will be done better, if people just have faith in the new plan. But the new plan is widely regarded by military experts as insufficient, a political fig leaf that trades the ability to continue this war for the appearance that we’re committing to a sprint to the finish line.

But it’s not going to bring victory. It can’t. There aren’t the numbers in there, nor the political solutions necessary to bring the war to a close successfully.

The great tragedy of this war is that has been run by people who love war, but can’t stand to acknowledge the unpleasant or inconvenient realities of it. You can’t win a war on rhetoric and perseverance alone.

Dolan-
The real question is not whether our soldiers can win a war, but whether their leaders can. The Generals have to win the war in the strategies they choose before the soldiers can help them make that victory a reality. The soldiers aren’t merely having to fight the enemy, they’re having to fight the consequences of their leader’s decisions.

An example? Fallujah. The contractors get killed, and Bush, instead of waiting for things to cool down, orders the soldiers in, inflaming the insurgency there to the point that the insurgents essentially own the city. Then, having committed, he chickens out, taking the soldiers out before their mission there is finished. Result? Fallujah becomes and stays a no-go zone for the next six months, the chaos building outwards, and hundreds of Americans die a month owing to this emboldening failure of strategy. When we finally go back to retake the city, the damage has already been done.

It’s a pattern that repeats again and again with this administration. They try to be bold, some fiasco occurs, and they try and cover their asses, rationalizing the mistakes. As public opinion sours over the failures, they read the writing on the wall, and go back and all too late try to recover from the mistake.

It happened with disbanding the army in 2003. Jay Garner, the Administrator practically begged the president’s man, Bremer, not to do it. He went ahead anyways and added in a failure to keep the police paid and working, and a broader than necessary De-Baathification program that essentially gutted all the institutions of control, army, police, and bureaucracy that kept Iraq in one piece. We’ve been trying and failing to rebuild what we destroyed ever since.

It happened with troop numbers. Only now, after losing a historic midterm has this president decided to heed calls for greater troop presence. Only now is he even saying that he’s decided to change course, after years of stonewalling. Only, again, he’s waited too long.

The people leading this war are unable to get ahead of their own mistakes, and our soldiers are paying for it by being put in a no-win situation. We shouldn’t be refereeing a civil war at this point. We should be advising a reformed, authoriative Iraqi government and Army on how to maintain a Democracy. That would be victory. Not what Bush has us doing now.

It’s time to stop giving this man second chances. He does not want to learn. He does not want to listen to people who don’t tell him what he wants to hear. He’s too stubborn, too close-minded to be an effective leader, much less lead this country to war. If you want to see the politicians who have failed the troops, look to the Republicans.

tomd,

If we are not in a conventional war how would I get in your way? That was the reason for my “Why aren’t you in Afghanistan?” comment. Not to compare resumes or challenge the bonafides of your opinion. You don’t have to fight directly in this war to make yourself heard. If you are not part of a military or law enforcement operation I would be interested in how you “patriots” with your weapons are going to take on terrorists in this country so I wouldn’t get in your way and become your enemy. Unless Mr Bin Laden invites himself over to your house, I’m not sure what you are alluding to.

However, if you still can’t answer the question, I can only conclude you may be dangerous or a blowhard.

Eric-
Our enemies in Iraq have not defeated us by attrition of our troops in flat out battles, but instead by frustrating our aims to make Iraq a stable, calm societ