Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Jack,
You must be kidding.
The authors of the primary article, O’Hanlon & Pollack, were among the primary cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq. While the Brookings institute may be relatively moderate, these two jokers are anything but. They have been wrong and wrong and wrong, again and again and again. They are utterly lacking in credibility, and no one should listen to these people.

Here is an article in which extensive quotes allow O’Hanlon to impeach himself:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/30/brookings/index.html

Pollack is, if possible, even worse.

The military solution is not improving, and it is absurd to pretend otherwise.

Iraq is having country-wide power outages now. One large city, Karbala, went without water for three days. And remember, temperatures of 117 degrees make such outages a horrendous experience.

The political situation has deteriorated even further. As of today, there are NO Sunni representatives in the Iraqi cabinet. The government is at a literal standstill. General Petraeus & al-Maliki are having screaming arguments, because Petraeus is arming the Sunnis. Al-Maliki is less worried about Al Qaida in Iraq than Sunni militias coming full bore after the Shias.

Well, I could go on and on. But it is a terrible problem when the actual state of Iraq is so grossly misrepresented to the American public.

phx8

So you have declared defeat already?

Iraq is in a terrible state. The terrorists have systematically worked to make it so. Their goal is to destroy anything that might improve the situation. These guys are the enemy. These guys are the ones we need to defeat.

Those terrible things you mention re Iraq today will get worse if we leave too soon. There ultimately is no military solution alone. That is why I mention the other things going on. But security always preceeds progress in other areas. So a security solution is a necessary, but not sufficient step.

We all agree that a U.S. defeat in Iraq would be terrible for Iraqis, Americans and everybody except terrorists and local despots. As long as we have a chance to prevent that, I am willing to take it. The information I am hearing makes me believe it is possible.

So you have declared defeat already?

Already?

QUOTE: “While the Brookings institute may be relatively moderate”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And the Pope may be “relatively” Religious…..

(and Hillary Klinton and be “relatively feminine”)

Jack,

Nobody is rooting for an American defeat.

That said, when will we actually do what it takes to win?

QUOTE: “That said, when will we actually do what it takes to win?”

While it’s been glossed over in the MSM, it’s in the process as we speak….

Unfortunately, decisiveness can’t be packaged for the short attention span of the average liberal…

(although defeat may not come in time for the 08 election….((((cringe)))))…….

Jack,
I “declared defeat” two years ago, in writing, in comments on Watchblog, and explained why. I have been proven correct right down the line, which certainly cannot be said for Pollack & O’Hanlon.

It is not a matter of optimism or pessimism. It is simply assessing the situation and making an accurate judgment.

Will the situation get worse? How? There is almost no water and almost no electricity. The police are corrupt, the Iraqi Army nearly non-existent- we do not even hear the “when they stand up we will stand down” line anymore, we no longer even bother to pretend- and the most effective security forces are militias. Without electricity, Iraq has a cash/barter economy, with unemployment running somewhere between 30 - 70%. Over 600,000 Iraqis have died violent deaths as the result of the invasion, and that number is a year old. Two million have fled, and another two million are internally displaced.

Ethnic cleansing in Baghdad is continuing at the same pace. Between one to three dozen tortured bodies show up on the streets every morning. Yesterday, a mass grave containing sixty bodies was found, people executed recently. How many more have disappeared without counting? No one knows.

The situation is a little like chess. One player immediately loses the Queen, a Bishop, & a rook in exchange for a Pawn. The outcome is inevitable. It may take a while, but the seeds of defeat have already been planted.

Of course, we are not talking about chess pieces. We are talking about human lives lost, families torn apart, hundreds of billions of dollars down the rathole, the alienation of allies…

Meanwhile, Cheney lied through his teeth again today, doing his best to confuse Americans about the nature of the war. Does he lie because he is deluded? Who knows? Cheney wants everyone to think we are fighting Al Qaida. He wants Americans to believe we are fighting terrorists. But that is not correct, not at all.

It would be much more accurate to say that Americans are fighting the people of Iraq, and that factions of the Iraq people are fighting with one another. It is a civil war. Al Qaida in Iraq and the Sunni Islamic Salafists small factions with no- I repeat, NO- chance of taking over Iraq.

We should withdraw, immediately. Barring that, we should pursue an outside in strategy: use American troops to seal borders, prevent other foreigners from entering, and prevent the war from spreading, while the Iraqis work out the bloody denoument.

Just wondered if any of the political experts in these parts are familiar with this quote…

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

Sounds an awful lot like Iraq doesn’t it?….The Bathist regime was removed [not] for light and transient causes, however the people are indeed unaccustom to life without tolerable, evil sufferage and therefore resistant to any change…(even at the promise of liberty)….

Either way, I believe it’s called opportunity with difficulty….

Hint: the quote is from a document dated July 4,1776

Phx8, if you have been right since your prediction 24 months aqo, congratulations on foreseeing the good news that is coming out of Iraq. And enough good news to consider Jack’s broader strategy (not your tactic) of serious considering more effort in September.

I can imagine a similar statement about Bunker (Breeds) Hill during the Revolutionary War. Based on that action … then Valley Forge … etc. The war should have ended before we became the greatest nation in history.

We do not hear “when they stand up, we will stand down” because that was part of the strategy that did not produce the desired results. We are no longer using that strategy you criticized two years ago.

We all understand that the situation was not good and had deteriorated. Then the strategy changed and conditions have begun to change. In any conflict, there are many mistakes, adjustments and readjustments. This adjustment seems to be achieving what we hope.

Very few outcomes in war are inevitable. Chess is a very simple game with a limited number of gambits. We can accurately program them into a computer that is guaranteed to win every time. Human events are a lot more complicated. We allowed the forces of terror and disorder to get out of hand, but our capacity has not been significantly damaged. We did not lose any big chess pieces (to take your metaphor); what we lost the was the initiative and that is now what we are regaining.

I find it very interesting that you use Iraqi suffering as an arguement against the U.S. and then a few lines later you are eager to consign them all to a hell of civil war and destruction AND even advocate sealing their borders so that none can escape.

I think it is worth the effort to avoid defeat for ourselves and the good people of Iraq. I think there is a chance. The new strategy has given us a new beginning.

QUOTE: “Barring that, we should pursue an outside in strategy: use American troops to seal borders, prevent other foreigners from entering, and prevent the war from spreading, while the Iraqis work out the bloody denoument.”

Why do liberals with absolutely no military experience proffer such nonsense….LOL….Seal the border?…Hahahaha….OK…Let’s start the process tomorrow…Of course we’ll either need to make a deal Iran, Syria and Turkey to allow us to resupply our troops from THEIR side of the border…Barring that, we’ll first need to build bases and airfield large enough to handle the logistics for a large force…(which would take…gee…weeks and thousands of dollars…LOL)..Or we could always try and resupply the troops from our centrally located existing bases and airfields..(thru enemy infested territory) while the insurgents exacted huge tolls against sitting duck convoys….

Why do I even start these rant with ithat haven’t a clue?

Hahahaha…Shame on me…

(Anybody here ever serve in a war zone?)

Forrest,
Careful about your assumptions. I served honorably as an Air Force Officer, a B-52 bombardier. But to your point, my experiences do not compare with the experiences of veterans who have fought on the ground. Occasionally, some of those people post comments. They will have to speak for themselves.

You forget the control of US borders are limited by the restrictions of posse comitatus. We would be under no such restrictions in Iraq.

US troops along the Turkish/Kurdish border would be tremendously useful as a buffer, keeping the two sides apart.

The Iranian border would require some troops, but the Shias are not the source of the problem. They obtain their weapons through the Maliki government, and Shias do not have much of a history of terrorist acts in Iraq… Well, some, but it is more of a reaction, a tit for tat ethnic cleansing, Death Squads, destruction of mosques, and so on. But over 80% of US casualties come at the hands of Sunni insurgents- especially ex-Baathists and the 1920 Revolutionary Brigades, nationalist groups who have no use for the religious fundamentalists.

The key would be sealing the Saudi/Syrian border. Nomads cross back and forth at will, as do smugglers and worse. That has to be stopped.

Before dismissing the idea out of hand, consider the benefits. The most unpopular faction among Iraqis are the suicide bombers, the foreign jihadists. Most Iraqis believe only foreigners would resort to suicide bombing. If the US committed its resources to stopping their entry, it might make Americans more popular with Iraqis. Americans would be seen as there to help, rather than occupy & effectively annex. Because right now, next to the foreign jihadists, US troops are the second most unpopular faction among Sunnis and Shias, and the vast majority of both groups want us out of their country.

But the most common cause of violent death among Iraqis are not suicide bombers- most die by gunshot wound. And the people who are shooting are mostly Sunnis & Shias, and these two groups will need to make their own peace.

Edge,
What good news?

Jack,
Argh, I deserve getting skewered for using a chess analogy. Analogies almost never work. Oh well.

I do believe we have a moral obligation to prevent genocide. I have seen polls of Iraqis which suggests they are optimistic about the results of an American withdrawal. I think it is definitely worth running the risk, the risk of negative consequences. However, an outside in strategy could be more advantageous than the Murtha “over-the-horizon” strategy. Think about it.

Funny how some of you react to the two brookings scholars; trying to dismiss their article b/c they are telling the truth about the surge. Many of you (and you know exactly who you are) argued for years that the (bad) news coverage in Iraq was accurate and indicative of the reality Iraq. You downplayed the democracy of the voting that Iraq had since 2005; you constantly marked the bombings and failures inside the “green zones”, almost to the point of cheering. Many of you also said that you support the troops and that when there is good news, then you’ll admit it. Well, here you go. Yet, the same bunch of you are failing miserably in taking this good news; news from people (reporters) who actually went there. And, this is just the begining, this surge will continue to show the effectiveness & success of the new strategy and the success of the US military and the Iraqi people.

The more you deny it, the more you are just going to debunk yourselves. Hell, even Democrat politicians (who have been over there recently) are seeing the results; especially the only first MUSLIM politician.

Rep. Keith Ellison made a weekend trip to Iraq, where a pair of sheiks urged Congress’ only Muslim lawmaker to help in countering al-Qaeda’s vision of Islam.

Rahdigly,
Your sources do not come from reporters in Iraq. They come from the US government “multi-national force.” There are only about a dozen American reporters actually on the ground in Iraq, and those reporters are pretty much restricted to the Green Zone. Travel outside the Green Zone requires armed escort, and it is simply too risky for western journalists to attempt very often.

Apparently the irony of supplying ex-Baathists with arms… you know, those followers of Saddam Hussein… as an effective method for suppressing fundamentalists, has escaped you.

I have advocated negotiating with insurgents- insurgents that red column commenters usually refer to as “terrorists”- for at least two years, and I have been criticized for it. And please note, this was NEVER part of the strategy behind the surge, it was NEVER one of the eighteen administration benchmarks; but the fact is, this approach works- after a fashion.

Far better to buy & bribe our way out of the mess, rather than fight our way out. In the past, negotiating with the ex-Baathists, the 1920 Revolutionary Brigades, and other Sunni nationalist groups failed because their precondition for negotiations was American withdrawal. They are willing to make an alliance of convenience today, because: 1) they are nationalists, and they are relatively secular, at least compared with the anti-historical jihadists, and 2) the alliance gives them weaponry and autonomy to brace for the day when Americans do withdrawm because 3) they have no intention of allowing themselves to be ruled by the Shias. Not for a moment.

And they still want us out of their country.

A person would have to be out of their mind to believe the Sunni nationalists are now our friends. They are the enemy of our enemy, nothing more. These groups are far from unified. Sunni attacks continue against US troops, because there are something like 30 different Iraqi factions mixing it up.

Rahdigly, I will believe the situation in Iraq is improving when independent sources in-country begin reporting it.

I am sitting here in Baghdad, wondering where this progress is.

Phx8, dude the good news from the NY Times article. Oh wait, dat don’t fit with your predictions and view of the war.

Phx8, why not look towards American victory and argue for the here and now, rather than your predictions.

To believe that every … piece … of … evideence from Iraq is rediculous.

I’ll accept that it is more your way … more bad than good … but have the courage to be objective in the interests of the country bloke.

Why yes, it’s going swimmingly:

A total of 17 ministers, nearly half of Maliki’s cabinet, have now quit or are boycotting meetings at a time when he is under growing pressure from frustrated U.S. officials to make demonstrable progress in reconciling Iraq’s warring sects.

The cabinet boycott means Maliki sets off on Tuesday for visits to Turkey and Iran this week, with signs he is losing control of his government back home.

Then there’s this:

Why do liberals Presidents with absolutely no military experience proffer such nonsense?

Edge,
The NYT article is an op-ed piece. And the NYT hardly has a sterling reputation when it comes to reporting on Iraq. Remember Judith Miller?

I can appreciate that people want a good outcome. I can appreciate patriotism. We all can.

But I do not appreciate an administration which misleads us. The Bush administration says it wants victory, but just what does that mean?

The actions behind all those fine words- words such as democracy, and freedom, and liberty-reveal that victory has nothing to do with self-determination for Iraqis, and everything to do with controlling oil, establishing permanent bases, and treating the war as if it were merely somthing for domestic consumption in order to gain political advantage.

There are ways to achieve victory, but it will not have anything to do with military conquest.

1) Conduct a national plebiscite. Do Iraqis want to remain united in a loose federation?

2) The answer will almost certainly be yes.

3) Outside in. No more urban presence for US troops. Secure borders, and keep our hands off the Iraqi political process.

3) Hold new, UN supervised elections. Grand Ayatollah Sistani and the CPA rushed the first elections, and only the Iranian-allied parties were sufficiently organized to win. Next time, it will be very different, and we need to…

4) Accept the outcome. Al-Sadr factions will win, and so will the ex-Baathists. Oddly enough, they share a dedication to remaining united. The Sunnis do not have oil fields, and Al-Sadr has his power base in central Iraq, which also lacks oil. On this account, sharing oil, they will cooperate. But otherwise, Iraq will be effectively partitioned.

We need to forget about forcing the Iraqi Parliament to sign over their oil to Exxon, Shell, and BP. We need to forget about establishing permanent bases. And we need to stop pretending Iraq is a matter of fighting terrorists.

In the long run, the real win is a victory of ideals. It means seeing groups like the Mahdi Army, Ex-Baathists, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and others co-opted, by absorbing them into the political process.

That will be pretty ugly in the short run, but that is what victory will look like. And until we have an administration willing to assert US ideals at the expense of short term domestic political gains, militarism and imperialistic exploitation…

“Scholars.”
“Victory.”
What a sick joke.

There are many hopeful signs in Iraq today. The strategic momentum is now on our side.

LOL! The Iraqi Parlaiment is on vacation, all the Sunni’s are boycotting Maliki’s cabinet, three-quarters of attacks on US troops now come from Iranian-trained Shiites and the Turks are massing on Iraq’s northern border. Things couldn’t be better, Jack. :)

I am sitting here in Baghdad, wondering where this progress is.

Posted by: yossarian at August 7, 2007 12:07 AM

I just thought that post was worth repeating, since nobody acknowledged it. Keep your head down, yossarian. Jack says victory is coming. Remember, only 40 years ago Democrats thought Vietnam was lost. Boy do they look silly now.

Phx8

You cannot negotiate with THE insurgents because there are a variety of them with different goals. Negotiation with Al Qaida is useless. BUT we are negotiating with some former insurgents. That is the policy you criticized above when you implied we were giving arms to former Baathists.

You say that they want us out of their country and we want to leave, so we probably have some common ground there. Nobody, except terrorists (not insurgents) or local despots wants chaos and disorder that would come with a retreat too quick.

Some of your suggestions are sensible and I expect some variation might be possible, but not yet. Before you can take the next step, you have to establish reasonable security and help build local legitimate institutions. The UN is unreliable in this case. They can supervise elections only if we establish the environment that permits it.

Re hands off the political process. A functioning democracy is more than an election. I agree that we made a mistake by calling elections too soon. The elections worked, but the democracy did not work as well. We should learn from that and work on the infrastructure needed for democracy, which we are now doing.

Nobody is advocating that the Iraqis sign over their oil to Exxon et al. The Iraqis will retain their rights to sell it (or not) as they wish. This is just a bogus concern.

You know that when you call for a precipitous retreat you ARE asking us to give up our ideals and roll the dice for a quick fix.

Woman

As I mentioned, the macro-political climate remains a mess. They are as only about successful in passing continuous legislation as our congress. We are working to establish a secure environment with strong and legitimate local institutions. This will not be enough in the end, but it is a necessary step. We certainly have not won yet, but the trend has turned in our favor.

All Americans should be happy about this. I understand that you, Phx8 and the others would be happy, but you do not believe it is true. In that case, we will all have to wait for more evidence.

AP

Re Vietnam - that started off as a Dem run war and it was lost as long as they ran it. Then there was a change of strategy. By 1972, Creighton Abrams had crushed the insurgency, but many Americans remained locked in the 1968 mindset. We pulled out with the promise to support the South. Later, when the North invaded, with armored columns and air support (this was not an insurgency) we stayed out. The Democrats thought we were defeated and it became a self fulfilling prophecy.

When President Ford annonced the fall of Siagon, some people cheered. Let’s hope we have indeed learned the lesson of Vietnam. Wars are political and sometimes that politics is American.

PHX,

I will believe the situation in Iraq is improving when independent sources in-country begin reporting it.

Good! You will be held to that quote! Because good news (already) has and will definitely be coming out of Iraq in the near future. It will be interesting to see if some actually will admit it and/or how others will (continue) to spin it. It is (indeed) there to admit now (somewhat) if some can ever be cured of their B.D.S. (Bush Derangement Syndrome).

By 1972, Creighton Abrams had crushed the insurgency

LOL! The insurgncy was never crushed, Jack. Nice try. What happened was, Nixon declared victory and we pulled out. 40 years later, Vietnam has most favored nation trading status with us and the government is kicking farmers off their land to build golf resorts for rich Chinese entrepreneurs.

There’s you most likely scenario for Iraq if we pull out.

A functioning democracy is more than an election…The elections worked, but the democracy did not work as well.

Gee, ya think Jack? We told you that all along. You thought elections without democratic institutions was a great idea.

We should learn from that

Jack, none of this was rocket science. We have a massive foundation of state building experience from the 90’s. There are tons of books and manuals and case studies written about it. But it was all was ignored because Republicans don’t do state building — or read books, apparently.

You guys ignored every lesson and had to learn them all over again the hard way because you hate Clinton and the UN.

Fighting an insurgency isn’t rocket science either. We’ve known how to defeat an insurgency since the early 60’s when the British defeated the Communist insurgency in Malaya. Again, a sea of ink was used to write down what works — hell, the Marine Corps’ Small Wars Manual from the 1930’s spells it out in great detail — but it was all ignored.

Jack, it’s absolutely embarrassing for you to be taking this tone in your article. YOU derided every single alternative to Bush’s failed strategies in Iraq — alternatives based on decades of experience. In a small way, as an opinion leader, you helped bring about the failure in Iraq.

And now you’re just going to shrug it off and say, “Who knew?” WTF? Have you no shame?

The Iraq war came along right when this nation needed it. When you have a cunning but not intellegent President, the best thing to do is let him get bogged down and occupy his time in some war in a little nation. I know it has been tough, especially on our troops and their families. But, just imagine what mischiefs this President would have done if the Iraq War had ended in 2003.

“I think there is a chance. The new strategy has given us a new beginning.”

thanks for so concisely encapsulating what is wrong with the neocon movement (and this administration).

sorry bud, there are no political mulligans, nor do overs in war. “new beginning” is on par with “new conservative” - ridiculous oxymorons, the both.

soon now, the dems will retake the fed, and the conservatives will retake the republican party… which is good, because given your attitude (and moreover, that of this administration), i would put far more faith in the dem’s ability to win this war than the current administration’s… in other words, yes, we lose.

if we have any chance of winning this war, it rests solely with bob gates… and unfortunately, it seems obvious that he was put in place merely to assuage dissatisfied conservatives, rather than to effect any substantial, meaningful change in the course of this sad excuse for a ‘strategery.’

“wait, wait…now we’re winning… no? ok, what about now?! … ok, well now we have to be… let’s just wait a bit longer… still waiting… well, you have to give it a chance to take… almost there… any day now… now!…er, hold on a minute more - alright, perhaps we should change our strategy - from a ‘surge’ to…uh…a ‘temporary military presence accretion’… now we’ll just require a bit more time to ‘change gears’…”

it’d be funny if it weren’t so sad.

Jack

I,for one,have utter confidance in this administartions ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory,even if you and Broohings are correct.
You apraisal of the results of our defeat in Vietnam is unsupported and frankly bizarre. For example,the leftist insurrections of Central America was a response to economic disparity,a wealthy ruleing class supported by US corporations and a populace ground into poverty.Also there was and is the legacy of Spanish colonoialism that left most of the land in the hands of a few.
The instability of 40 years of warfare,the destruction of the regions infrastructure and economic embargos had a much more significant adverse effect on Vietnam than our withdrawel.Had we never entered the conflict and abided by international accords the region would be much better off today and Nike would still be making shoes there.

“WTF? Have you no shame?”

AP, haven’t you’ve been reading Jack’s articles and comments long enough to know the answer to that question?

diogenes:
“it’d be funny if it weren’t so sad.”

Indeed. It’s a tragicomedy of truly colossal proportions.

Look at all the “Victory” in today’s news:

BAGHDAD, Aug. 7 — Iraq’s political crisis deepened Monday as five more ministers withdrew from cabinet meetings, delivering a major blow to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s fractured unity government and efforts to reconcile Iraq’s warring parties.

Hours earlier, a truck bomb in a Shiite village near the northern city of Tall Afar killed 31 people and wounded scores more, striking an area that was once hailed by President Bush and U.S. military commanders as an oasis of stability, following U.S. operations against insurgents there. Six children were among the dead, police said.

The U.S. military also announced the deaths of nine American soldiers, including four killed in an explosion Monday in volatile Diyala province, where U.S. forces are engaged in a major offensive against Sunni insurgents. The blast injured 12 other U.S. soldiers, the military said in a statement.

One soldier was killed by a sophisticated roadside bomb in west Baghdad on Monday, and another was killed during combat in eastern Baghdad on Sunday, the military said. Three soldiers were killed Saturday when a roadside bomb struck their convoy south of Baghdad, the military announced Tuesday.

Here is the link:
Iraqi Crisis Deepens as 5 More Ministers Quit Cabinet Meetings
U.S. Announces Deaths of Nine Soldiers, Four Killed on Monday in Diyala Province

Oh, and here’s another “victory” laden headline:
As British Leave, Basra Deteriorates
Violence Rises in Shiite City Once Called a Success Story

Perhaps Jack’s “Scholars” are holed up inside Dick Cheney’s bunker in an undisclosed location, unable to get an internet connection.

Adrienne,
The link on conditions in Basra is especially revealing. A civil war between Shias does not fit into “victory” narrative in any way, shape, or form. It has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

Another front in the civil war will heat up later this year and early next year, when decisions are made about the disposition of Kirkuk. It has not even started to get interesting. Last I heard, elections in Kirkuk scheduled for this fall have been postponed.

phx8, you know I agree. And look at this: Yet another retired four star Army general has gone public to say that Bush’s wars have been a complete failure.

Jack-
Defeat is more than a state of mind, and the enemies and dissenters are not the only folks who can lose a war for a nation. Has it occured to you that the road to hell can be paved with good intentions? That your efforts might actually be failing to do what they need to do? That’s what the evidence is saying.

Unfortunately, you and the others don’t care about what’s in the here and now. You’re always talking about what will happen if we leave, always telling us that if we stick to it, we will win. Regardless of that, after two thirds of a year of raised troop levels, things don’t seem to have improved terribly much. In fact, violence against civilians is worse. In fact, we have a major Sunni Faction splitting off from the executive branch and the others incapable of controlling the armed forces as a unified government.

The interim report was incredibly lackluster. What we have here is more shift of the goalposts, with the addition of more of the same diversionary tactics to avoid admitting that we’re still in a situation where the desired changes we want to make aren’t happening, and won’t be likely to happen, if things continue as they are.

Let me emphasize on important point: it doesn’t matter how well we surpress the violence, how well we seem to get along with the factions ourselves in Iraq. What matters is whether these people reconcile to each other, and that is not happening. Everything else will be but a temporary respite, if that reconciliation doesn’t happen.

If our efforts are not yielding that important change, it’s against our interests, and theirs, for us to remain. The long we remain, the worse things will get. I will not profess to know whether Iraq will settle down, or become a bloodbath. I’d just as soon we work out options to help head that off. However, the longer we wait, the more those kind of options become lost to us.

Rahdigly-
What is the truth about the surge? The truth is, it hasn’t lived up to the hype, and this is just more hype from people who were big supporters of the war beforehand.

The trouble here is that we can’t disagree with you on any count, even with good factual back-up, without you making the claim that we’re just disagreeing with you for the sake of partisanship.

This isn’t good news, this is punditry.

As for Ellison? The article says he still disagrees with the war.

I think what you misunderstand is the degree to which Democrats want this to end well. You act like we’re withdrawing out of fear, when it’s concern for our country and the Middle East that dominates our reasons. We don’t think this war is helping things. You should note that despite the get-tough rhetoric of your side, what’s winning in Ramadi is respect and calm, giving people control over their own lives. Perhaps if we start leaving, the Iraqi’s will grow more independent. They’re certainly not doing so while we stay.

The insurgents aren’t the kind of enemy one defeats by attrition. They are the kind of enemy we defeat by appealling to the best interests of their supporters and getting out of their way.

Ultimately, to win in the broader sense, we have to find ways to wean Iraq off of us. Staying or bulking up forces at this point in the game will not do that. We can’t continue this war and win the overall game in the Middle East. The military efforts to force Iraq to remain politically unified have failed, and are unlikely to succeed. The political and diplomatic efforts, though, might be able to do, where our military’s ability was compromised by bad planning and management of the war. That’s honestly what I want.

Forrest G., the choice of word “seal” was not appropriate, but the concept is. We have satellites and aerial capacity to monitor troop and supply convoys coming across Iraq’s border. That can be used to interdict incursions by neighboring nations.

Apparently, your comment’s target is not the only one who fails to keep up on war technology, strategy and tactics capacity.

Jack
The key to any decent outcome ,as the ISG suggested,is involvement of nieghboring countries,notably Iran. Although I commend the fledgling talks it appears that Bush is more interested in confrontation with Iran than progess. The reports of Iranians arming insurgents are at best suspect. Karzi of Afganistan says the Iranians are being helpful. After an amount of blathering Bush says they are not.Face it. Iran is more democratic than most of our Muslum allies,the exception being Turky.They will be part of the outcome in Iraq. They have to be.They live in the region.Bushcos continued beligerence is one more example of stubborn incompetance that has marked this regime and threatened world peace. I do appreciate you appreciation of the Dem push on Bush to open his eyes and change policies. I fear it is not enough to convince him to abandon his basic goal of controlling oil supplies with a permanent occupation of one sort or another.

BillS

Iraq is the most democratic of the Arab countries.

Even if they WANT to come to some kind of agreement, Iran’s current rulers are uncertain partners. They are currently hanging and stoning lots of dissidents but they still have a problem with dissent. Their economy is near collapse, despite the high oil revenues. The Iranian government chances of survival are not better than the current Iraqi one.

That is one of the great unknowables about the current Iraq situation. ALL of the players are subject to change. They are all weak reeds and leaning on them too much would be unwise.

Stephen

I know that you are saying what you do out of concern for your country. So am I. We disagree about what would be best.

I think we are all in danger of confirmation bias. When anybody holds a strong opinion, he tends to emphasize the evidence that confirms that opinion. I recognize that I could be wrong, as I know you do, but I still have to go with what I think is right.

What I believe strong war opponents are missing is that there has been a significant change in strategy. The use of the term “surge” was a mistake. It implies that we are just reinforcing our efforts, when in fact we are deploying a significantly different strategy that involves holding territory, NOT moving too fast, following with political and development efforts, co-opting some former opponents and accelerating training of Iraqi forces. This seems to be working better. Will it work? I think that is currently unknowable, but I believe the risk of giving it a chance is much less than the risk of pulling out too fast.

Insurgents are not the kind of enemy you defeat by attrition. You defeat insurgents by depriving them of support and safe zones. That is what we are doing now.

Phx8, thanks for those points. I don’t agree that it is a loose federation. The persumes, IMO, that the majority of Iraqis are in one camp or another. I think that the majority of Iraqis are in the camp of democracy and self rule. Representative groups distort this along with the media.

I won’t argue about moving the troops to the border. I did not always agree here. I wonder what our troops would be able to do in drying up those that walk across the border to cause problems.

Stephen,

The truth is, it hasn’t lived up to the hype, and this is just more hype from people who were big supporters of the war beforehand.

That is complete and utter Bullsh*t, Stephen. the surge in Iraq is working; you just have to take off the “hate Bush” blinders.

I think what you misunderstand is the degree to which Democrats want this to end well. You act like we’re withdrawing out of fear, when it’s concern for our country and the Middle East that dominates our reasons. We don’t think this war is helping things.

Wrong Stephen. The democrats have put themselves in a position that: what is good for our country (success, victory in Iraq) is bad for them and what is good for them is bad for our country (retreat and defeat). If you do not believe me then just look at what this democratic congressman said recently:

Interviewer: What do Democrats do if General Petraeus comes in in September, and says, “This is working very, very well at this point. We would be foolish to back away from it”?

CLYBURN: Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that.

Why (the heck) would that be a problem for them?!! If they want to win and General Petraeus says the surge is working, then why would it be a “Big” problem for them?! The answer is that success in Iraq, at this point for the Democrats, is “Bad” for them. Yet, success in Iraq would be good for the US.

As for Ellison? The article says he still disagrees with the war.

That is fine. The point of the surge was not to change people’s opinion of whether or not we should have gone into Iraq; it is to complete the mission! The point of the article, which you obviously missed, was that a war critic went to Iraq (recently) and, being the only muslim in US congress, he was “urged” by two sheiks to help them in in “countering” al-Qaeda’s vision of Islam. They are “reaching out” and “dialoguing” with us; paraphrasing some of the things you have been saying on this blog. That should be a good thing for you.

Could anyone actually define for us of what “victory” in Iraq would consist? Is such a “victory” worth the $$$ and lost lives?

That is fine. The point of the surge was not to change people’s opinion of whether or not we should have gone into Iraq; it is to complete the mission!

Which mission are we trying to complete? Getting rid of Saddam Hussein? Bringing “democracy” to Iraqis (2 million of whom have fled the country, most to Syria, which will be another whole story quite soon!)? Fighting “them” over there so we don’t fight “them” over here?

Just what the heck is the mission…seems to me, Bush already told us it was accomplished long ago standing on the deck of the Lincoln in San Diego harbor!!

Jack-
I don’t know what to say to what you’ve written in your latest response. Honestly, I find the inability of your party to allow itself to be nailed down on just what it’s saying about the war, and what it means, to be one of the most frustrating parts of all this. Are we surging, with a temporary increase in soldiers, or are we not? If not, Bush lied to us to get support for a longer war. If so, then what’s all this talk about protracted wars into the indefinite future.

This seems like a bait and switch to me, one which unfortunately puts more soldiers in harm’s way for uncertain benefit.

What’s more, like I said, even if the surge can bring peace to Iraq, we can’t win unless peace remains there when we leave.

I think you should reference what most Democrats have said about how they want the withdrawal to proceed. The majority of Americans favor a gradual withdrawal, and most Democratic candidates are happy to get on that bandwagon.

On the subject of your last paragraph, I’ve said it before. However, I don’t think you’re taking into account the current troubles with political neutrality of the armed forces and their management, the tendency of some within the forces to flip to the other side, taking their American training and equipment with them, and the continued control and governance of many parts of Iraq by nongovernmental militias and figures of power.

I’d love for it to work. Only trouble is, there seem to be, as before with other strategies, a real vacuum of concern for these parts of the equation. If government primacy cannot be guaranteed throughout the country, then the support and the safe-zones will continue to be a problem. Moreover, if we can’t get the Sunnis back, it’s not going to work. Hell, its already not working. Most of our casualties, and the casualties upon Shia Iraqis, are being inflicted by Sunnis unaffiliated with al-Qaeda. The terrorists aren’t the only ones who don’t want Iraq to work. They never have been. The most important role they’ve had to play was kicking off the mayhem. Since then, it’s largely sustained itself, especially lately. Civilian casualties are up for the month.

If you can’t answer how we stop the worst of this, if Bush’s policy is nowhere on this, even the positive developments which are real, stand to do little to win us this war. We cannot win, if we cannot go home without creating chaos.

Rahdigly-
The Cincinatti Enquirer article reads more like an op-ed than an article, and as general policy, I rarely consider them evidence of anything but somebody’s opinion. It’s more incestuous amplification of the same think-tank abstraction.

Hanlon has long been an advocate of the war. Any impression you’ve got that he had a road to Damascus conversion is wrong. All of a sudden, with bad things coming in about the war, we suddenly have this article touted everywhere and anywhere as proof that things are going well.

As for what Clyburn said? He’s splitting the difference, in true political fashion. First, Petraeus has to come out with a very positive report on the progress of the surge. We’ve got the breaking away of the Sunni governing block and the continued problems as laid out in the interim report hanging over September. You have a member of the senior staff saying “wait, it’s going to be more like November or December until we’re really ready.” Then we have the statistics on the number of neighborhoods held, and we’re badly behind on this.

Yes, it would be a problem for the Democrats if it all went well, but that doesn’t mean that we’d seek to sabotage it. The more likely approach would be a jump on the bandwagon, which is what the man is indicating would happen.

Because you’re so confident about the war’s improvement, you read into it your very biased impression of our motives and plans. But you fail to not the logical conditional, the hypothetical nature of the question, and all the things that would weight down on Petraeus’s report, given ongoing events in the war.

You’re clearly underestimating the work, the effort, the scale of the change necessary to redeem the war. We tried telling you there was a problem, but as before, you saw what you wanted to see, that being Democrats being traitors and backstabbers. You can’t get cooperation from people you’re not willing to deal with respectfully. That’s just asking too much.

Rachel

We have a choice going forward. I believe the risk of a precipitous withdrawal is greater than the risk of staying longer. There is no cost free alternative.

Victory in Iraq would mean a stable, reasonably democratic Iraq that is not a threat to its neighbors. That would be worth the blood and the treasure.

Stephen

The surge increased the number of U.S. troops. More soldiers was designed to help create conditions that would allow the other parts of the different strategy a chance to work. There is a necessary sequence. Security proceeds political development, but political developments are necessary to consolidate security. Right now we are trying to do both. It is a hard task, but it seems to be working.

This is a sound strategy being implemented by the guy who wrote the book on countering insurgencies. I do not know if it will succeed. Right now that is unknowable. But I believe it a risk we should take.

Re being mean to Dems, I do admit that I was a bit offended by Harry Reid’s preemptive surrender and I do hope he will have to eat those words. That was a terrible thing he did.

Jack,
Do not be too harsh on Reid. With the benefit of hindsight, the war was lost in the summer of 2003. We know that now. The mistakes made back then were too serious for allow for recovery.

There are a number of good books on the topic. For anyone with taste for military history, “Cobra II” is an excellent read. Although the book ends with events that happened shortly after the invasion, the concluding summary of the major mistakes made at that time delineatess the arc that has led us into our downward spiral. “Imperial Life in the Emerald City” gives also gives an excellent sense of the situation during the CPA administration. The absurdity of a poorly planned attempt to impose Republican ideals upon Iraqis, the ineptitude, the incompetence, the corruption… well, we know how that ended.

Counterinsurgency is a battle for hearts and minds. That battle ended when the American liberation of Iraq came to be perceived as a permanent occupation by a foreign power, and that transition occurred in the summer of 2003.

Furthermore, the more we rely upon a military solution, the more we unintentionally undermine the Iraqi government, such as it is. Caught between being perceived by Iraqis as an American puppet- by American demands that its Shia majority adopt a secular form of rule- and by American demands for oil legislation highly favorable to Exxon, Chevron, & BP; while simultaneously trying to please a variety of vying secular, religious, and ethnic factions, has resulted in the paralysis of that government.

American military occupation and a functional Iraqi government are now mutually exclusive. The vast majority of Sunnis and Shias do not want us in their country. Again, that possibility disappeared in the summer of 2003.

Jack
I believe you underestimate Irans stability.Their president is unpopular. Gee..so is ours. Bottom line is there is no force to that threatens their stability. Their military are national loyalist,tempered by our old friend Saddam,and are unlikely to mount a coup. If the secular aspect of their government fails utterly the Ayatollahs will step in. It should be noted that unlike all other democracies in the world,the president is not the CIC. The Grand Ayatollah is.There are no monarchs the CIA can prop up this time.A good look at the extent of influence the Persians have had in the whole region,especially Afganistan will show you. Iranian cooperation is the key not only to Iraq but Afganistan and the broader war on Islamic terrorism.It might not work but aproaching them with threats and beligerance surly will not.
Pure speculation on my part but given known history I think it is a solid assumption the CIA is busy busy busy trying to undermine the government of Iran.If correct ,that has the makings of another great mistake by that distinguished agency.If they win the Islamist gain power. If they fail,especially if they are found out,the Islamist gain power.

Jack-
You guys literally waited four years too long to deal with these issues, and it isn’t as if you can simply ask the Iraqis to forget everything that’s happened.

Regardless of everything, your plan requires the Iraqis to cooperate, an if you read your own interim report, you’ll find that’s not really happening in the ways that matter. The politicians are putting undue influence on the military. The Iraqi Army is full of turncoats. The Militias aren’t disarming. The Sunnis remain political hermits, and are even now pulling out of the Maliki government.

At some point, we have to ask ourselves what kind of influence we really have on gaining this victory. The harder that is, the less likely it is that we will win. I know you guys like to think of defeat in the abstract, where the willpower to refuse to believe in it is sufficient to win, but there is a such thing as defeat, even for those who never give up.

If you define defeat as the inability to attain the desired objectives, then Iraq can only be seen as one. We let the terrorists and the insurgents panic this country into a civil war, or something worse, as the NIE would state.

The real tragedy of Iraq is that so much of it was a self-defeat, born of its supporters. We didn’t go in with the proper numbers, strategies, resources or knowledge. We went in thinking that we could remake Iraq through sheer willpower and a surefire plan, and were proved devastatingly wrong. The failure to nip the insurgency in the bud, to secure the country and do the kind of intensive rebuilding it needed can only be fairly laid at the feet of those who lead us into that war.

But of course, to admit failure is to admit defeat, and we don’t do that, right? Problem is, realities are stronger than perceptions. If the opposite were true, then everything you said for the past four years would have come to pass. It did not.

I am dubious of our success by experience. It would take some major shifts towards better times to convince me this war really has a good chance to succeed.

Victory in Iraq would mean a stable, reasonably democratic Iraq that is not a threat to its neighbors. That would be worth the blood and the treasure.

Why are we not demanding that Saudi Arabia become a stable, reasonably democratic state? Or Pakistan? Or China? Or any of the myriad of other countries with awful human rights records, dictators, civil wars??

I’m sorry, Jack, but you’ve swallowed the entire gallon of Kool Aid that Bush, Cheney, et al. gave you…

The rest of us take pride in being able to deal with reality instead of hollow promises.

Re Vietnam - that started off as a Dem run war and it was lost as long as they ran it.

It actually started with the sending of military advisors by Eisenhower…a Republican…

Eisenhower also gave the OK for the CIA to unseat democratically elected president Mossadegh in Iran and seated the hated & violent Shah and his Savak…messing up Iran for over 50 years now…

What were those Republicans thinking!!!

Phx8

Whether you know it or not, you are still using the chess analogy. There is no inevitability about events and history shows many remarkable changes of fortune. In the middle of 1864 a lot of people would have still bet on the South.

The strategy that successfully won the war against Saddam did not work well in the post-war. The bad guys took the initiative. It looks like we have it back.

I repeat, however, that we are not relying on the military solution. The military establishing some order is the necessary step in the process, but we are following with developing local capabilities. The older strategy relied on big projects, the kinds of things you might do after a conflict. The new strategy is more local, the kinds of things you would do to win the conflict. The Petraeus strategy is a marked departure and so is his implementation of it.

We do not seek a permanent occupation and we are not after Iraq’s oil, BTW. The bad guys work overtime trying to convince people of that. We should not travel that road with them. The best situation for both these things would be an Iraq that did not require U.S. troops and an Iraq that was free to sell its oil as it saw fit to the benefit of the people of Iraq.

BillS

I know lots of Iranians and I like most of them. I have confidence in the long term prospects for the Persians. But I do not think their current government has much of a long term future. They are virtually bankrupt, a notable achievement given the high price of oil. They have stepped up the stoning and hanging of dissidents, which is a sign of weakness, not strength. The Shah’s government looked really stable a couple of years before it disintegrated, as did the Soviet Empire. It is hard for us to predict the stability of such authoritarian states.

There is good news and bad news re Iran. It is a despotism, but the lazy kind. People are enjoying more freedoms and the power of the center is slipping. It could go either way. It is possible that the religious leaders allow power to slip. They maintain some authority but are no longer the deciders. Iranians dislike their government, but they are very nationalistic. This nationalism is not necessarily a bad thing for us.

However, in the next couple of years, actually dealing with Iran is a big problem both because their current rulers do not see any particular common interest with us and because the whole place is unstable.

AND you know if we deal with them and the government falls, everybody will blame us for “supporting” them. It might be better to stand a little back from that potential collapse to avoid getting hit by the depris.

Stephen

I think of defeat in very specific terms. Defeat in Iraq, IMO, will set back our interests for a long time (as happened post Vietnam), embolden our enemies and may consign that whole region into chaos, death and destruction for a decade. The civil war in Lebanon was bad enough, but they were much smaller and not sitting in the middle of the world’s biggest oil supply. In that sense, BTW, it is about oil, but not our taking it, rather protecting the resource for the world. Oil will also fuel the conflict. It will literally throw oil on the flames making any fight many times more destructive.

If we stay, we run the risk of still having these events happen and being in the middle of them. But we also have the potential to mitigate them. It is worth the risk. We can leave at any time, BTW. It is not like there is a train leaving the station that we will either be on or miss.

Dems are way to eager to embrace defeat. That day might come, but it is not today. It is not when for the first time since the Iraqi elections, it looks like things are moving in the right direction.

Jack,

Very simply ………… all I can say is, “I hope you’re right”. My position hasn’t changed and I’m pessimistic as hell, but I truly do hope you’re right.

Maliki’s central government appears to be headed into the crapper and there appears to be some “soft partitioning” underway whether we like it or not. Just maybe some of these perceived “negatives” will turn out to be the catalyst for positive change.

I’d be very happy to say, “boy, was I wrong”, regarding this mess.

Victory in Iraq would mean a stable, reasonably democratic Iraq that is not a threat to its neighbors.

I’m guessing that lots of people in the world would like to see the US as a stable, reasonably democratic country that is not a threat to its neighbors!!

“Victory” is an outmoded term in speaking of war…it is useful only for sporting games in which one team comes out with a larger score. In war, everyone loses, even the “victor”…

Stephen

Yes, it would be a problem for the Democrats if it all went well, but that doesn’t mean that we’d seek to sabotage it. The more likely approach would be a jump on the bandwagon, which is what the man is indicating would happen.

And, are the democrats jumping on board?! Will they?!! Why did they position themselves to the point that good news in Iraq would be a problem (“big problem” according to Clyburn) for them?!!! I truly believe the answer is b/c losing in Iraq or routing for the “mission” to go badly falls back on the President; failure makes him look bad, puts the burden on he and his administration. That is politics and that is a terrible position to take when our (all-volunteer) military are in harms way. They chose to enlist and re-enlist to complete their mission and (damn it) they will indeed complete that mission; as I have said on several different occasions, we will win with you, against you or in spite (some) of you. This country will win. That is not “blind” patriotism; that is the American spirit! That is why many of us will not give up or concede failure, b/c we know that we can win and that we will. We are not “Bush loyalists”, “neo-cons”, “Bushbots”, etc. We are Americans that want to succeed and know (indeed) we can and will. Don’t take offense to this position; b/c I am certainly not calling the opposition (in this case) un-American. I’m just saying there is a big difference between dissidence and hatred. I disagreed with my (then at the time) Commander in Chief (Clinton), yet I never (ever, ever, ever!) wanted us to lose in Somalia and in Kosovo. I never routed against our military b/c of Clinton; I still wanted us to succeed b/c we are Americans and that is what we do. Big (big, big) difference!!

These Democrats and many of you (and you know exactly who you are) are not routing for us to win in Iraq. The dems should not have taken this position, it was a bad move on their part b/c we are going to have more and more success in Iraq; and it is a shame they will not be able to cheer that on. Bad choice.

Jack,
Is there such a thing as historic inevitability? Are ensuing events cast in stone, based upon decisions made today? This gets into a free will v determinism debate, which I will take a pass on for now.

But there are likelihoods, probabilities, and of course that includes elements of uncertainty.

When informed individuals predict outcomes, & recommend actions, & actions are taken based upon those predictions, & the predicted outcome comes to pass- which has been the case with opponents of the invasion & occupation of Iraq- and those predictions come to pass, those individuals have credibility. Their predictions and recommendations deserve attention.

The same cannot be said for individuals whose predictions and recommendations turn out to be wrong. People such as O’Hanlon & Pollack have consistently been wrong. They have no credibility.

If this were merely a game, being wrong would not matter. But it is no game. Being wrong has horrendous consequences.

I am appalled that Cheney continues to present the American public with such a distorted view of Iraq.

Because of people like O’Hanlon, Pollack, Cheney, and Bush, the American people have been misled. 41% of Americans now believe Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11. This percentage has actually increased, even though this is factually wrong.

Bush intentionally misleads the American people by trying to confuse the War on Terror & the Al Qaida of Osama bin Laden with the War in Iraq and Al Qaida in Iraq.

Of course, lying to the American public is not illegal. But it is immoral, and it deserves condemnation. And as long as most Americans lack an accurate picture of what is happening in Iraq, and just how bad it actually is…

However, in the next couple of years, actually dealing with Iran is a big problem both because their current rulers do not see any particular common interest with us and because the whole place is unstable.

Do you think Eisenhower’s OK on the CIA dumping Iran’s democratically elected President Mossadegh and installing the hated Shah and his brutal Savak might be in Iranian’s memories? How about the US arming Iraq in its “war” against Iran??

Funny how unstable countries can become once their democratically elected officers are violently deposed by outside forces…ramifications last for decades and centuries…

Rachel,

Which mission are we trying to complete?

Securing Iraq so they can run their own country and defend their sovereignty.

Getting rid of Saddam Hussein

Yes. Oh, and he is dead by the way; along with is terrorizing, rapist sons!!

Bringing “democracy” to Iraqis (2 million of whom have fled the country, most to Syria, which will be another whole story quite soon!)?

Yes, Democracy is a good thing. And, the 2 million people, this was addressed in another post.

Fighting “them” over there so we don’t fight “them” over here?

Yep. Unless you want the war in your backyard. Now, if the anti-war/Bush crowd keeps up their hatred; that is exactly what could happen.

“Victory” is an outmoded term in speaking of war…it is useful only for sporting games in which one team comes out with a larger score. In war, everyone loses, even the victor…

Ahhh, Chamberlain would have been so proud.

Jack
How funny. Like the mugger saying,”Give me your wallet so I can protect it for the rest of the world.” at gunpoint.

Bushco may have given up any plans for a permanent occupation or other colonial control method at this point but I doubt it.There is still talk of baseing US troops there for 40 years etc.To deny that our invasion and occupation was about anything other than control of oil is an Owellian leap of faith. The rest of the world knows better,not just our enemies. There is some speculation that Bush went for it out of a personal grudge but he got permission from the grownups because of oil.

So none of Romney’s five sons is in the military. Do any of the Rep candidates that support the war have any relatives in the conflict or is this one more batch of chicken hawks?

Rahd…I suppose you want to stay in Iraq so killing over 3,000 of our sons and daughters “makes sense”, too…

Rahd…I suppose you want to stay in Iraq so killing over 3,000 of our sons and daughters “makes sense”, too…

You stated that at least 3 “missions” have been accomplished…we’ve had so many “missions” stated, it’s hard to tell what the real one (if, indeed, there really is one, other than oil and turmoil and $$$) might be! Kind of funny (in a bad way) that Bush has had to change the “mission” so many times…wonder how many of our soldiers know what their “mission” is???

By the way, the Kurds cut a separate deal with Turkey for their oil.

“Iraqi Kurds forced renegotiation of the national hydrocarbon law, fearing that it gave the federal government too much control over oil exploration, revenue-sharing and negotiating contracts with foreign companies.”
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=118854

The Iraqi federal government has stalled oil legislation because the deal would offer western oil companies too much, at the future expense of Iraqis. Most Middle Eastern oil is owned by the state. The Bush administration demands Iraqis turn their resources and businesses over to foreign, multinational corporate control, and has actively worked to bust unions in Basra.

So none of Romney’s five sons is in the military. Do any of the Rep candidates that support the war have any relatives in the conflict or is this one more batch of chicken hawks?

Tancredo has two sons that served in Iraq. Any other (smart-aleck) questions?! You know, some of you do not even have a clue when it comes to the military. It is an ALL VOLUNTEER military; no one is drafted and no parent if forced to send their ADULT child to go off to war. It is a CHOICE. It a choice that many of you have not made; yet, you think you are “courageous” by speaking for the soldiers (who have made that choice!!), well you are not. The soldiers are fighting for this country; what are some of you doing speaking for them?!

You ought to spend more time listening to the news about our military (who are over there trying to complete their mission), rather than speaking for them. It has to s*ck for some of you that chose this position. Oh well, choices in life…

Correction. That is Duncan Hunter (not Tancredo) that has two sons; 1 of them is a Marine that served two tours in Iraq.

Jack,

really, now.

Think - What would it really be like if we WON in Iraq?

Think it out logically, Jack.

Winning is losing in Iraq, Jack.

Kansas

Soft partition. We really do not have a dog in that fight. It depends on precisely what that entails. Iraq should be decentralized. How much, I do not know. If it works, I am for it.

Rachael

There is a big difference between winning and losing in war more than in games. You are correct in the belief that war should be avoided when practical. But once involved, winning is an important goal.

Re U.S. arming Iraq. We supplied around 0.47% of Saddam’s weapons. If he had fought the Iranians with his American arms, his armies would have lasted around ten minutes.

Re Mossadeq - that was in 1953 and much more complicted than a dozen CIA officers dominating millions of Iranians. Iran developed considerably and changed a lot from then until 1979 and it was a generally very stable country. The current instability results from the limits of the current rulers. My point re the current situation is that it might not make very much sense to deal with these guys because they may not (1) have the desire to cooperate with us and (2) may not have the capacity to carry out their agreements.

Phx8

There is no such thing as historical inevitability. What happens tomorrow is the result of choice we make today. Sometimes we mistake constraints for destiny. But history has too many examples of turn arounds. Historians make the story seem logical in retrospect, but that is an illusion.

People believe Saddam was involved in 9/11 because he was involved in terrorism generally. You are right that it is factually wrong. The President has pointed this out on many occasions. Lots of people believe the U.S. build up Saddam too, which is also factually wrong. We deal with lots of myths, legends and conspiracy theories.

Al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war, but only in small ways, however they are in Iraq now. They came because they figure it is a front line in their struggle against the modern world and the U.S. I hate them, but I agree that they have correctly assessed the situation.

Re Kurds - I have always liked the Kurds and even wrote a whole post saying how they should be protected. Lately I am coming to appreciate the Sunnis too.

BillS

Saddam would have sold us all the oil we wanted at a low price. You do not have to have a military in a place to gain use of the oil. Our friends, BTW, do not give us a good deal on these things. Oil prices are determined by world demand and what producers can squeeze.

BTW - our “friend” the Shah always pushed the price of oil as high as he could, while our enemy like Saddam kept it lower. This whole blood for oil thing just does not fit the evidence and has not since the end of WWII.

RGF

If we “win” in Iraq, the region will be more stable and prosperous. It will be a win for us, the Iraqi people and free people everywhere, just like our “victory‎ in the Cold War brought E. Europe out of the purgatory of communism and success in the Balkans stopped the killing there.

On the contrary, our “defeat” in Vietnam set that region back three decades (and still no democracy) and resulted in millions of deaths. Our defeat in Somalia did the same thing there on a smaller scale. Our inaction in Rwanda cost many lives and our inablity to get the UN to do something useful in Darfur has killed 200,000 and counting.

It makes a difference.

In the middle of 1864 a lot of people would havestill bet on the South.

Jack, you have just as good an understanding of the Civil War as you do Iraq.

The South was doomed from the start. They had no manufacturing capability, no navy, a much smaller population base and no agriculture other than cash crops. They had to import food.

Some things are inevitable, Jack. One of those things is that more troops in Iraq produces more security. Another is that we cannot maintain the current number of troops in Iraq beyond this year.

If the Iraqi government can’t get its act together in the next six months then everything that came before it is good lives and money thrown after bad.

The Iraqi Parliament’s gone fishing and all the Sunnis and Allawi’s secular block have walked out of Maliki’s government, leaving just the Shiites (minus al-Sadr’s bunch).

It’s like that chicken guy’s song, Jack: “You got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em, know when to walk away, know when to run…”

I’d like to play poker with you, Jack. I need the money.

Jack
Again a total miss- read. We went to Iraq to CONTROL oil,not obtain it. Look at the big winners,the Sauds and Big Oil.Even many of your rabid brethren that think the war was a good idea because we got to kill a bunch of “sand niggers” realize that oil was the real reason.I must admit you have come a way,at least giving oil some import instead of claimming a grand and noble expansion of democracy,WMDs and the like.In fifty years the history books will place this war as just one more in a string of oil wars occuring in the late 20th,early 21st centuries. I hope we will have learned better by then.
Another total miss-read on Vietnam.What set the region back was our precence there ,not our withdrawel. You should visit some time. They like Americans. They just do not like our government.One still sees rows of bomb craters where highways used to be with dirt roads next them. Small ferry boats where bridges once stood. There are still lots of causualties from unexploded ordinance and mines. There is lasting damage from agent orange not only on those that came in contact but children born many years later. Millions killed?I assume you mean after we killed millions. Yes after Pol Pot came to power in the caos we created in Cambodia by among other things,dropping more bombs on that small country than were used in Europe in WW2. And who put a stop to Pol Pot? The Vietnamese we were targeting.

AP

If Lincoln had lost the election in 1864, as well might have happened had the military situation not shown signs of improvment, the Democrats would have made a peace with the South. It is actually very similar to today. You are right that there was no way that the south could have won a military victory, but they were looking for a weakening of will and a political one.

BillS

You know that I never hear anybody use those sorts of terms except liberals.

Re SE Asia, I mean the millions in Cambodia, the hundreds of thousands in Vietnam, as well as the many refugees. Someone who takes to the open sea with his family in a small boat usually does not think his options back home are very good. It was a general disintegration. The parties came to blows with the communist Vietnamese fighting the communists Cambodians and the communist Chinese fighting the communist Vietnamese.

I am not sure we could have won, but losing set all hell loose. Not to mention that the Vietnamese still do not trust their people enough to hold a free election.

RAH
Smart aleck question? Duncan Hunter,then is the only one that supports the war that is not a chicken hawk then. Of course their relatives cannot at this point be compelled but if it such a good war they could perhaps encourage them to sign up. Point is that it is easier to justify this stupid war when it is only working class kids paying the price,now isn’t it? What hypocrits.

Jack-
Actually, Jack, it’s very much like a train, only more complex. Good government, whether occupational or domestic, is about catching the worst problems at the best times, preventing them from developing into bigger problems and crises.

The four years that your people spent telling America to stay the course wasted time, and lost us many opportunities that cannot be replaced. It’s likely lost us the war.

I’ve noticed lately that Iran and al-Qaeda are being foregrounded as the big threats in Iraq. Truth is, they’re nothing of the sort. The vast majority of the violence is domestic and Sunni, and it continues to be a problem. This is part of why the Boycotts and resignations are such a bad sign.

And no, don’t blame me for bringing up a bad sign. Republicans like you think the problem is that the dissent is discouraging people. Truth is, much of the early dissent, and still a great deal of the current dissent focus on relevant problems. However, folks don’t bring these things out, typically, to be discouraging. Often, the underlying message is “Fix this!”

It is, more than anything, the unwillingness and sometimes inability of the Bush adminstration to fix big, obvious problems that has people putting so little faith in it, and in the war.

For all the good news lately, We’re still faced with a whole lot of bad news that doesn’t seem to be going away, that Bush’s policies aren’t resolving.

If we can’t fix what is probably the most critical element of our troubles in Iraq, then any victory we claim will be a sham. What’s worse, the soldiers necessary to keep this surge going can’t stay forever. There is a window of opportunity, a time limit to how long Bush can keep this amount of soldiers in Iraq.

Which brings me to another point: the Bush administration has consistently pushed these logistical systems to their limit, and even beyond.

As it is, the Bush administration has wrought havoc with the readiness of our forces to keep soldiers in Iraq this long. To keep them past April 2008, he’s going to have to extend tours of duty again, and that’s going to make it difficult to keep people in the army, in addition to punting the problem down the road where it will have to be resolved anyways.

People like me haven’t been so emphatic on this issue for our health. We recognize that these are the kinds of problems that only get worse if you don’t face them in the near term. This has been what the Republicans, in their antagonism towards us over our dissent, have missed.

It’s only now that we’ve politically triumphed over your party that you even discussed a real change in policy, and to what end? An policy our forces are being committed to sustain, even though we can’t properly sustain those forces.

What gets me is that even as you folks keep saying we need to stay in their as long as necessary, your policies, of the past and of the present, have failed to lay the groundwork to give you the opportunity to do that. You might see this problem as just one more to gut out, but unfortunately it’s going to gut us out instead, if nothing changes.

Has it occured to you that defeat is more than just a state of mind, an admission that indicates a failure of willpower?

A defeat doesn’t need to be acknowledged to exist. No matter how strong or bold a policy is, if the means and the plans cannot attain the object of that policy, it is a defeated policy. The current plans might have been good policy for the beginning of the war. Hell, they’re what we wanted in the first place. Unfortunately, though, the Surge did not sweep away the consequences of the four years that preceded it, and those are going to limit its success. Already now, we see most other participants in the government, particular the Sunni and Shia blocs we wanted to reconcile with everybody else, boycotting it. That lack of political reconciliation is a critical failure, and if it is not corrected, we cannot win this war.

Besides the aforementioned April 2008 deadline, we also have another issue. Interim reports indicate that Iraqi forces have not been bulked up at the necessary rate, and that our clearance and holding of territory has fallen far short of expectation. This is not surprising given one critical fact: despite the surge and everything, we are still short on manpower, especially for trying to clear and hold at this late date in the war. We’re still stretched thin.

Fortune is having to favor us, to grant us many of the successes, and a great part of that fortune lies in the hands of the Iraqis, who are not cooperating as we need them to do.

It’s probably in the interests of many parties, by themselves, that we stay. Iraqis probably do need our help in keeping the peace. However, like most human beings, they aren’t going to double up on a particular function if they see others are performing it. In other words, Iraqis will not see securing their own country as a serious, do-or-die issue unless they are convinced we will not remain around forever. In a way, the Iraqis are better suited than us to make the peace. Our policy, though, tells them to just continue things as they are, because we’ll be there to put out the fires.

There’s also something to be said for the perils of making America indispensable to Iraq’s security. We cannot stay forever, not unless Bush is willing to raise taxes to cover his war. Even then, our forces are being ground to the nub sustaining this fight. Sooner or later, we have to go, and then what becomes of Iraq?

What’s our endgame?

Democrats like myself want an endgame. We want the war to be over under the best possible circumstances. We believe ending the military part of the campaign sooner rather than later is necessary for that to be successful, that the Iraqis will only face up to the responsibilities of securing their country and keeping peace between themselves if those are their responsibilities and not ours. We can’t keep handing Iraq fish. Iraq has to learn to fish for itself.

Rahdigly-
I don’t know, not when you put so many punctuation marks at the end of one sentence.

Seriously, Clyburn was just saying it’d be a dilemma for us if and when a glowingly positive report came out. And let me tell you, to throw the Democrats back, it’d have to be one hell of a positive report, with no glaring errors or contradictions.

What I’d say is that the Democrats, though have a fallback position: whatever works. Your fallback position has been continuing to beat the same dead horse, in the hopes that it’s merely resting, or pining for the fjords.

You might want to consider something when you talk about these people re-enlisting: one reason they do so is to stay out of Iraq. See, it works like this: if you get out of the army, you get kicked to the reserves, and the reserves are often getting called up nowadays to fight in Iraq. Reenlist, though, and there’s a strong likelihood you get shipped somewhere else. You have to realize that once a persons in the Army, they’re choices and freedoms are limited, and if they don’t play their cards right, they could spend another year or two in Iraq, having just come back from there.

Things are not always what they seem, and cherrypicking the facts to get the conclusion you want is a good way to be faced with a reality you’re hardly prepared for. The reality is, there are some who hate Bush for what he represents, and there are many more whose negativity towards the man is born of what he’s done on the job.

Question for you: if they hate Bush for what he’s done, just what will their response be to somebody who says that their dislike for them is just partisan rancor, especially if they never answer their real concerns about the issue?

BillS,

Hillery voted for the war, but I don’t see Chelsea enlisting. Stop being so damned one sided.

Even many of your rabid brethren that think the war was a good idea because we got to kill a bunch of “sand niggers” realize that oil was the real reason.

This line is just sick. The war makes me glad I’m not a conservative. Posts like yours make me glad I’m not a liberal.

BillS

It is temping to say, but an invalid argument that only those who actually participate in the conflict have the right to comment on it. If we were to take that to its logical conclusion, only those who actually have gone to Iraq could comment on it or broader, only those who have been in our nation’s conflicts should have a say in questions of war & peace.

The U.S. military today is broadly representative of the U.S. population. The poorest quintile is significantly underrepresented and the upper quinitile is somewhat under represented. But it broadly looks like America.

Stephen

We disagree about future prospects. The strategy has changed significantly. The leadership has changed significantly. The new strategy under the new leadership shows some promise. What happened in the past is useful experience, but each day we are confronted by the realities of that day and must make choices about the future. We should not “stay a course in order to justify past loses, nor should we abandon an effort to atone for past errors. Our choice every day is whether what we will do will make us better or worse off.

I believe the trend in Iraq is now on our side. It would be foolish not to take advantage of this just because previous trends were not so good.

Jack
The disintegration , turmoil, and dispair that drove people into the boats could have been avoided,not by us contiueing the war but never invadeing. Had we and the French simply honored the treaty to allow a plebicite by the Vietnamese about their own future so many lives and so much treasure would not have been wasted and the region would be much more prosperious now.
I agree the Vietnamese government should hold fair elections but lets not be hypocritical. So should the Saudis,so should Singapore,so should Pakistan,etc. When the Palistinians held an election we did every thing possible to change the results.

Jack
That is not what I said. I hold a great deal of comtempt for those more than willing to sacrifice the lives of other peoples children to pursue unnecessary wars. It is a class thing and always has been in this country. With a few notable exceptions the upper class starts wars and the working class fights them. This time it is also the working class that is going to pay for it also.At least in the Civil War the rich could hire somebody to take their place. A guy could at least make a buck.

Good thing the Iraqis are starting high level talks with Iran. Lets hope Bushco does not ruin that opportunity also.

Re Mossadeq - that was in 1953 and much more complicted than a dozen CIA officers dominating millions of Iranians. Iran developed considerably and changed a lot from then until 1979 and it was a generally very stable country. The current instability results from the limits of the current rulers. My point re the current situation is that it might not make very much sense to deal with these guys because they may not (1) have the desire to cooperate with us and (2) may not have the capacity to carry out their agreements.

Still not reading much history, hey Rahd??? Not even current history…these people have looooooooong memories! Unfortunately, most Americans do not…nor do they care to learn anything about how others think or feel or act…and the reasoning behind their actions…the US is always right, huh, Rahd???

Since when is running a political campaign as good as serving in Iraq?? Supposedly it is if you’re a Romney son!!

Romney thinks his son’s campaign help is “patriotic” as those being killed in Iraq

These Republicans are such hypocrites!!

Rachel,

Your link doesn’t work.

Rachel

These people?

I agree that history is a burden to some people. Osama bin Laden still holds the “Andalusia debacle” against us, and that was in 1492, before our country was founded.

Nevertheless, “those people” do not seem to have any particular problem making deals when it is in their interests. Do not overestimate the extent of their hatred. The current history of Iran is that the current government probably has neither the desire nor even the capacity to be helpful in Iraq. It is just a pipe dream to believe otherwise.

There is nothing wrong with talking with the Iranians and we are doing it, but you cannot expect much to come of it and the implication by the Dems that somehow if only Bush talked to the Iranians that everything would be better is just silly.

Jack,

“There is nothing wrong with talking with the Iranians and we are doing it, but you cannot expect much to come of it and the implication by the Dems that somehow if only Bush talked to the Iranians that everything would be better is just silly.”

Have you ever thought that this Iranian thing might be a reverse Carter/Reagan thing and they might get serious after Bush has moved on?

Rocky

I do not think they CAN get serious. What can we give them? AND if we find something CAN they carry out their end? Their government is very unstable. It is worth talking with them, but do not expect very much from them. They have little incentive to help and probably have little capability.

BTW - I take your point re capability, hence the subtle change in vocabulary.

Jack-
The realities of today are created by the realities of yesterday. If the reality of today is that you can’t keep ready forces at this level past April 2008, then talk of maintaining the surge, much less winning with it is awfully premature. And if the number of soldiers in the Surge and among the Iraqis are not sufficient to take that territory, talk of the Surge being the key to winning the war is premature as well.

It’s also premature to talk about victory when you have this open sore of an unresolved political issue out there with the Sunni and the Shia Extremists dealing themselves out of the Malaki government. This whole thing doesn’t work unless you have Iraqis under a peaceful, or trending towards peaceful unified government.

This whole “anything’s possible if we believe” attitude is taking our eye off a number of balls, and it’s excuse to continue blindly insisting that victory will eventually come of a strategy that so far hasn’t answered the crucial strategic questions with a working solution.

Signs of hope can be seen even in the midst of the most dysfunctional war, but they do not necessarily add up to an overall victory.

If the Republicans were not so busy convincing themselves that everything is alright, perhaps they’d be quicker to respond to the issues that are dragging the war down to defeat. Unfortunately, you guys would rather do what it takes to reinforce your willpower than accept that sometimes there’s good reason to be discouraged about a plan, good reason to accept negative news at face value. Otherwise respectively, you won’t change from bad plans, and you won’t react properly to the failure of them, or to the unexpected problems that the bad news can indicate.

Bills,

Point is that it is easier to justify this stupid war when it is only working class kids paying the price,now isn’t it

And, to think, all one has to do for these “kids” is support their mission. They didn’t check with you before they joined; they made their decision on their own. They don’t need the BDS crowd’s selfish, hateful viewpoints to speak for them. Especially, when they are having success over there. Jeez, a little good news really rips some of you apart; it may be time to reconsider your stance.

Stephen,

What I’d say is that the Democrats, though have a fallback position: whatever works.

Huh…what?!!! “whatever works”?!!! Clyburn said, if General Petraeus comes back with a good report, that could be a “big problem” for us (democrats). They put themselves in a position that good news in Iraq is bad for them and bad news in Iraq is good for them. And, your response is “whatever works”! Uh, ok. It truly is amazing how some of you are clinging to the democratparty when many of them are going to be fleeing like rats from a sinking ship. I hope it was worth it…

Stephen

It is premature to talk about victory, but it is even more premature to talk about defeat.

Dems like Harry Reid are way to eager to embrace defeat. He declared defeat before the new strategy even started. Makes you wonder about his motivation.

We have a ways to go, but momentum is on our side now.

We probably will not need to maintain the surge until April. We hope to be able to bring some troops home sooner. Bringing American troops home is our goal. We agree with Dems. We just prefer victory to defeat.

We have not proclaimed victory yet. The outcome is still unknowable. I am sorry the Dems have declared defeat already.

What will we hear in September? That the surge is somehow succeeding is a given, of course; it will just need a little more time. Hmmm.

Mission accomplished.
Only a few dead-enders.
Turning the corner.
Winning (repeat 14 times).
Last throes.
Together forward.
Remarkably well.

No, no, those have already been used. How about:

A momentous change in the attitude of the Iraqi people… Or maybe a sea change. Significant progress? No, something punchier. Oh, I know!

“Vast strateg