Democrats need to lose in Iraq to win Politically

The modern Democratic Party has invested their political future in the United States losing the war in Iraq and subsequently, losing the war on Terror. They are invested in defeat and for this very reason; it will be their downfall in ‘08. I believe the silent majority of Americans want the U.S. to win the war in Iraq and defeat terrorism world wide.

Despite this opinion, the Democrats have joined with the crowd, who are a vocal minority in this country and they fail to realize that this course is the wrong way to go in the fork in the road atmosphere of today's political climate.

It is a sad day when a major political party in the United States is hoping, praying and wishing that the "Religion of Peace" win in the war on Iraq and ultimately the "Religion of Peace" taking over the United States in whole and turning the world into one big Islamic State governed by psychotic Mullah's instituting Sharia Law. I often wonder if Democratic Party Leaders such as Pelosi, Reed and Murtha feel that if they basically sympathize with and align themselves to the "Religion of Peace" that when these people do take over the United States (which they seem to endorse), that somehow they will be spared having their heads separated from their bodies?

The leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid stated on Thursday April 19, 2007 that "I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week". Here is a leader, the leader of the Democratic Party admitting and conceding defeat in Iraq. This man takes one week of violence in Iraq and applies it with the broad brush of politics to the entire overall picture of what is occurring over there. At this time, the surge had not met full strength and would not be up to full strength until the middle of June, yet here is Reed admitting defeat when the surge had barely begun. This is a prime example of how much the Democrats need defeat in Iraq to survive the upcoming elections. Here is some history leading up to the surge and some of the positive accomplishments made to date:

From 2004 to 2006, al Qaeda established safe havens, transport routes, vehicle-bomb factories and training camps in the rural areas surrounding Baghdad, where U.S. forces had little or no footprint. Al Qaeda used these bases to conduct bombings in Baghdad, to displace Shia and Sunni from local towns by sparking sectarian killings, and to force Iraqis to comply with the group's interpretation of Islamic law. Shiite death squads roamed freely around Baghdad and the countryside. The number of execution-style killings rose monthly after the Samarra mosque bombing of February 2006, reaching a high in December 2006. Iranian special operations groups moved weapons across the borders and into Iraq along major highways and rivers. U.S. forces, engaged primarily in training Iraqis, did little to disrupt this movement.

Today, Iraq is a different place; U.S. and Iraqi forces began their counterinsurgency campaign in Baghdad in February. They moved into the neighborhoods and worked side-by-side with Baghdadis. As a result, sectarian violence is down. The counterinsurgency strategy has dramatically decreased Shiite death squad activity in the capital. Furthermore, U.S. and Iraqi Special Forces have removed many rogue militia leaders and Iranian advisers from Sadr City and other locations, reducing the power of militias.

On June 15, Gens. Petraeus and Odierno launched a major offensive against al Qaeda strongholds all around Baghdad. "Phantom Thunder" is the largest operation in Iraq since 2003, and a milestone in the counterinsurgency strategy. For the first time, U.S. forces are working systematically throughout central Iraq to secure Baghdad by clearing its rural "belts" and its interior, so that the enemy cannot move from one safe haven to another. Together, the operations in Baghdad and the "belts" are increasing security in and around the capital.

The larger aim of the new strategy is creating an opportunity for Iraq's leaders to negotiate a political settlement. These negotiations are underway. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is attempting to form a political coalition with Amar al-Hakim and Kurdish political leaders, but excluding Moqtada al-Sadr, and has invited Sunnis to participate. He has confronted Moqtada al-Sadr for promoting illegal militia activity, and has apparently prompted this so-called Iraqi nationalist to leave for Iran for the second time since January.

This is war, and the enemy is reacting. The enemy uses suicide bombs, car bombs and brutal executions to break our will and that of our Iraqi allies. American casualties often increase as troops move into areas that the enemy has fortified; these casualties will start to fall again once the enemy positions are destroyed. Al Qaeda will manage to get some car and truck bombs through, particularly in areas well-removed from the capital and its belts.

But we should not allow individual atrocities to obscure the larger picture. A new campaign has been implemented and, it is already yielding important results, and its effects are increasing daily. Demands for withdrawal are no longer demands to pull out of a deteriorating situation with little hope; they are now demands to end a new approach to this conflict that shows every sign of succeeding.

These new demands are exactly what I am pointing out with the Democratic Party and how they are making a huge mistake by aligning themselves with the far left extremist groups of the United States. The Democratic Party is reaping huge monetary and political support from the far left fringe. I don't think they will realize the mistake they are making until after the '08 elections leave them once again, sitting and scratching their heads wondering what went wrong.

Posted by Joseph Nelson at September 21, 2007 9:25 AM
Comment #233732

Holy Crap! Talk about extremist! The Democrats want the US to become Islamist? Amazing.

Posted by: womanmarine at September 21, 2007 11:32 AM
Comment #233734

…and I thought the Democrats were trying to keep us from losing.

-any more lives
-any more economic stability
-any more world-respect

now I know better!

Posted by: RGF at September 21, 2007 11:41 AM
Comment #233739

Well, first there is the inherent lack of foundation for believing the majority of Americans want the US to stay in Iraq in pursuit of a definition of victory defined by Republicans in the White House and Congress.

The Democratic Party constitutes about 34% of Americans. Given the election results in 2006, a bit more than half of Independents side with Democrats on ending the war in Iraq, and Independents make up 37% of Americans, half of which is 19%. That means 53% (34 + 19) of the so called silent majority of Americans you refer to in the first paragraph, want our role in Iraq to come to an end. Not in 10 years, not in 3 years, but, within the next 6 to 18 months.

And recent polls show the majority of Americans no longer believe the War in Iraq is winnable as defined now by Republicans. A Sept. 13 WSJ article says of the polls:

Solid majorities continue to disapprove of the president’s performance and say victory in Iraq isn’t possible and that the war hasn’t been worth its human and financial costs.

Which flatly contradicts your belief stated in the first paragraph.

Second, is the illogical nature of this article’s argument that our military through more deaths and loss of limbs and mental health, can effect a political solution amongst Iraqis which will meet Republican’s criteria for victory. All the experts have been in agreement for a very long time now that our military cannot effect the political resolution that is needed for the Iraqis to take control of their situation to our satisfaction.

Therefore, it is illogical to argue that a call to draw down our military exposure to death and injury in Iraq would subvert the goals of an independent, peaceful, American ally in Iraq. The fact is, while Iraqis siphon our children’s future taxes from their paychecks through a growing national debt, their government is far more aligned with Iran philosophically, religiously, and politically, than with the U.S.

And it is truly Rovian to argue that those who seek to remove our troops from harm’s way, are the one’s endangering and undermining our troops and their families. Classic case of calling black white for sophist motives.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 21, 2007 12:02 PM
Comment #233740


The war in Iraq is not the war on terror. The war in Iraq is about oil!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bush is lying to you!!!!!! Bin Laden is the man you want!!!! You can find him in his new recording studio!!!!!! There is no win in Iraq!!!!! This is not a ball game!!!!!!! There is no surrender!!!! Who do you want to surrender to?????? This is blood for oil!!!!!

The 25% that buy this story have been lied to by the bush crime family!!!!! The war on terror is a republican campaign slogan, designed to create fear, and generate votes!!!!!!! If we leave Iraq the only ones that will loose will be the Halliburton stockholders!!!!!! Maybe Halliburton should surrender to the American taxpayer, and return the tax dollars they stole from us!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 21, 2007 12:03 PM
Comment #233746

David R Remer,

Well said and well analyzed. Thank you for the thought you put into comunicating it so well. Best of luck in getting through, though.


I like your energy and sentiments!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: RGF at September 21, 2007 12:55 PM
Comment #233749

The Rhetoric of the Republicans has been allowed to run away with itself, so that people within the party are using it without even that they’re basically just buying their own propaganda.

For example, al-Qaeda in Iraq constitutes one percent or even less of the forces involved, yet Joseph here practically acts like its running the whole war. It’s not. It is and always has been a mainly Sunni revolt against us that’s spilled over into a sectarian civil war.

He even neglects the Sunni/Shia divides that undermines al-Qaeda’s reach, and which would stand in the way of his greatest fears. Why would the Shia hand fundamentalists across the sectarian divide weapons they’d be just as inclined to use against them, as anybody else.

The right talks about Islamofascism, and various mutations of that misbegotten Chimera, as if al-Qaeda and Hezbollah represent the same Islam, as if Farsi speaking Mullahs in Iran will be welcomed with open arms by Arab speaking Imams in Iraq, as if a Religious terrorist like Bin Laden would make any lasting accord with a secular, socialist, worldly supressor of Islamists like Saddam Hussein. In trying to paint the picture of WWIV’s putative threat, they’re blurring a whole bunch of clear dividing lines in order to treat the whole of the Middle East as a unified threat.

But dealing with many enemies as if they are one is to surely undermine your ability to fight those enemies right, or to turn some into former enemies. They don’t know and respect those they fight, they don’t try to imagine the world from their perspective, to better strategize against the threats they really pose. Instead, they play at acting tough, at being the cavalry coming in to fight the overwhelming enemy.

This limited perspective is what makes the Republicans poor leaders in our fight against our enemies They’re too busy trying to look like heroes to fight the enemy properly.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 21, 2007 1:16 PM
Comment #233752

From my perspective, it’s the Republicans who are dedicated to losing the war against terrorism. Iraq is the boondoggle Al Qaeda only dreampt we would enter. A trap designed to drain this country’s resources, and wreck its reputation around the world. If we stay there, we lose the ability to carry on the fight against terrorism successfully. The Republican insistence on staying in Iraq is ruining this country and making any kind of future victory against terrorism impossible. As General Patraeus’ sunny report concluded, we will need to stay in Iraq another ten years at an expense we can hardly afford to have a small chance at success.

So Joseph, can you please explain why your party does not want to win the war against terrorism? Can you tell us why your party is clinging to saving face instead of doing what we need to to win? It is certainly a sad day when the president of the United States would rather have thousands of US soldiers die needlessly than change his course.

Posted by: Max at September 21, 2007 1:27 PM
Comment #233754

The idea that some dude in Cairo wants a Swedish cartoonist killed is proof that the dems want us all to be muslim is a bit of a stretch… but we have all already established that I do not know dung…

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at September 21, 2007 1:59 PM
Comment #233761

RGF, and others as appropriate, dispense with the name calling (repugnuts) if you want to continue participating here.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at September 21, 2007 2:40 PM
Comment #233763

“The modern Democratic Party has invested their political future in the United States losing the war in Iraq”

No, the Democratic Party knows that America won’t have a future at all unless we can find a way out of this quagmire. They know, along with the vast majority of our citizens that the Iraq war was lost a long time ago. There were no WMD, and the Iraqi’s didn’t greet us with flowers. Instead, they saw us as invaders and nothing the Bush Administration did could convince them that we weren’t. As a result of the administrations many failures, and the years of GOP majority in the Congress that blindly supported all that failure, there was no change in strategy, and thus, never a chance to bring security to Iraq. And so, the country has been totally destroyed, there are an untold number of dead Iraqi’s (perhaps as high as one million people), the infrastructure is non existant, millions of Iraqi’s are displaced, or have left the country entirely, and much of the land has been permanently poisoned by our use of depleted uranium weapons. The euphoria that was experienced by the people over having the chance to vote and walk away with their thumbs dyed blue, has given way to sectarian violence, civil war, and a government that could not be held together, and now does not truly exist.
The number of dead American soldiers as of today is 3794. The number of our wounded is well over 65,000. With no end in sight, America is spending 1.8 billion dollars a week on the Iraq war, and the cost is certain to top 1 trillion dollars (if it hasn’t already) — most of that borrowed money.

“and subsequently, losing the war on Terror.”

Winning the “War on Terror” should not entail us to continue the quagmire in Iraq, because that is a war we have already lost. Indeed, we cannot combat terrorism (which is all that can be done, since there will always be terrorism) by invading whole countries, and breaking our own military, and spending insane amounts of money that we don’t even have. The “War on Terror” should also not entail us to ignore the Constitution and subvert our founding principles, by removing our rights and liberties.
This is what the majority of people now realize — whether they come from the left, or the center — or even from the right.

“They are invested in defeat”

No, it is the far right fringe of the Republican Party that is throughly invested in this defeat. In continuing this war that has already been lost indefinitely. They also seem very invested in ignoring our Constitution and subverting our founding principles, by removing our rights and liberties and turning this country into an authoritarian police state. They don’t seem to understand or to care that these actions are sure to bring America to it’s knees if this goes on the way they want it to.

“and for this very reason; it will be their downfall in ‘08.”

I am convinced that American’s are too smart, and too fond of their Constitutional rights and liberties to allow the far right fringe of the Republican Party win the election in ‘08.

“I believe the silent majority of Americans want the U.S. to win the war in Iraq”

Heh. They’d have to be extremely silent wouldn’t they? Because all the signs have been pointing to Americans wanting us to remove our troops from the quagmire that is Iraq.

“and defeat terrorism world wide.”

All Americans want to defeat terrorism, they just don’t seem to think that tearing up our Constitution, continuing a losing war indefinitely, breaking our military, spending money we don’t have, and leaving our borders wide open is a very good way to do that.

“the Democrats have joined with the crowd,”

They’d better if they know what is good for them. Because the moveon crowd is the BASE of the Democratic Party, and without that base, there will be no one willing to work very hard getting Democratic politicians elected. Without that base, all that is left is a bunch of people who love to call themselves “moderates”, when in fact they’re really nothing but a bunch of spineless cowards who are so flinchingly afraid of getting hammered by the GOP Noise Machine that their automatic reflex is to cower, whimper, and once again go along with the Republicans.
You know the kind I’m talking about — sniveling spineless cowards like those 23 “Democratic” Senators who think that politeness to a General who is nothing more than Bush’s mouthpiece and passing a resolution against’s First Amendment right of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of the press because of a f**king newspaper ad, is more important than getting our troops out of harms way. The kind of Democrat that knows damn well that the war is already lost, but continues to tremblingly acquiesce to this war for nothing but political reasons — to save face for the Republican Party — ALONE.

Anyone who votes against the first amendment doesn’t deserve to hold power over We the People. Period. Because it’s OUR government, and they don’t have the right to silence ANY SINGLE ONE OF US.

“who are a vocal minority in this country and they fail to realize that this course is the wrong way to go in the fork in the road atmosphere of today’s political climate.”

What a bloody joke. If you want to talk about forks in the road, and how the majority feels, take a look at the polling averages. Right now 68% of American’s think the country is heading in the wrong direction

“somehow they will be spared having their heads separated from their bodies?”

Clearly many on the far right fringe already do have their heads separated from their bodies — as a result of living in fear of a bunch of extremist scumbags and following this Administration right over the cliff.
On the other hand, the problem that “Moderate Democrats” have is that their guts have been separated from their bodies because they’ve been too afraid to stand up to the worst presidential administration in all of American history.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 21, 2007 2:41 PM
Comment #233772

RGF, thanks for the positive comment.

Max, quite right. There are 3 primary objectives of terrorists in committing terrorist attacks. First, is to acquire recognition of themselves and their cause in the media.

A second objective as in al-Queda’s 9/11 attacks, is to evoke such an over-the-top response by their target government(s) as to use that response as fuel and momentum for their movement. Invading Iraq was precisely the kind of response to 9/11 al-Queda had hoped the U.S. would commit, and it did achieve their objectives in terms of funding and recruitment to their cause.

A third objective of terrorism is to wear down, or make weary, the supporters of their adversaries, as in the European attacks of decades now, which failed to produce the intended effect. Neither Democrats nor our allies have grown weary of the fight against terrorism. They have grown weary of the lies and misinformation by Bush and Republicans supporting the notion that their mistake in Iraq now constitutes the primary front against terrorists. Pure hogwash, as you point out.

The central front on terrorism is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And Pakistan is a country whose military dictatorship with nukes we have supported with 100’s of millions, if not a billion or more, taxpayer dollars. Granted, Musharraf is kinda sorta an ally as long as our money continues to flow to his country. But, the money is precisely why Musharraf has no interest in taking out al-Queda in Pakistan. If al-Queda is eradicated, America need not send so many dollars to Pakistan.

Pakistan is magnitudes greater a threat to U.S. short and long term interests than Iran or Iraq. Yet, Republicans can’t get past their, what did you call it, ‘boondoggle’ in Iraq. They continue to spend American military lives and limbs and future taxpayer treasure in Iraq to avoid having to admit their mistake, make it right and go after the real terrorist front in Pakistan and secondarily in Afghanistan.

99% of those committing violence in Iraq have no interest or intent to export their violence outside Iraqi borders. They are fighting for local Iraqi turf, autonomy, vengeance, and share of the wealth. It is the Taliban and al-Queda in Afghanistan and Pakistan that to this day are making and carrying out plans to export terrorism throughout the Western world.

The Democratic leadership is different but, just as bad. They oppose homeland defense and national security by opposing effective border security measures, and for purely political reasons. Makes them just as bad as Republicans who insist on killing our military and economic future for political reasons. It is a real tragedy since, these are the only two parties with the power to make things right on both these fronts.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 21, 2007 3:11 PM
Comment #233784
The Democratic leadership is different but, just as bad. They oppose homeland defense and national security by opposing effective border security measures,

And I’m guessing that a big wall would be “effective”??? Come on…and why is no one excited at our long unpatrolled border with Canada…does anyone really think no one even tries to come over that way???

We want something that really works, that doesn’t just spend a lot of money to satisfy knee-jerk anti-Mexicans…

Posted by: Rachel at September 21, 2007 3:54 PM
Comment #233792

John, I relize this is completely off your topic, but Rachel just “opened the gate” for it….keep on truckin’ Dubya, you’re doing a heckuva job…

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 21, 2007 4:12 PM
Comment #233794

Oops, sorry Joseph…!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at September 21, 2007 4:14 PM
Comment #233800

I’m just going to ignore the almost psychopathic characterization of democrats here, and point out that the very basis of the article is flawed. I will agree that the war is being better fought now than it was before. What changed? Donald rumsfeld left after the Democrats took over Congress. It was democratic pressure that forced that incompetent out, and pushed Bush to change his pathetic, losing strategy. It was democrats who got the discussion started about withdrawing any troops, and now even president Bush is trying to score political points with withdrawals (granted, insufficient, pre-planned ones with deception about why they are being withdrawn, but still). It was democrats who insisted on Benchmarks and an ability to actually measure progress, so that if everything works perfectly, we’ll know when we’ve won. If it wasn’t for the Democrats, We’d be even more “stay the course” than we are now, and things would be even worse, if that’s possible. Any progress made in Iraq is due to the Democrats holding the President’s and republican congress’ feet to the fire to force changes.

That said, come on. All of the projections for what would happen when we withdraw troops have already happened. Millions dead, millions of refugees, the country partitioning, the government impotent. Bush lost this one. We need to come in to clean up the mess.

Democrats don’t need Iraq to go badly to win. Enough Americans are on our side with the need for national health care, governmental transparency, and a change in tone in washington that we would beat the idealogically bankrupt Republicans no matter what happens in Iraq. The tragedy is that you think we’re gloating over the massive disater that is Iraq, and not trying to fix it and make sure it never happens again.

Posted by: Brian Poole at September 21, 2007 4:20 PM
Comment #233811

A few inconvenient truths:
According to Major General Joseph Fil, slightly over half of Baghdad is under control; that manes neighborhoods are either in a “disrupt” phase,”clear,” “control,” and “retain” phase. In the last phase, responsibility for security in a neighborhood is taken over by Iraqis. As a result of the surge, this number has increased from 7% to 8%.

44% of Baghdad is out of control, including Sadr City.

“Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed.
Independent AP investigation, 9/1/07
Independent L.A. Times investigation, 9/1/07
GAO report, 9/4/07
NIE report, 8/23/07
Jones report, CSIS, 9/6/07”

The Pentagon now uses a new formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs no longer count.

According to the WaPo, assassinations only count if you’re shot in the back of the head — not the front.

“We’ll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won’t hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.”

And if anyone is wondering, most of the above is the supporting documentation for the infamous ad.

I know what the US government is telling us. I just do not believe them, because the Bush administration has lied so many times in the past.

If anyone doubts the consistent lies put out by the Bush administration on “winning” in Iraq over the past years, let me know & I will be glad to back up the statement with documentation from independent sources… But hopefully, most people would realize the past statements about “winning” made since 2003 are rather obviously false.

Posted by: phx8 at September 21, 2007 4:53 PM
Comment #233829


Very well said. Thanks, Brian

Posted by: RGF at September 21, 2007 5:38 PM
Comment #233831

The Dems don’t need the US to lose the war to win the election. The Reps lost it a while back with wunderkinds like Tom Delay and Karl Rove. The lies and vendettas about Iraq raised suspicions, the corruption and illegal spying, torture and Katrina confirmed them. Stop blaming everyone else for your problems. Get a clue, then pick some leaders that have some integrity.

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 21, 2007 5:43 PM
Comment #233844

This is so far over the top as to be laughable. The dem congress is working to achieve the desires of the large majority of American citizens with regards to our occupation of Iraq. I am not particularly happy that they have not been successful to date. But I do recognize that the effort is there. Barring withdrawing funding they really have little choice in the matter. Obstructionist republicans and a bull headed president are the only things standing between a withdrawal plan and more senseless death.

Your logic seems skewed and makes little sense in the scope of things. The people of this country are not stupid. It does not take a genius to see that the republicans and one independent are the lone obstacles to an exit strategy. We dems do not hope for a loss in Iraq. We feel that it is already lost. We do not see the benefit in further supporting an endeavor that no one person can say when it will or may possibly end. Democrats will not suffer over our continued occupation. Our entire nation will suffer at the hands of a neo-con movement that supports death, waste and division for the sake of oil.

Posted by: RickIL at September 21, 2007 6:20 PM
Comment #233879

You write: “It is a sad day when a major political party in the United States is hoping, praying and wishing that the “Religion of Peace” win in the war on Iraq and ultimately the “Religion of Peace” taking over the United States in whole and turning the world into one big Islamic State…”

That statement is so odd, so over the top, there are so many things wrong in just one sentence, never mind the entire article, that it is hard to even know where to begin.

First, the conflict in Iraq is between a number of factions, ethnic groups, and tribes, but primarily between Sunnis Muslims and Shia Muslims. These groups are fighting each other- they are NOT fighting to establish worldwide islamic domination. Some Sunnis are relatively secular nationalists, such as the “Ex” Baathists and the 1920 Revolutionary Brigade. These are the two largest Sunni factions, and the major sources of US casualties. Their agenda has absolutely nothing to do with worldwide Islamic domination. Nothing. In fact, the “Ex” Baathists and others are repressing the smaller Sunni fundamentalist groups, just as they did under Saddam Hussein.

The chances of Sunnis and Shias cooperating to rule an Islamic world are, um, slim.

And who on earth do you suppose will ultimately exercise power in Iraq? Like it or not, most Iraqis are Muslims.

You write: “Iranian special operations groups moved weapons across the borders and into Iraq along major highways and rivers.”

Prove it. Offer one shred of evidence. Just one.

The Al-Maliki government is lead by Dawa and SCII (Al-Hakim and the Badr Bridages). These groups spent the Saddam Hussein years in Iran. The Iraqi government is effectively controlled by Iranian allies- and the US has been arming them.

But before getting excited about that no doubt stunning revelation, the Al-Maliki government will not last out the year. There are maneuvers going on, right now, to set up a no confidence vote. It is unlikely the Al-Maliki government will survive the maneuver.

Posted by: phx8 at September 21, 2007 10:15 PM
Comment #233881

I thought the left was idiotic from what I read the last few days, but the right is not only idiotic abut also paranoid. I feel sorry for this country, between the right and the left this country is sold out, lock , stock and barrel. Gone are the days where America was one nation . Now we have a tower of Babylon. And we know very well what happen to it. If someone reads these blogs to long , they lose all common sense.

Posted by: Casseeyy at September 21, 2007 10:32 PM
Comment #233888

Joseph I notice your fellow righties have not made any comments on your rant, nor have they supported any of your comments. I wonder why that is?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 21, 2007 11:14 PM
Comment #233891

Based upon lessons learned in Vietnam, the Powell Doctrine was developed precisely to avoid the current situation. Wikipedia summaries the Doctine rather nicely:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

The White House ignored it, and Iraq has turned into the worse foreign policy debacle since Vietnam. It is arguably the worse strategic decision in the history of the US. Today, the nation is badly fractured. Fringe elements from both sides of the political spectrum make it increasingly difficult for a reasonable resolution. I do not think anyone seriously believes Iraq will be resolved before the next administration takes office, which means the incoming one, whatever its political affiliation, will be saddled with an absolute mess.

Posted by: phx8 at September 21, 2007 11:45 PM
Comment #233903

I will agree that some of the Democratic demands are with merit. I like the idea of benchmarks for the Iraqi Government. For people to say that we might be in Iraq for 10 years or more, I’m sure you’re aware that we are in South Korea still, over 50 years since the end of that war; we are still in Okinawa Japan, over 60 years after the end of WWII; we are still in Germany over 60 years. It is not without question that American Military presence in Iraq will be a permanent fixture for the future. We may be there 60 years after it ends, just like we are in Europe and Japan.
I am not concerned with any of my “righties” supporting my original article. I don’t need support from them to satisfy my ego; I stand on what I wrote regardless of the support or lack thereof that I receive.
The fact is this: the Democrats have no viable plan for Iraq other than to leave; the Democrats have no roadmap for National Security; the Democrats work extra hard to foil every National program that is in place to combat terrorism. The Democrats are widely known as being weak on National Defense; weak on Terrorism; and very hospitable to illegal immigration. This is the Democratic Party legacy now and for the future.
I do not like the polarization of the Country between the two parties. I will agree that at times, the Democrats have some pretty good ideas on things but each party is blinded by their loyalty to see eye-to-eye on most matters. It is my hope that we can put aside party affiliation and agree to National Security programs before it’s too late.
I appreciate all the comments to my article, either pro or con (wait a minute, there are no pro comments) oh well, either way, I have learned from each comment and thank you all.

Posted by: Joseph Nelson at September 22, 2007 7:25 AM
Comment #233904

Are we still in Vietnam, 30 years after that?

The only place we stayed because of a screw-up was Korea, and even there, we first fixed the screw-up to the point where we had the territory under our control, the situation well in hand. Not only that, but we had International support for the solution. Elsewhere, we remained for largely strategical Cold War and Post Cold War reasons. We didn’t remain sixty years in West Germany and then the Unified nation because we let it all go to hell.

Germany came out fine, and when it surrendered, the war was over, and the violence largely over with it. The ex-Nazis were not able to disrupt German life to the extent that they could undermine our authority or turn West Germany into a failed state.

Ditto for Japan. Japan surrendered, Japan was occupied, it didn’t have to become peaceful after that, it was peaceful after that.

In both cases, post war, they didn’t screw around trying to sit on the people with minimal troops. We made sure they knew we were there, and we meant business in our occupation. We didn’t spend four and a half years trying to contain sectarian uprisings with an obvious lack of troops, nor did our country arrange things so that we were grinding our forces to the nub.

For political reasons, The Bush Administration has never owned up to it’s insufficient manpower in Iraq, never acted to prevent it from reaching a crisis point. They may claim that the drawdowns are occuring because the Surge is working, but in truth, the surge has just hastened our manpower shortage, and this is something anybody halfway well informed knew was coming months ago. The idea of continuing the surge until it works will not happen under any plan. It’s a political fraud, meant to keep their base from abandoning them before the 2008 elections. Policy wise, it makes America vulnerable.

It was this kind of political and bureaucratic game-playing that lead me to oppose Bush’s policies and leadership, and ultimately the war itself. I saw problem after problem arise, and Bush and the Republicans refuse to deal with it, calling those who brought it up defeatist, and suggesting that the only reason they were being brought up were the old Vietnam reasons, that the media was biased against the Republicans and the war, that the Democrats were out to gain political advantage.

Meanwhile, the insurgencies blew up, and the Bush administration policies not only could do little to stop it, they often, in their wrongheaded, agenda-fulfillment obsessed manner, managed to fan the flames even more. The Republicans refused for the longest time to admit what was obvious to practically everybody: there were no WMDs. That Iraq was falling apart. That Fallujah and Najaf would not solve themselves. That handing sovereignty back without handing control with it was worthless. That elections in the absence of civil order and political reconciliation, with a major sectarian group refusing to participate, could do anything but convince the minorities that the path of peace led to them becoming powerless in the majorities hands. That the terrorism was succeeding in driving further wedges between the population; that a surge that only increased our forces by a small fraction could bring peace.

Every step of the way, The Republicans have denied failures, hoping to deny defeat itself. But what else do you call it when our strategic goals are never met, not by a long shot?

Meanwhile, the safeguards of the last half century have been torn down by an Administration that was sure at the time that America would not need these, having demonstrated its power in Iraq. Worse yet, our hard military power has been, in terms of land forces, all but invested into keeping America from admitting defeat in Iraq. We are unready for any other war, and even in Iraq we lack for the soldiers to keep up our current forces. My God, how pathetic can you get? Bill Clinton may have reduced our strength after the Cold War’s conclusion, but he didn’t squander it dangerously in an endless quagmire. He didn’t fail to strengthen Americas forces, knowing he would need them.

And he certainly didn’t throw open the borders to illegal immigrations. It’s nice to hear the Republicans complain about Democrats being open border advocates, but what did they do to stop Bush from catching thousands fewer immigrants and fining fewer employers than Clinton?

As for Homeland security, going beyond the obvious joke that has been Republican border and immigration security, the Bush administration has managed to so disturb Americans about the intrusiveness and constitutionality of their measures that even with 9/11 a not so distant memory, most Americans feel that they’re neither as secure or as free as they used to be.

By most objective measures, the Bush Administration has made America weaker and more vulnerable than those that preceded it. Americans of all political stripes feel more insecure regarding the world both inside and outside their borders.

Is this the strength we are supposed to continue to avail ourselves of with the Republican party. I’ll tell you why Americans voted out the Republicans, and will continue to do so in the next election: Americans listening to their claims of the Democrat’s weakness have only to look at all that they have done these past several years, and even what they say about the Democrats looks good by comparison. Only their rigid record-breaking obstructionism in the Senate keeps the Democrats from looking better than they already do. The only reason why the Democrats aren’t more popular, is that it looks like they’re not doing enough to stop the Republicans. The polls back this up.

Eventually, 2008 will break the gridlock, and when that time comes, the Democrats will have it much easier. They simply have to act naturally. The Republicans, on the other hand, if they wish to recover, must start again from scratch, because the last six years have been nothing but them fulfilling their every wish, and getting their way over everybody else’s objection. Having fulfilled their agenda, and failed not only despite that, but because of it, the Republicans must now find a new agenda, a new political movement to bring them back. It will be a sorry thing if they continue the ideologically confused route of continuing to merely principle the Republican party based on an opposition to the Democrats on each and every issue, especially in a time where they’ve made practically all the Democratic positions look good by comparison.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 22, 2007 8:14 AM
Comment #233905


“I’m sure you’re aware that we are in South Korea still, over 50 years since the end of that war; we are still in Okinawa Japan, over 60 years after the end of WWII; we are still in Germany over 60 years. It is not without question that American Military presence in Iraq will be a permanent fixture for the future. We may be there 60 years after it ends, just like we are in Europe and Japan.”

Our presence in Okinawa is less about being an “occupying” force, than it is about being a counter balance to China, and the same thing could be said aboutour presence in Germany as a balance to Russia.
Do I need to remind you that we didn’t begin to rebuild Japan and Germany until hostilities were over?
Our presence in Okinawa has and continues to breed contempt within the Okinawan. They don’t want us there anymore.
The generation of Koreans that appreciated our presence is dying off and the younger generations that have followed now also have contempt for our continued occupation. They don’t want us there either.
Do I need to remind you that America hasn’t won the Korean war yet?
Yes, there has been a cessation of hostilities through a truce, but the “war” itself hasn’t been concluded half a century later.

“The fact is this: the Democrats have no viable plan for Iraq other than to leave; the Democrats have no roadmap for National Security; the Democrats work extra hard to foil every National program that is in place to combat terrorism. The Democrats are widely known as being weak on National Defense; weak on Terrorism; and very hospitable to illegal immigration. This is the Democratic Party legacy now and for the future.

The fact is this: there were plenty of good ideas that were floated when they actually might have done some good in Iraq, but they were pooh-poohed by an administration that claimed “they knew what they were doing”, yet nothing could be further from the truth.
An administration that, BTW, belittled any possible change in strategy as defeatist, and has done virtually nothing diplomatically to garner support from Iraq’s neighbors for our cause there.

Posted by: Rocky at September 22, 2007 9:46 AM
Comment #233906

Rachel said: “And I’m guessing that a big wall would be “effective””

Rachel, let me paint a picture as a reply. You have a boxes 6 feet square. Now put 100 mice in the box, lower the front wall of the box and see how many mice you can catch before they all get out of the box to invade your home.

Now, same box, same number of mice, but, this time you put a single hole big enough for one mouse to pass through at a time before they can enter your home. As they come through the hole, you can pick them up, size them up, and decide if this or that mouse should be allowed into your home as a pet, and the rest you toss in a trash bag to be turned over to the humane society of Mexico.

OK, now while your examining one mouse at a time coming through the one hole, some other impatient mice at the back of the box say, hell with this, I will chew my own hole through at the back of the box. But, you are vigilant to what is going on, but even if that mouse chews through and scurries off into your home, its scurrying alerts you to block the newly chewed through hole, and you still have control of how many of the rest of the mice are allowed to reside with you or sent back to Mexico.

I hope this provides a clear picture of how border barriers can be effective in controlling illegal immigration. It won’t stop every illegal from chewing a hole through and coming over before their tunnel is discovered. But, it sure will give our Border Patrol the upper hand on the problem.

If you can’t see truth of this, then debating you on the topic is pointless, and I suspect you subscribe to the “3/4 of illegals will become Democratic voters if given amnesty” crowd, in which case law and order, public health, safety, and sovereignty issues are meaningless by comparison.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 22, 2007 10:12 AM
Comment #233927


You are absolutely correct that walls can limit access. Where you miss the objection, is the reality that these efforts will be abandoned in a few years, and billions will likely have been wasted in the process. The problem is political and economic in nature. Walls always, ultimately fail.

It’s a cosmetic fix to a more complex problem.

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 22, 2007 12:47 PM
Comment #233970

David R. Remer,

I applaud your rich imagination but, practically speaking, you are shy of reality.

If you wait at the hole in your box for the mice to come out in such a way that these scared mice are aware of you being there…

You be sure that even mice are smart enough to start scratching at the corners of the box most removed from where you are stationed!

Posted by: RGF at September 22, 2007 5:44 PM
Comment #233983

RGF, which drives the cost of illegal immigration up, and demand down. Law of supply and demand. Bypassing border barriers is immensely more expensive than just crossing the border anywhere along a 2000 mile stretch in a 4 wheel drive vehicle or on foot with the services of a Coyote. That Coyote is going to charge 2 to 300 percent more to cut through a fence and hope to evade infra red detection cameras along the fence. 400 to 1000 percent more to dig a tunnel.

The higher the cost to cross, the fewer with the resources to even try. The problems in the nations where illegal immigrants come from can only be solved if the people living there stand up and correct them. America cannot and should not become the pressure relief valve for badly run governments around the world by leaving our doors open to those dissatisfied with their own nation, culture, and government.

America would not allow its own South to secede from the union, why should America allow the peoples of other nations to secede from theirs through an illegal immigration back door into this country. That is a prescription for disaster in so many ways, not just for our country, but for theirs as well.

Illegal immigrants in this country now publicly claim rights to demand public and government policy in their favor in demonstrations in our streets, and to hell with what American citizens, or their laws want or say. You think the demonstrations in Jena were newsworthy? It was a love in compared to what is coming if America doesn’t close its illegal back door and pretty damn quick too!

La Raza already completely avoids the use of the term illegal immigrants, and now speaks only of immigration, as if there were no difference between legal and illegal. They are attempting to change public perception of the problem, to erase the difference. And by all accounts, they are succeeding at least with many Democrats.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 22, 2007 8:09 PM
Comment #233985

alien said: “The problem is political and economic in nature. Walls always, ultimately fail.”

Wrong! My fence around my 5 acres have prevented trespassers for years. Have you been into Area 51 lately? How about a casual waltz into the D.C.’s capital building? Have you tried to circumvent California’s fruit and vegetable ports of entry from other states during the growing season? It is not even worth trying. How about Fort Knox? Heard of any incursions there in the last century or so?

Sorry, your argument is false on its face. Walls, fences, barriers do work, and very well, though not 100%. It is why such barriers are a multi-hundred billion dollar a year industry. You don’t sell that much product unless it is pretty damned effective. Gated communities with high walls surrounding them are not unscalable, but, they increase the effort and risk of breaching them and thus deter most from even trying.

The same IS true of San Diego’s fence. Immediately upon its completion, crime dropped, illegal traffic dropped to a trickle, and law enforcement also so a drop in illegal drugs hitting San Diego streets. It worked, and very effectively, allowing the local authorities to far more effectively deal with the far smaller numbers determined to breach the border through tunnels or by breaching the fence itself.

And how about prison walls. Ineffective? Waste of material? I don’t think so, and I used to be a counselor of federal prisoners in a halfway house. They seemed to think walls were pretty effective. They sure as hell didn’t want to be put back behind them again, which gave us counselors some power to reshape their behavioral options.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 22, 2007 8:20 PM
Comment #234029

All the polls I see show that the majority of Americans want us out of Iraq. The war was lost and now we are in the middle of a civil war. Since this is called a war on terrorism then why not attack Saudi or Egypt maybe Syria and of course lets not leave out Iran. They all support the terrorist but maybe it was just George picking on the least able to fight back when we went into Iraq. We knew/know for sure that 2 of the so called Evil Three(North Korea/Iran) have and are developing WMD, but wait lets see China/Russia help support NK so they have a little more military might then Iraq. Russia supports Iran and who wants to stop the oil anyway. George and Dick would not make money that way.

Yes Saddam was evil but he just flaunted his power at the UN as both Iran and NK does right now, and George wanted to show his might and now we are in the middle of their(Iraq’s) Civil War.

Oh well not to much longer will we have to put up with George the Worse and his Dick, but unfortunately we will still have to keep some form of military in Iraq until we can pull completely out, and until then more innocent American Military men and women will be killed along with the Iraq civilians.

Hey George why not attack Pakastian, and lets find Osama.


Posted by: KT at September 23, 2007 10:03 AM
Comment #234144


Is the fence around your backyard 2,000 miles long traversing canyons, rivers, mountains and deserts??

I think it likely that there is greater desire to enter the U.S. among those who are most desparate among the Mexicans than there is there is among anybody to enter your backyard! ya think?

The fence would only serve as a ‘wag the dog’ssue in some election. That’s all it is capable of.

Posted by: RGF at September 24, 2007 12:07 PM
Comment #234157

“The war in Iraq is not the war on terror. The war in Iraq is about oil!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bush is lying to you!!!!!! Bin Laden is the man you want!!!! You can find him in his new recording studio!!!!!! There is no win in Iraq!!!!! This is not a ball game!!!!!!! There is no surrender!!!! Who do you want to surrender to?????? This is blood for oil!!!!! The 25% that buy this story have been lied to by the bush crime family!!!!! The war on terror is a republican campaign slogan, designed to create fear, and generate votes!!!!!!! If we leave Iraq the only ones that will loose will be the Halliburton stockholders!!!!!! Maybe Halliburton should surrender to the American taxpayer, and return the tax dollars they stole from us!!!!!!!!!!”

Is this an excerpt from the Iranian President’s speech at Columbia University?!!* :o)

Posted by: rahdigly at September 24, 2007 1:43 PM
Comment #234195

Is this an excerpt from the Iranian President’s speech at Columbia University?!!* :o)
Posted by: rahdigly at September 24, 2007 01:43 PM

We know it could not be a statement from bush!!!!!!!!!!!
He can not complete a sentence that any one could understand!!!!!!!
I would say the guy that made the statements you have outlined is a very good judge of current events.

It does not look like he is the type that would need the wing nut hand book with him every minute of his life, because he obviously can think for himself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 24, 2007 9:12 PM
Comment #234209

I for one am glad our President could not complete a sentence like that; though, some of you can be proud to know that the Dirty Runt Iranian president would (indeed) say that. Good to know some of you have “allies”. Scary when it is hard to differeniate between the BDSers and the “Hitler” of our time!!! Uhhhh, Yikes!!!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at September 24, 2007 10:17 PM
Comment #234311

I hear many people state “The war is about oil”. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. The USA would grind to a halt without oil. If you look at all the products you use that have oil or use oil to make them or run them, you might realize that without oil, your lifestyle ceases to exist as it is currently. Commerce, transportation, manufacturing, etc. would cease. Wow, what a nice USA that would be to live in. Yes, even if the war is about oil, we need oil in this country, just as every country needs oil to survive. Our country cannot survive without oil and as long as the extreme environmentalist prevent us from drilling or building Nuke plants, we will continue to be reliant on foreign oil.

Posted by: Joseph Nelson at September 25, 2007 2:26 PM
Comment #234332


Walls simply do not stop migrations of people, historically. They do not stop invasions, historically. They are always overcome. Name one wall that didn’t eventually fail. The Berlin wall lasted 20 odd years, at the peak of the Cold War. It did stop the flow while there was political will, then it fell and the loser was the Soviets. Do you want the US to be that loser in twenty years?

The reality of the Mexican border wall is that it is a political gesture. It has not and will not slow the flow of illegals from Mexico, except temporarily. To build an impenetrable wall is prohibitively expensive, another Iraq if you will, otherwise you will have a show wall, which illegals will simply walk around.

The illegal flow is an issue about minimum wage and taxes, as well as a wink and nod to employers who want to make a buck using them. As I have said repeatedly, imprison some execs at large illegal employers, and the flow will stop and may well reverse.

What the politicians know is that if they hem and haw, and allow the U.S. Mexican population to increase, the politics will change. They will continue to collect money from LULAC and la Raza, while raking in big contributions from agriculture and industrial contributors. Soon Latinos will be the majority in border states with ties to Mexico. They will see it as a racism issue. Whether it is native Americans, Latinos or African Americans, we have a ripe history to exploit. We will look like the bigots that this upside down thinking is born from.

Why waste the money for this duplicity? Why not deal with the real issue? Why not deal with substandard employers subverting employment law?

It isn’t about security, you can easily walk in through Canada.

This is about cheap labor.

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 25, 2007 4:59 PM
Comment #358746

My wife recently bought a pair of which she seems intent on wearing until they self outlet online She wanted to know how she could clean then so she set about researching the best ways and also tried a ugg canada of experimentation..this is the article she wrote following the reseach.You’ve now got your first pair of Ugg boots and after wearing them for a while you may find that they have started to lose that new look about them. In this article we are going to provide you with some tips on how to clean your uggs boots so that they stay looking as good as new.Yes these uggs canada are extremely comfortable to wear and because of this you may find yourself wearing them alot. Which is all well and good until they start to get dirty and start to smell. Certainly one way of making sure that your ugg boots canada remaining look good is by using a specialist cleaning coach outlet which has been designed for use on leather and suede items

Posted by: uggs canada at December 13, 2012 10:28 PM
Post a comment