The New York Times Surrenders: A Monument to Defeatism on the Editorial Page

What happens if Al-Qaeda gets really going in Iraq (they love disorder) and is able to plan and prepare for even larger attacks for inside the US? Then the bloodshed is in the US.

What happens if Al-Qaeda gets really going in Iraq (they love disorder) and is able to plan and prepare for even larger attacks for inside the US? Then the bloodshed is in the US.

well if we'd spent all that money we blew on the war strengthening our defenses, we may not need to worry about that.

Besides, you don't really think we're going to "crush" terrorism do you? I mean it's like kudzu, you chop one down and two grow back.

Think of all these young boys in Iraq seeing their parents getting blown to bits and their country run to turmoil. I bet they have a high amount of resentment towards the US right now and will grow up with that chip on their shoulder just waiting to "get back" at us Americans.

What happens if Al-Qaeda gets really going in Iraq (they love disorder) and is able to plan and prepare for even larger attacks for inside the US? So you're finally admitting that this "War on Terror" has actually made us less safe? It's refreshing to finally hear some honesty about it.

I think BlaiseP had the right idea in this post, in an article remarkably echoing the same "Iraq Quitters" rhetoric.

What I'd like to hear from the "non-Iraq quitters" is exactly what the plan is for "victory." And none of this "stay the course" bull@!$%#, either. I'm talking an actual plan. What's the big strategy for teaching the Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds to all get along? What are the steps we're taking to make Iraq a "shining beacon of democracy in the Middle East"? Because if you're not offering anything as a counterpoint to the people who say we shouldn't be there-- and by anything I mean "anything resembling a plan"-- then you're not doing anything other than cheerleading.

You want to go after Al Qaeda? Great. Press your mighty leader to quit @!$%#ing around with nation-building and make going after Al Qaeda his number one priority. God knows he's been taking his time about it.

ComSen, al Qaeda is a mainly Sunni group, and Iraq is largely Shia, I doubt that the Shia would allow al Qaeda to get very strong in Iraq. Note these two are basically slaughtering each other at every opportunity.

Unfortunately, our attention to Iraq has prevented us from throwing our full weight against al Qaeda in it's sanctuaries in Afghanistan and Pakistan, this is where we could do some damage to them, Iraq is irrelevant to al Qaeda except as it breeds further resentment against the West and especially the US, which helps them in general.

The Shiites don't have much choice. They don't own most of Iraq. They can't project their power into al-Anbar province. Much to my personal chagrin and anger, the USA has begun to back Ba'athist elements, happily labeling it Sunni sheikhs.

To be sure, there are some Sunni tribes who also hate al-Qaeda and the foreign fighters, but the Sunni have run Iraq time out of mind, and they are not about to allow Moktada Sadr and his Iranian pasdaran to dominate them. The Sunnis hate Moktada Sadr more than they hate al-Qaeda. Now that oil deposits has been discovered in the Sunni areas, they feel substantially motivated to seize as much power as can be practically managed.

The current government in Iraq is worthless. Maliki is a Shiite, and his backers are Shiites. Iraq's army is not fighting for him or his Shiite cohorts, they are fighting for something they have not got yet, a representative government.

The USA has badly mismanaged this war, preferring to deal with sectarian leaders. We should have shot them all on arrival in Iraq. Iraq's only meaningful framework for peace is tribal, not sectarian: many tribes are composed of both Sunni and Shiite.

Ajs, I would like you to respond to JoulesBeef's comment. You not responding to comment because he got your name wrong is a pretty lame excuse.

Why aren't you in Iraq? Are you too old? Health problems?

YOU
Can't write
Can't spell
Facts are all wrong

ajs, if you won't put your enlistment where your mouth is then your opinion on the winnability of this war is worth absolutely nothing. If you really thought it was the crucial struggle for Western Civilization and that our strategy in Iraq stands a chance, you would go. Milton Friedman used to argue against a draft on the grounds that the free market can regulate military matters as well as everything else. I don't know if he's right about that, but the free market sure isn't giving Bush's Iraq war a vote of confidence, is it? And you most assuredly aren't.

That is an interesting position to take, I assume you have no opinion on health care or are you a doctor? Perhaps you have an opinion on how the country is run, are you a current congressional or presidential candidate?

All opinions are worth exactly what the listener thinks of them. Along those lines I hope you do not hold a high opinion of your opinions value :)

I can count the number of things that AJS and I have agreed upon on one hand -- but the notion that you have to sign up and enlist if you support a war is largely bunk.

The United States has a volunteer army. These are brave young men and women who have sworn and oath to serve their country and trust, professionally if not personally, in the wisdom of its government. I'm glad that they do that so that I don't have to.

Now that said, I don't think this war was a good idea. I know AJS doesn't agree with me on that one and that's ok. But I don't think that means that he should face criticism for not signing up. Why? Because there are certainly military actions that I think the US would be more than justified in that I wouldn't really want to leave my life and family for.

That doesn't make a US intervention in Darfur any less necessary or my support of it any less genuine; I can lend the greatest service to my country where I am doing what I'm doing and paying taxes. We aren't Sparta folks. It's ok to have political opinions, even bellicose political opinions without actually serving yourself.

Now if AJS would discourage his friends and family from serving, if he is unwilling to take a tax hike to pay for the war, if he doesn't want to pay for healthcare of US troops or the necessary expansions of the VA then by all means, criticize him.

But don't expect everyone who believes in a cause to go and die for their country unless you're prepared to bring back the draft and go and die for their cause too.

Well said, Killfile

I beg to differ. While his opinions are equally valid no matter what he chooses to really act like he believes in, the fact remains that if he really believed that this is a holy and righteous crusade for the sake of western civilization and that the war in Iraq is some sort of crucial part of the war on islamic fundamentalists then he would be morally remiss to do anything but join that crusade, and I don't mean necesarrily as a footsoldier, but still the question remains does he intend to fight for what he believes in in some way or does he simply seek to exploit the sacrifice of those he pays lip service to? This is somewhat more than an ad hominem since it isn't intended as a moral referendum on him, although it serves as one (and for that unintended slight I apologize), but rather it asks if he even really believes in the stuff that is coming out of his keyboard, which is pertinent to the discussion.

I dunno, KF. I enlisted. Twice. Went to war, came back. Nasty business. Sure, intellectually, we can all read The Red Badge of Courage or All Quiet on the Western Front, and get some idea about what goes on, but nothing can communicate the smell of war. War has a smell, the sick odor of cordite and fuel and fear and feces and nuoc mam and burning grass and beanie-weenies in a C-ration can. Amplified by overworked and nearly dead adrenal glands, smell is the sense most prevalent in my memories.

Just don't say anyone can support a war. You can oppose something like Communism, as I did. You can oppose takfiri warlords attempting to undermine democracy. War is a collective madness. Anyone who dreams of rah-rah and marching bands and medals for valor never saw anyone earn a medal. Usually they're awarded to the dead. War happen because politicians can't do their goddamn jobs. Wisdom of the government, my ass! It's a job. A nasty job, worse than the guy scooping the guts out of a dead steer. Men do not fight for some cause, they fight for each other.

Here's my advice: don't fight anywhere or anyone you can't win. Screw the Rightness of the Cause, that's all horseshid. There is no justification for a prescriptive war, and don't you let anyone tell you otherwise.

What happens if Al-Qaeda gets really going in Iraq (they love disorder) and is able to plan and prepare for even larger attacks for inside the US? Then the bloodshed is in the US.

Good thing you provide rheotrical what ifs?

Of course the fact is that Al Qaeda has relatively little support in Iraq. They do have more support than ever before and under the current policy its continuing to grow. The invasion of Iraq has helped Al Qaeda and is providing them a strong source of training and fuding. The ongoing occupation is helping Al Qaeda.

This is increasing their ability to bring bloodshed to the US and not increasing it. Why do you want to help Al Queda?

The war in Iraq is helping them gain support around the globe. Our approach is huring us around the globe with both allies as well as those who disagree with us. It is building hate.

Why do you suppose we should believe that the current policy is somehow going to magically reverse these trends?

Bush hasn't done right by our boys. We need to bring back the draft. That's America's only hope of growing a pair again. We need to pull all television crews from the country and remember how to fight a war!

...and "we" need to bring back carpet bombing and real nukes; not just these panty-waist depleted uranium shells... and napalm (...oops, sorry. That's trademarked...) Napalm! What this conflict calls for is total war on the Iraqi populace. TOTAL WAR. "We" can let god (...oops sorry...) God sort'em out in the end. While we're there, we can wrap up them there Persians too. Come to think of it, who likes the looks of those Syrians? A good draft will get all them young fresh punks of the street and into a mean, clean, cohesive fighting unit (...except of course for them young'uns with a college deferment and a future...) "We" gotta do what ever it takes to win this war on terror (...as long as there ain't no homosexuals translating...)

Thanks for responding ajs. Thank you for your honesty.

sorry about the misspelling but looks like i got a response with it.
Just kidding ajs, i do appologise.
One fact you do know the iraqi government has asked us to leave?
The iraqi people want us gone
the people in the army want us out
the american people want us out
the world wants us out.
The last three dont count as much as the first two but when the elected leadership of iraq says to go and the people says to go, i ask you, what does that make us?
Al qauda isnt even part of the equation. And if you think they can take over iraq when we leave, shows you have no faith or respect for the us military as obviously you think al quada is stronger. And obviously dont understand the history of iraq. Iraqi al quada exists only because so many iraqis despise the americans and al quada is attacking us, do you really think the iraqis would give their country to them when we leave?
Quit teh SPIN they have asked us to leave.

Spooky, bringing back the draft, IMHO serves a far more diverse set of ends than simply setting more bodies in harms way (and I am completely against the college-deferment clause BTW). America is a country divided along economic (small old-school lefties would call it "class") lines. Most can and will go most of their lives without ever really having to deal with people of a lower socio-economic, educational, and in many ways racial background. The military is a good place to bring these various factions together and put them on equal footing - if only for a couple of years. The military, also gives people a greater sense of what "freedom" - a right we all take for granted - actually means. This is due to the fact that military personell are subject to a more restrictive legal code than regular citizens. Furthermore, they face criminal prosecution for defying orders or disregarding the CoC. America is a ball-less nation because we have forgotten that the freedoms we enjoy are not inherently "rights," but a privileges. If there was a draft, perhaps we would be less-inclined to engage risky and questionable military adventures.

It is a commonly known rule that for every insurgent/revolutionary/freedom fighter there are roughly ten people passively supporting their efforts. I wish I lived in a candy-land world where we could just go out and get the "bad guys" - perhaps they could all wear shirts that were the same color? unfortunately, this is not the case. It is the height of naievete to think that the popular media outlets that regularly broadcast images of mutilated, burned and dismembered Iraqi's are simply reporting the facts in an unbiased and even-handed way. Inevitably, an image of a horribly burned and disfigured child - even if their wounds were the result of insurgent bombings reflects negatively on the American military presence.

We can either continue to use our military as the country's police force, and allow this thing to go on for decades, or we can leave and watch from afar as Iraq - and possibly the entire middle east is engulfed in a brutal and vicious sectarian war that leaves millions of souls in its wake. Such a conflict could destabilize the entire region, and would most certainly yield the fingerprints of China and Russia - in fact their fingerprints are already all over the place. My solution is of course not pretty - none ever are in these situations: Cordon off neighborhoods and cities that are particular trouble spots, allow 72 hours for all women and children to leave, and either invade it - as in the case of fallujah, or level it with a carbet-bombing and napalm campaign. Do this a few times and you might be surprised how quickly the wind is taken out of the insurgency's sails. Brutal: yes. Unfair to the innocent victims? Certainly. A way of getting the country under control and stopping the violence: Got any other ideas?

Amorphous, *w/o sarcasm*; I appreciate you giving thought to the issue. I'll get back to you later. I've got a ukulele workshop to attend.

Why would you think it's not lost? We can't bring peace to people who don't want to have us force it upon them.

Well the war-war ended about three weeks into the invasion. We've been losing the peace ever since.

ajs, Bush defined "victory" as the establishment of a stable, democratic government in Iraq. They've failed miserably to meet his 18 "benchmarks," and given us no reason to think they can do so later. Prolonging the military struggle does nothing but kill more people. The solution here will be political, and we can't force the solution we want on them.

I thought they had until September, nearly half of the benchmarks have been met at this point that seems like progress to me.

A stable government would mean that the government would have the power to provide peace of its own accord.

I find the notion of 'forcing our will' on them a funny thing . . . our American Democracy took many years to build, and was even followed up with a civil war . . . yet the pull-out now, we've lost group expects to force the Iraqi government to be fast-tracked into democracy.

Bushco predicted a short war-- 6 months, as I recall. It certainly wasn't sold to the public as a decades long struggle for their freedom purchased with our money and blood.

They've met half the benchmarks with 3.5 years of effort behind them. You expect them to clear the other half in two months? Personally, I have no trouble with waiting another two months, but I totally understand that there are those who think the additional lives you're willing to spend are not worth what slight gains we might make.

And what of September, when the report comes back "just give us a little more time"?

Do you think the administration can safely run out the clock before having to be responsible for finishing what it started? Just curious.

I recall being told that SH"s defeat would come in short order. I also recall hearing, time and again that the we have a 'long road ahead of us."

Are you asking about the time until Bush leaves DC or the time until Sept.

I honestly feel like freedom is something people value, and know many GI's feel that the gift of freedom is a worthy cause.

Some GI's feel so strongly about this that once their time is up in the military they have plans to return as a civilian guard.

When this started, I heard a lot of 'just like Vietnam' protests, and feel like a withdrawal order, where our time-lines are publicly know would in fact bring the Vietnam prediction to fruition.

I recall being told that SH"s defeat would come in short order. I also recall hearing, time and again that the we have a 'long road ahead of us."

yup. Before the commencement of war-- "Shouldn't take long."
After the commencement of war-- "we have a long and difficult road ahead of us."

Before-- "We have to stop Hussein from giving terrorists nukes!"
After-- "We have to give the Iraqis democracy!"

Are you asking about the time until Bush leaves DC or the time until Sept. The former. I think it is a given that in September we will be told that, despite the "many difficulties", we should keep on banging our head against the wall.

I honestly feel like freedom is something people value, and know many GI's feel that the gift of freedom is a worthy cause. Freedom is not a gift. It's something you have to earn for yourself. We're lucky, America has an excess of freedom, and most people here don't have to work very hard to earn it. In Iraq, there's a dearth of freedom, and most people are working very hard to avoid it. But it's certainly nothing we can give the Iraqis without them applying their own sweat to earning it.

When this started, I heard a lot of 'just like Vietnam' protests, and feel like a withdrawal order, where our time-lines are publicly know would in fact bring the Vietnam prediction to fruition. To paraphrase Jon Stewart, isn't it going to be a bit obvious whenever we decide to withdraw? Or are we going to get the country of Iraq really stoned one night, and leave before they all wake up in the morning. "Holy crap! The infidels have become invisible!!"

Nation-building was a mistake before Bush came into office. It's a mistake now. It will be a mistake in the future. We've known it for at least a hundred years, and every generation some new @!$%#tard fails to learn from the lesson, and embroils us in another one of these little escapades. I don't look forward to saying "I told you so." I look forward to not having the opportunity to tell you "I told you so."

As far as nukes go, I'm still paranoid enough to think they may have been secreted away. Thanks mom . . .

Ah, gift given or earned, I still see it as a gift, something to cherish. I've beat the drum for Iraqi's to stand up, and am seeing more of them starting to do just that. I hope it is a trend that grows and continues.

That's funny stuff from Jon Stewart. LOL.

The trouble I see with a retreat ahead of the Iraqi's having gained control is the ease in which AQ or some other nasty set of people could run in and take over. I think AQ is betting on this very thing.

Imagine them having those resources . . . when I do, I don't like what I see.

When this was in debate, I was against going in . . . but that was just my gut feeling. : )

I don't know if you understand this, but not all arabs are members of Al Qaeda, in fact in Iraq relatively few are. If those numbers grow it is because of US occupation of Iraq and not despite it.

I hit the wrong button.

My point is that AQ is in no position to take over Iraq, in fact nobody is in a real position to take over Iraq, that is one of the problems that we are facing now, if there were real Iraqi leadership on a national level with goals for the country and any real capability of meeting those goals then we wouldn't have many of the problems we have today. Iraq is a relatively diverse country filled with different sects and groups, few of which are interested in cooperating with each other. The boogyman of one of those groups, even the most radical and violent, taking over the country and uniting the people against us to create some sort of evil arabic superstate is frankly absurd.

And what uniting against the US can be done can only be done because of our occupation, we do nothing to prevent it by staying in the country.

When the elected government of a soveriegn nation asks us to leave, i ask you WHO ARE WE FIGHTING>

Joules:

Today I heard this:

"BAGHDAD — Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave "any time they want," though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training."

That's the closest to asking us to leave that I recall.

There is growing frustration within the Iraqi government over the pushing from both sides of our government.

I did read something from one of Mailiki's aides that makes me feel like telling them to piss-off.

Montyy: Insulting people's intelligence is not conducive to winning people to your point of view.

I suspect the only way out would be for Bush to say, "well, OK you guys, we've tried to give you peace and democracy, we've deposed your enslavers, but you're just interested in fighting each other. You can't get beyond your tribes and your sectarian relationships, and until you do that we can't really help you. So we're going home, when you get it settled among yourselves, give us a call if you want some more nation-building."

Then we prepare to fight our way out, understanding that this will turn into the same kind of rout that the evacuation from Saigon was in my day in the Army.

Leaving when there is a stable, internationally peaceful, government that says it's ready is not failure. Recently I believe a senior current government figure in Iraq said they weren't ready - which is fairly obvious.

You don't lose until you quit trying. When you decide to quit without accomplishing your goals you have at that point lost. The US reached that point in Vietnam, it quit without accomplishing the goal of staving off a hostile communist takeover. It didn't lose because lack of ability but rather lack of desire as it became too expensive politically to maintain the conflict. Iraq is similar, the US might lose by withdrawing before accomplishing it's goals but it will be due to a political campaign to sap the desire and will not a military one to destroy the capability.

Bush made two related and significant errors of calculation. That a democratic Iraq could resolve centuries of conflict quickly and come to a peaceful resolution amongst themselves. And that political opportunists at home would not launch a campaign to discredit US efforts in order to take power.

... and that you can lie about WMD's, imminent threats, and connections to 9/11 and then turn around and expect everyone in Iraq to trust your intentions.

You don't lose until you quit trying.

isnt it possible to keep trying against a lost cause?

i object to the reasoning that we've given iraqis a chance and they have failed. we kinda @!$%# all over their country and are now defining their cleanup progress.

wouldnt it be better to leave the decisions to the iraqis at this point — shouldnt they be the ones establishing their own benchmarks? morally, we owe them at least a great deal of support, financially and otherwise, to establish goals as they see fit. judging them to our standards...isnt that basically the same thing as setting up their govt for them, which never works?

isnt it possible to keep trying against a lost cause?

No either you are trying or it's a lost cause, they are opposing statements. You can decide somebody else has no chance at winning and yet they keep trying and identify that as a lost cause but that is only a viewpoint not a fact. No cause is lost until you quit. If you aren't the one doing it, then you can't quit and make your guess a reality as to a lost cause.

shouldnt they be the ones establishing their own benchmarks

And here I thought you didn't agree with President Bush. His plan has been to provide the trained army to prevent the Iraqi government from being overthrown while they work things out for themselves. They are taking their time getting it worked out, but that as I said before was to be expected (even though it doesn't appear to have been expected by the President).

No cause is lost until you quit.

Oh yeah? Find me an integer between 2 and 3.

No either you are trying or it's a lost cause, they are opposing statements.

Trying and not trying are opposite statements. Lost cause is a cause that cannot forseeably be won, but are pursued nonetheless.

Oh yeah? Find me an integer between 2 and 3.

What remarkably witty and yet totally irrelevant comment. Begin with reading what I wrote then making comments, it helps in the conversation flow.

The difference is in who is holding the view it's a lost cause. If you are the one doing the action and think it's a lost cause then you aren't trying and thus it is lost. If on the other hand you are still trying then it's not a lost cause.

What is the purpose of this whole exercise? I was commenting on a post asking why somebody would pursue a lost cause. The answer is because obviously those doing it don't think it's a lost cause. The fact you think so from the outside is immaterial. As long as the person doing the action is trying it's not a lost cause.

It seems awful single minded to argue over the definition because it doesn't fit the rhetorical point you are trying to make. If you want to call it a lost cause go ahead, but to define it as lost then ask why would somebody continue on it when it's already lost is silly framing. How about this question 'do war detractors entertain the possibility that this could, possibly, be a war that has already been won? or is that something that cant be argued?'

No, the question is why does US audience have to fund the war that started due to lies?

lost cause –noun a cause that has been defeated or whose defeat is inevitable

There comes a point where it has very little to do with trying.

I think More Than Happy did a great job of making that point. If there is no way to succeed at something, whether or not you are trying to do it is of no consequence. Likewise, whether or not you believe it can be done is of no consequence if it simply can't be done. The integer comment demonstrates this fact. You can disagree on whether or not we are at that point in this war, but it doesn't change the fact that certain things truly are impossible, whether you choose to accept them as such or not.

The entire argument is based on the premise that the war is indeed lost but that isn't a fact that is an opinion. The integer argument, if you can call it that, is a definitional fact which is entirely different.

If say war was always lost period that the meaning of war and the meaning of lost were actually the same thing then it would be a relevant example. You can't find a war that isn't lost because war and lost are the same. However that is silly, as the snarky comment was partisan and silly.

The war can be lost, withdrawal today would be losing. The war isn't lost yet because we haven't withdrawn yet. It might or might not be possible to win, that is debatable and largely depends on your definition of acceptable cost. All these posts arguing with me are trying to simply frame the war as lost and the opposition as lacking logic for continuing. So far not one of you has been honest enough to admit that though and continue to restate the frame and response over and over. Repetition doesn't make you more correct just more annoying.

The entire argument is based on the premise that the war is indeed lost but that isn't a fact that is an opinion.

It may be a fact, and I will agree that if we stop trying, it definitely is a fact. However, there exists a possibility that it is already a lost cause and you just don't know it yet, and if we keep trying it is also a fact that we will spend more money allowing more of our troops to die and be seriously injured. Neither of us has enough information to know with 100% certainty whether or not we have reached the point where this war is a lost cause. I think we have, you obviously think we haven't. I respect that.

The war itself is not lost, but we, American people, lost money, decent global reputation, a chuck of the civil rights.

All beside the point. We can't afford to be there in sheer money, it totally diverts the Administration's limited attention from Afghanistan (where we could be making a difference), and it's creating far far far more enemies for us than it's killing. So it's a lost and useless cause. Recognizing this would be a mark of intelligence on our part, at least we can say that we've learned something.

To those who would say it smacks of defeat, of course it does! We have been defeated! We went in with grossly inadequate planning, executed it incompetently, have failed to fund it as if the outcome really mattered to us, and are currently breaking the Army's back on it. We have alienated our allies and held ourselves up for international humiliation. Get used to it, and vote the other way in 2008.

Said by one who was in the Army, 1968 - 70 with all that implies, when the leaders of the current Administration were hiding out or welshing on their commitments to their country.

Well said, Jim. And glib slogans like "no cause is lost until you quit" may fly just fine in a motivational speech, but in real life, on the ground in Iraq, can you go on throwing away other people's lives just to say that you aren't quitting?

In 1943, the German resistance group called The White Rose distributed a leaflet arguing that after the crushing defeat of Hitler's army at Stalingrad, victory was impossible, and Germany could not win the war, only prolong it. They were caught, tried and immediately executed for treason, but subsequent events proved them right, and Germany paid dearly for their refusal to accept reality. Today, the Germans remember The White Rose as national heroes, not as "defeatists."

Ah, yes: treason, the ultimate accusation, and we'll be hearing more of it in coming months, as the situation continues to deteriorate.

Even the fierce warplanes we spent multi-millions teaching Bush Jr. to fly only to have him conveniently disappear when he discovered how difficult they are to fly safely, and when he might actually have to go into combat, have ejection seats. At some point, the damage is too great, or the flight regime you are in is unrecoverable, and you "haul the handle" and get out.

Maybe if he had actually fulfilled his commitment, he would have learned that, and been a better President.

Um, er...

$$$$$$$ for the Bush cronies.

http://theottoshow.newsvine.com/_news/2006/09/29/379621-i-have-no-idea-and-really-dont-care

He still said most of what was posted, the meaning is the same, Bush doesn't care much about Bin Laden whether he said those exact words or not. He probably never really did. Why were troops pulled from Afghanistan to be put into Iraq. The president had conflated Osama with Saddam very early on... either well before, or very shortly after 9/11. (IMHO, of course)

We failed when Bush and cronies first cooked up the Iraq idea.

Bingo. The 'victory-feels-good' people here would like to ignore the rotten foundation for this war, but we're dealing with the consequences of it every single day in Iraq.

The 101st fighting key boarders are often well versed in the best of misleading inflamatory and non-helpful rhetoric.

To bad that attack rhetoric isnt going to help much in the real issues that face this nation.

Again. You can't win a train wreck. This is not a war. It is a military action that is being continued to prevent a president from admitting he dtrove the train off the cliff; however sad that is. God bless all of the people caught up in this nightmare. And as far as a war on terrorists, it is like throwing gasoline on a fire which this administration is so adept at doing.

What obstructionism from the left? Bush has gotten his way since the war started. What it is today is on him, not the amorphous boogeyman left you like to blame so much.

Re: #1-- Uh... 'k. I don't really buy the home of Judith Miller as Radical Left Central, but you're free to make that argument. Some facts to back it up might be nice.

Re: #2-- I can't believe you lived through the Vietnam War, and can still spout off this crap. No way we could lose? If Iraq were a planet, Bush would have Kirked it. The phenomenal incompetence of the prosecution of this war leads me to believe that, even if the country were 100% for spilling as much of our own blood and spending as much of our own money as we could reasonably be expected to, in the end it would be for naught. We squandered almost every opportunity, left no plan untarnished by Rumsfeldian re-engineering, and expected this to be easy, but NOW we just need "a little more time." NOW we need to ignore the failures of the last four years, because this time Junior means business.

"Constant corrosion and opposition by the radical Left"? Don't make me laugh. Name one thing this President has asked for that he hasn't gotten. Name one punishment he's served for having over-reached his legitimate power. Name one issue on which he has truthfully admitted error. Where is all this power of the "radical Left"? What exactly have they stymied, in terms of Bush's "plan"? Where have they actually thrown any kind of monkey wrench into the works?

Could we "win" over there? Depending on how you define "win", I think we still could... but not with this guy at the helm. And not with the compromised group of planners that he has minding the store.

You want to blame the long-haired, hippy tree-huggers for obstructionism, and claim they've "aided and abetted the enemy." Pshaw. Flapdoodle. Bull@!$%#. The biggest aid to the enemy was an administration that guffawed at the notion that it would take hundreds of thousands of troops more than a decade to install the sort of government that The Scarecrow and the Tin Man envisioned for Iraq. Meanwhile, all that "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" jibberty-jabber can't conceal the mess these feckless idiots have tangled us up in.

In the absence of a real plan forwarded by men who have the sense to know the difference between a plan and a press release, the only options open to us are to continue to bleed lives and money for no return on the investment, or to withdraw. Neither option is palatable, but you can lay the entire blame at Bush's feet.

Iar,

I've missed you!

It will come as no surprise to you that I stand by every syllable that I wrote, and I do lay plenty blame at Bush's feet. But there are elements on the Left who seem to have some kind of oddball symbiotic relationship with the enemy that wants to defeat and destroy America...they have indeed obstructed and resisted every effort that Bush and/or the troops have made since 2002. They highlight every mistake or failure and downplay or hide every success or positive development.

If anything, I soft-peddled my statements above - others have been more harsh, and they may not be wrong.

TBob, ach & oy, you and the boogie man of the radical left... Let's scroll back to the policy of the second Bush administration's first sec'y of state, a certain General Colin Powell; do you recall the Powell Doctrine?

Nice link spooky, thanks! I had not read that before.

Did Iraq pass ANY of those criteria???

Seems not.

they have indeed obstructed and resisted every effort that Bush and/or the troops have made since 2002.

How specifically have these invisible "THEY" persons to whom you refer resisted efforts by the troops and Bush? By talking and writing on the other side of the globe? I do not seem to recall any instances of American lefties jumping in front of Humvee in Iraq shouting "No war!". No protests there... No human shields once our oil thieving invasion force arrived... Nothing!
I can only assume that by

some kind of oddball symbiotic relationship with the enemy

what you are really describing is the common sense understanding that the people of a nation invaded by foreigners bent on controlling their resources will resist and that talking about such a simple fact is somehow repulsive because it highlights the inadequacies of your own belief system.
If it weren't so tragic, it would almost be humorous... that despite all the chatter about our failing to secure Iraq, Bush and his owners are getting EXACTLY what they want: Less than a thousand dead American soldiers per year for trillions in excess oil revenues and the continued propping up of out-of-control federal spending... all enabled by our control of the world's oil supply. The disconnect is that both the lefties and the right wing dupes think we are having trouble in Iraq while Bush's owners have it just the way they need it.

Tom, I rest my case.

Great link, Bill.

Authors like David Horowitz and Dinesh D'Souza have been exploring the strange common cause between the American/European Left and the more radical elements of Islam. Some of this linkage is unintentional, but some is very deliberate.

I believe there are those who hate Bush so much they would rather see America defeated in the war against terror in order to hurt Bush politically than to see America victorious or successful.

Good morning T-Bob, lemme give you a big hug, eh? *squeeze*
Ahorita, which do you wanna see? The United States of America victorious or successful?

I believe we must be both, Spooky; it's really a matter of survival.

Nobody seems to be adequately considering the consequences of failure - either that, or there are those who deliberately want the US to fail.

I don't think the current administration went into this war considering the consequences of failure. This administration went into the conflict under-manned, under-armored and under-prepared. Who truly believed the US Army would be greeted with candy and flowers? That is pure insanity. The Pentagon was dismissed when they said there would need to be more troops on the ground. "You go to war with the army you have..." Then there is the illogical rhetoric of "...there is no other option than victory". That's simply illogical. Apparently, whatever planning was in place for Iraq after Saddam Hussein was disposed from office and killed has not been sufficient. For the last six years, this Republican administration has had carte blanche with a Republican senate and a Republican congress. They have not victorious or successful.

Do you think the US armed forces current tactics are working? How many men and women will be killed during the Iraqi parliament's summer vacation?

Spooky,

I agree with everything you just wrote in the note above.

However, at the beginning of this year, Bush began to implement some of the needed and recommended changes in strategy. He brought in a new SecDef and Gen. Petraeus. The Senate sang their praises.

Then, with the surge just three weeks into having all of the full force on the ground - and with an agreed upon September date for a report - the Dems and some Republicans are freaking out, shifting the goal posts, and behaving shamefully. Sadly, even though some benchmarks haven't been met yet, there has been progress made in Iraq. But, we are now sending out mixed signals to our troops, to the Iraqi leaders, and to our enemies.

No wonder Congress has a 16% approval rating.

He brought in a new SecDef and Gen. Petraeus.

You seem to confuse changing personell with changing strategy. They are very different things. The new Secretary of Defense certainly appears a lot better than the old Secratary of Defesnse, but that isnt saying much and does not amount to a change in strategy.

As for Petraeus, he is capable enough but the main criterion appears to be his cheerleading for the same old "strategy." Bush claims to listen to the generals but when they almost unanimously opposed the surge he just found new ones.

Personnel changes can be a prelude to change in approach but sometimes its just like shuffling deck chairs on the Titantic on course with an iceburg. At bottom thats the slogan of this adminstration - the President's approach is unsinkable - stay the course.

No wonder Congress has a 16% approval rating.

Everyone knows that institutions often get low ratings for odd reasons. Much of the low approaval rating is for not opposing the President enough.

What is more telling is the President of United States having one of the highest dissapproval ratings in history.

Then, with the surge just three weeks into having all of the full force on the ground - and with an agreed upon September date for a report - the Dems and some Republicans are freaking out, shifting the goal posts, and behaving shamefully.

That is shameful spin. The only ones shifting goal posts is the Administration who created them in the first place. You act like they were not unilatarially set by the administration and then artfully interpreted. Your rhetoric isnt backed up by reality, freaking out and shame is just in your imagination. Feel free to provide facts to back up your rhetoric. The Bush administration is the one guilty of stating goal posts and then shifting them when not met. The mission was clear and will not change... disarmerment of WMDs. They have shifted repeatedly and you have the shame of accusing those who disagree!?

Grading the Surge

So... what does a 44% earn you on this exam? In most things, that would earn a failing grade. But the president would like to be graded on a curve, you see. He believes that he deserves a "C-" — a barely passing grade that will enable him to progress to the next grade, which in this case is the much-anticipated September report from Gen. David Petraeus. We'll see.

This report card should not surprise anyone. The progress (or lack thereof) towards these benchmarks has been known for some time. However, two points leap out at me from this laundry list of performance measures. First, there seems to be a great deal of emphasis on legislative or policy action at the national level — despite the fact that legislation from the Iraqi Parliament and action from the Maliki government may be absolutely meaningless on the ground. This is not a representative, cohesive or effective government, and I frankly don't think that "Forming a Constitutional Review Committee" or "Establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committees" will do a damn thing to help the Iraqi people.

Furthermore, I question the truth behind of the "SATISFACTORY" grades, and the grades themselves. #4 grades the Iraqi government on "Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions." The White House judges this to be a success. Really? It's my understanding that this legislation has lagged, and that implementation is still a mirage. Are they making this judgment based on some perception of satisfactory progress? If so, what evidence supports that grade?

Another questionable benchmark is #9 — "Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations." Three brigades??? Out of an Iraqi Army comprising 10 divisions? Are we redefining success down to where we expect just 1/10 of the Iraqi Army to be capable of supporting the surge in Baghdad? This seems farcical. Especially when you consider how much of the American Army we've deployed to secure Baghdad. I understand that much of the Iraqi Army is committed elsewhere, such as Anbar and Diyala. But seriously, 3 brigades? Are you kidding?

Benchmarks in Iraq: The True Status (PDF)

You Call That Progress?
The outrageous White House report on Iraq.

You mirror the White House quite well, when your side is guilty of shamelessly shifting the goal posts, dont defend, ATTACK,shamelessly accuse the other side without evidence and then teach the controversy.

You ought to be ashamed, I am sure your not.

Catch,

Nice to see you. It's been too long since we sparred.

No, I am not ashamed of what I wrote, nor should I be. The surge didn't even reach full strength until less than a month ago. Before it had, Harry Reid - which history will show was the second most pitiful grey little gnome right behind Neville Chamberlain - and his solemn band of moral pygmies had already planned and began to execute their plan for attacking it as a "failure" and screeching and gnashing their little fangs for a surrender plan. Reid and Pelosi have politicized the war at every turn - soldiers be damned, Iraqis be damned, the war on terror be damned, America's interests be damned - and have seemingly rooted for and worked for our failure.

Their hatred of Bush has pushed them to the place where they would rather see America fail in order to hurt Bush than to see America succeed and Bush receive any praise.

They should be ashamed, and so should all of their toadies in Congress.

As I have said here and elsewhere, Bush has made many mistakes in the war. But there is an improved strategy, formulated by military leaders that Congress recently lauded. Let these leaders do their jobs - there will be a report in September. And, the enemy knows this as well, so expect increased efforts from them at manipulating our domestic politics and our lousy mainstream media.

I've got links, too:

The Benchmark Excuse

We Can't Just Wish the War Away

The issue now is not playing stupid and damaging finger-pointing exercises, but asking, what will happen if the US does not succeed in our mission? The consequences of failure are incomprehensible and unacceptable.

If failure is incomprehensible, how do you know it's unacceptable?

Spooky, I accept and comprehend that you are a very smart and witty guy. Touche'!

While I am intrigued by the idea that benchmarks aren't a valid way of looking at Iraq I have to ask what are? Because it seems to me that the administration agreed that these benchmarks, literally these goals for the Iraqi government, were a valid way of measuring our success in Iraq. How else do you intend to hold the Iraqi government accountable for it's actions and if the Iraqi government is never to be held accountable for it's actions and we intend to simply occupy the nation in their name then how do you justify this occupation?

If the goals outlined in those benchmarks are not "our mission" then what is our mission in Iraq? "Stay the course" looks good on a bumper sticker but in the end all it means is the senseless occupation of a country whose government has no apparent respect for the sacrifices our troops have made.

Before it had, Harry Reid - which history will show was the second most pitiful grey little gnome right behind Neville Chamberlain - and his solemn band of moral pygmies had already planned and began to execute their plan for attacking it as a "failure" and screeching and gnashing their little fangs for a surrender plan. Reid and Pelosi have politicized the war at every turn - soldiers be damned, Iraqis be damned, the war on terror be damned, America's interests be damned - and have seemingly rooted for and worked for our failure.

Their hatred of Bush has pushed them to the place where they would rather see America fail in order to hurt Bush than to see America succeed and Bush receive any praise.

They should be ashamed, and so should all of their toadies in Congress.

Wow you are full of hate. Your breathless insulting prose illustrates nicely how truly biased you are. Yep a lot more hateful rhetoric and no real substance.

Your rightwing partisan hackery opinion links just add more of the same hatred to the fire.

The issue now is not playing stupid and damaging finger-pointing exercises, but asking, what will happen if the US does not succeed in our mission?

You are so busy pointing your finger with rhetoric its nice of you to throw that bit of hypocrisy in.

You also completely fail to address the question of what is happening under the current course as the situation worsens. The evidence tells is what is happening as we pursue the same failed approach that has had increasingly worsening results.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Benjamin Franklin

New spin and rhetoric wont help. Ridiculous specious claims that the NYT has surrendered doesn help and wont change the outcome. Clapping louder and using more and more venom and invective wont help either.

You have the venom and invective down with your completey unsubstantiated rhetoric of Chamberlain and toads and surrender. Why not try to address the facts instead of just more spin?

...because the rhetorical flourishes are so much easier.

because the rhetorical flourishes are so much easier.

Actually, I had to work pretty hard on those. ;-)

Although, comparing Reid to Chamberlain wasn't too much of a stretch.

Although, comparing Reid to Chamberlain wasn't too much of a stretch.

Its ridiculous, unsubstantiated and juvenile. Its certainly not hard to write such ridiculous claims.

It's not hard to make those claims, Catch, because they are so easily and transparently and obviously true.

Reid's behavior this week is beyond pathetic and his 16% approval rating demonstrates that I am not alone in my opinion of his "leadership." Reid and the other surrender artists on the Dem side are an embarrassment and they are going to get good people killed by their stupidity. That goes for Hillary also.

Rude Reid: Communications Breakdown in the Senate

Bunning Smacks Down Dems in All-Night Rumble

Pentagon Slams Hillary on Iraq

Fiddling With War Plans

The Democratic effort during these days is exceptionally reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain's naive and disastrous policy of appeasement in the days that led up to Hitler's aggression and WWII.

Do you honestly believe the Iraq war is as bad as things are going to get? If we don't deal with it there and now, we will have to deal with it there and here later - and it will be infinitely worse.

The Dems need to cast off the extreme Left viper that coils around its neck and whispers venomous lies into its ear, lose the partisan bitterness, and work together with the President and the military for the good of this country and the world. If they don't, we are all in for a hellish tomorrow.

...sweet rhetoric mang...

Tom Bombadil,

Once again you offer a lot of rhetorical heat and no light. Your comparison to Chamberlain remains beyond ridiculous - there is absolutely no genunie comparison and you cannot show otherwise. Its people like you and the Bush admistration who offer simplistic answers, declare "mission accomplished" and promise peace in our time by "dealing" with "it" now. Its a stretch indeed to compare Bush to Chamberlain but he has a lot more in common than Reid.

Do you honestly believe the Iraq war is as bad as things are going to get? If we don't deal with it there and now, we will have to deal with it there and here later - and it will be infinitely worse.

The Iraq war is getting worse. That is precisely my point! You apparently want to dig deeper and cheer harder. We have people in charge who are delusional or liars. Remember VP Dick Cheney claiming the insurgents were on their "last throes". Asked about a year later he still claims he was right and everyone else wrong. If anyone wont recognize that the Iraq war is getting worse its the Bush administraiotn.

Reid's behavior this week is beyond pathetic and his 16% approval rating

You demonstrate how some people seize upon polls they like and distort them for all they are worth. You badly distort the poor opinon of congress. A huge part of the dissaproval is because many people believe Congress should do more to stop Bush and get out of Iraq and not do less. You want to pretend that it means the opposite. Keep pretending. By the way please do cite the polll that you pretend is judging Reid. If you would stop ranting and look at the facts its the opposite reason than you try to argue.

...dig deeper and cheer harder...

Nice

I will quote myself:

Do you honestly believe the Iraq war is as bad as things are going to get? If we don't deal with it there and now, we will have to deal with it there and here later - and it will be infinitely worse.

You accuse me of empty rhetoric, but did you actually read any of the four links I provided to supplement my points? The Left wants to continue to go over the same old talking points and bumper sticker taunts, but not one Democrat is honestly addressing or assessing the threat that a precipitous pullout from Iraq would have or the way in which their conduct in this debate is emboldening the enemy. By making everything a personal, vicious, and visceral attack on the President - and by repeatedly impugning the military's performance and behavior - they have weakened our national morale.

Of course, today Obama did address the issue of genocide - and incredibly, while he acknowledges the possibility - he still wants to cut and run: Obama: Don't Stay in Iraq Over Genocide

The Dems want to dig deeper - our own graves and the graves of Iraqis. And, the louder the voices warn against the Dem direction, the harder the Dems clamp their hands over their ears and scream, "Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! I can't heeeeeeeaaar yoooou!"

I hate to say it, Tom, but what a steaming load of crap. I did you the favor of reading your linked "articles", and all I can say is that it is the height of irony for you to take to task any Democrat for going over "the same old talking points and bumper sticker taunts." Was there anything in any of those articles that would liken the Democrats to Neville Chamberlain? Not that I could see. Link number one suggests that the Senate is no longer as cordial as it once was, and that both sides are bringing out the knives. Of course, it doesn't note whether previous Senates were ever truly friendly, or how decidedly vicious the Senate has been even in the recent past, not to mention historically (where it might be noted that actual physical attacks occurred between Senators).

Link number two is just a repetition of the same old familiar Republican talking points-- gems we've heard here on Newsvine, often: cut-and-run, troops should never be used for a cheap (Democrat) publicity stunt, Democrats follow a script written by "Move On", the President is more popular than Congress, the terrorists will follow us home, Al Qaeda is going to nuke us, blah-blah-blah... Great sound bites, but no evidence anywhere in sight on this Chamberlain thing that you're selling (unless of course you happen to believe every bit of political rhetoric being spouted by any Republican asshat with a microphone).

The third link highlights the dangerous incompetence of the current war-planning, rather than impugning Democrats as you seem to desire. And the fourth, complete with outrageous fallacies such as false dilemmas surrounding the ignominious failure that, of course, any withdrawal would necessarily have to be (in Republican imaginations, of course) hardly even bears commenting on. Interestingly, even Burt Moore can't work up enough courage (or ludicrous pomposity) to insist that the surge has a chance of working by September. He hedges his bets with jewels such as

Those who support the Global War on Terror and the Iraqi battleground are willing to wait and see although with apprehension that another administration misstep will put the final nail in the surge's coffin... The slow pace of the surge deployment schedule and the limited time to implement surge operations with the additional 20,000 combat troops is inadequate to meet the arbitrary September 15th evaluation date, let alone the constant "This war is lost" surrenderniks.

Clearly, the answer is unquestioning faith in a decades-long war to ensure "Iraq" remains "free" for America's "national security interests." Of course, Moore has no qualms about bringing out the tired comparison to WWII again. Any price that has to be paid, eh Moore? As long as other people are the ones who have to pay it.

So what did you provide? As Catch already noted, nothing but empty rhetoric, the same empty rhetoric we've been hearing out of conservatives since the run-up to the war; bloated hysterics about Al Qaeda's intentions to destroy America with newly acquired biological, chemical and nuclear weapons; false dichotomies that equate redeployment with surrender; the wailing and gnashing of teeth that any questioning of the Fuhre... Bush's "military strategy" equals impugning of the military's performance, and results in a weakening of "national morale." It's total bull@!$%# such as this that prevents clearer heads from prevailing in coming up with a viable plan for the remnants of Iraq, but by all means, continue to vest your faith in the administration that predicted that we could succeed with a handful of troops in six weeks with an operation that would pay for itself and see us greeted as liberators by all the Iraqis.

If you fill up with any more hot air, you'll pop your moorings and appear on air traffic control's radar.

Give it a rest.

Give it a rest.

OK, I'll keep this one short:

Harry Reid = Neville Chamberlain

OK, I'll keep this one short: Brevity is the soul of wit.

[grin]

My retort: Tom Bombadil = Chicken Little.

Hey Tom, wrote a rather long response to this comment, heh. Started out as a comment, ended up an article. Enjoy.

Harry Reid = Neville Chamberlain

I'll keep it short.

Your comment = Ridiculous unsubstantiated Right wing slur

Should the Mafia ever commit some despicable transgression in a foreign land...

And what has happened, exactly?

...hold the entirety of America accountable.

I hope they won't but fear that they will.

In the end, everybody is complicit in every heinous act they could fight to prevent but did not.

No, no, no... If the Mafia commits some despicable act in a foreign land, we plan to invade Italy!

Invade Italy? Until our cars run on marinara sauce I don't see any point.