« How about a sea story? | Main | Why? »

August 07, 2007

There's Something Happening Here.

Progress, it's called. Oh my, they shriek. Noooooo. Say it ain't so.

Sorry, can't do that. My guess is General Petraeus can't -- and won't -- do that in September either, which presents the Democrats with a bit of a problem. Bad enough that proof the surge is working might come from our top General in Iraq, but even worse, if you're one of those pull-out-now types, will be how the public views the evidence presented by General Petraeus. As it stands now, the public seems to be reevaluating the situation on the ground.

USA TODAY's Susan Page reports that President Bush is making some headway in arguing that the increase in U.S. troops in Iraq is showing military progress.

In the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, taken Friday through Sunday, the proportion of those who said the additional troops are "making the situation better" rose to 31% from 22% a month ago. Those who said it was "not making much difference" dropped to 41% from 51%.

About the same number said it was making things worse: 24% now, 25% a month ago.

Slight shifts, yes, but shifts that spell trouble for Democrats. For some, it matters little what is really happening in Iraq. It matters most what people think is happening in Iraq, and if they think that we might just have a shot at winning, the Democrats are going to be in a huge bind, and it will be interesting to see how they justify leaving Iraq prematurely because, as we know, it will be ugly, very ugly.

On compelling Iraq's political leaders to move toward reconciliation, few American officers appear to believe that an early pullout would do the trick. They think it would propel the country further into chaos.

[Ambassador] Crocker is explicit on that point.

"A massive human catastrophe (could follow), with the bloodshed among the Iraqi civilians on a scale we have not seen and may find hard to imagine," he told AP.

And guess who would be blamed?

Hugh Hewitt hopes General Petraeus will be given maximum exposure, and some uninterrupted time on the networks when he delivers his report to Congress.

Of course the victory hasn't been won, and of course the argument about the war isn't going to vanish even if General Petraeus gives an optimistic report in mid-September. But that report will matter a great deal, and I hope the Administration takes steps to assure that the American people get to hear it without the filter of the MSM or a Democratically-controlled Senate or House panel doing its best to muffle the good news and amplify the bad news.

I hope that General Petraeus appears before a respectful audience interested in his report and gives his remarks prefaced by an appeal to the MSM to at least play, uninterrupted, the first five minutes of his talk. If he then provided an executive summary of what he thinks is the situation in Iraq, there is an excellent chance that the American people will be allowed to hear the key facts from the key military leader. I hope after that summary he proceeds to deliver a detailed speech which the responsible networks will carry live (and radio hosts will replay) and that he then takes an hour of questions, before appearing before any Senate or House panel (which he will of course make himself available for.) Even though the day is long, I hope he ends it with Brit Hume followed by Charlie Rose, and then appears on Meet The Press and Wolf Blitzer's program the following Sunday, thus making himself available to the four best television interviewers working today. On the Monday following the Sunday shows, I hope he appears on the programs of Bill Bennett, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, and makes a return visit to mine as well. I hope he gives Ed Schultz and Alan Colmes interviews as well, and rounds out his debrief of the public by inviting a half dozen of the best columnists to meet with him and answer questions.

A legitimate wish considering we're often remind that Iraq is the primary concern of most Americans. Applying that logic, surely Americans would want some unfiltered analysis from the man who is implementing our war strategy.

A new mantra is about to emerge, one that goes something like this, even if we have military success, we need to have political success to win, and that doesn't look very likely. It's true, the Iraqis will have to make some political progress, and quickly. Nobody disputes this, but if we start hearing this line more and more, it'll be pretty transparent that this is just an attempt to throw cold water on what I am assuming will be an optimistic report about military success from General Petraeus.

Let's just hope that members of Congress can make it through the entire session.

It’s tough being a member of Congress. Even if you’re in the majority, as is Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas, you never know when your ears may be assaulted by outrageous and offensive ideas.

Like what? At a recent hearing of the Armed Services Committee, retired Gen. Jack Keane said “progress is being made” by U.S. military forces in Iraq; “We are on the offensive and we have the momentum,” he added. The freshman congresswoman was so distressed by these remarks that she got up and she walked out.

There was “only so much” she could take, she explained, so she “had to leave the room … after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to.” She said she was worried, too, that General Keane’s remarks “will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country.” Hey, that could happen!

Lucky for Rep. Boyda, Congress in August goes on vacation. One hopes she can rest and recover, while blocking out any unwelcome and divisive news about American military successes in Iraq resulting from the new strategy being pursued by Gen. David Petraeus and his troops.

So, September promises to be an interesting month. This whole being in charge thing looks easier than it really is.

Posted by Andi at August 7, 2007 08:30 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1762

Comments

We have lost enough arms to equip an army larger than our own...yes things sound peachy! And exactly what is the progress you talk about...polling results in the US doesn't mean things are better for the troops...which shows you care about rethug politics more than the troops...a fascist all the way!

Posted by: madmatt at August 7, 2007 09:57 AM

Everything's really going great with the surge... the surge in phony spin on Iraq that is.

Posted by: Randy at August 7, 2007 09:58 AM

Sometimes I feel like doing a Preston Brooks on the Congress.

He was the Southern Congressmen so fed up with attacks on the South on the floor that he went down and beat the crap out of Charles Sumner after a particularly offensive speech. He busted his cane on Sumners thick head, and people all over the South sent him new ones.

I know just how he felt.

Posted by: The Hermit at August 7, 2007 10:11 AM

Dang! Who left the troll gate open?

Posted by: FbL at August 7, 2007 10:15 AM

I am a liberal, and if things are getting better militarily, that is really good...the question I have, though, is how sustainable is it? The whole point of a 'surge' is that is is temporary. Will things go back afterwards? Politically, the groups are farther apart than ever, and are acting like they are all just waiting for us to leave, so they can kill each other. Maybe we just need to let them do so, and set up civilian 'safe-havens' with no weapons allowed inside, and let the rest kill each other until one side wins. It's harsh, but it may be the best we can do now. I opposed this war from (before) the start, but it is important to remember the Pottery Barn rule - we broke it, we own it. As a liberal, I also can't help but note that it was the REPUBLICANS that broke it, and now we ALL own it, but that is another story. We do have a responsibility to protect the civilians, if not the Iraqi government. Unfortunately, when we finally withdraw (which will happen) you are right, we will get blamed. And rightly so. We broke it, we then owned it. The incompetence of this administration in planning and executing the post-war left the country destroyed, and soon it will splinter.

Posted by: Joe at August 7, 2007 10:18 AM

And guess who would be blamed?

Asked, albeit hypothetically.

it was the REPUBLICANS that broke it

Answered. Albeit that wasn't Joe's point, but that's the way it will be spun nonetheless.

We have lost enough arms to equip an army larger than our own

Are you familiar with the word 'consumables' by any chance?

which shows you care about rethug politics more than the troops

Which shows that you know nothing about troops and what's important to them.

the surge in phony spin on Iraq that is

I see. And Harry "We Lost Before We Begun" Reid's spin is somehow totally accurate and fact-based?

Posted by: daveg at August 7, 2007 10:28 AM

Dear Blog.

The first week of August, has already 26 soldiers killed in action.... While the Iraqi Government is on an extended vacation.

The Iraqi Government that the "surge" was supposed to buy time to resolve their many, many problems. THAT GOVERNMENT. There's something absolutely wrong in the Republican's rational that is OK for us to foot the bill as taxpayers, and our soldiers to pay with their blood, so that the Iraqi Government takes off on a vacation to Can Cun, and Right WIngers talk about the "progress" made in Iraq. If that's progress Right WIngers now I know why you have us in such a mess in Iraq... You are DELUSIONAL, and in need of medical help.

Now I know that your standards for success are as low as dirt, but you guys are getting ridiculos. Next thing I know you people are going to be giving medals of Freedom to ex- CIA directors that gave us the wrong intel- in Iraq..... OH, that's been done, never mind.

By the way Blog, if you want to belong to a non-existent Republican party in 2008, I dare you to continue to support the war, excuse me THE MESS.

You people just don't learn. You are lucky you have not been rounded up and trown out of the U.S.

Posted by: gil at August 7, 2007 10:46 AM

Davecq

"Harry,We lost before we begun"

It might come as a surprise to you but the war begun in 2002.

"Harry" DID NOT AGREE with the "surge", as 70* of the American population. As such we don't have to "wait" for your latest delusional policy to "work"/

We already have seen many examples of the Right Wing meening of "progress" in Iraq..... Almost five years to be exact.

Posted by: gil at August 7, 2007 10:51 AM

Daveq -
Before anyone here gets mad at you for defending this, let me just say thank you for polite responses. That is needed more often on all blogs. People get too angry when their own opinions are challenged. That said, I am in favor of having 'trolls' show up, to offer different opinions on liberal and conservative blogs. To finish off, I have hoped from the start that I was wrong about Iraq - I still do - but I just don't see this situation coming out in any positive way. With no Sunnis in the government anymore, the parliament on vacation, and 190,000 guns missing (not usually considered a 'consumable', which I consider a bullet to be), I just don't see this working in any sort of feasible time-line. I have to admit - this ultimately comes back to my own problems with running deeper and deeper into debt. I would be willing to be taxed for this war, even though I oppose it. I am very unhappy about going into debt to China to pay for it, however.

Posted by: Joe at August 7, 2007 10:56 AM

y'all crack me up.
if it wasn't for the "pull-out now crowd", as you call them, we would still have a president swearing to stay the course, we would still have rumsfeld, and we wouldn't have this administration mouthpiece/general y'all see as some sort of mythical god. if it wasn't for pressure from people who can grasp reality, the same people you choose to denegrate, there wouldn't be what you call progress.
there are real questions in my mind about the level of progress, and the possibility of sustaining that progress. but there is no question about how this progress came about. it came because of pressure for change from people without blinders on...not from cheerleaders like y'all. hopefully the pressure will continue and the progress will continue.

Posted by: jay k. at August 7, 2007 10:57 AM

Don't pull anything patting yourself on the back there, Jay.

Posted by: daveg at August 7, 2007 11:24 AM

So let's see, Bill Kristol and a few other wide-eyed true believers go to Iraq for a carefully stage-managed dog and pony show, and come home and tell us that "progress" is being made, and because a few people are desperate enough to believe that, you think this constitutes a great ground-swell of support for a war that has ground on for four miserable, futile years without any discernible improvement in the condition of Iraq? Oh, but our savior David Petraeus is going to make everything all right now, so we should all just keep quiet and be good children until September, when Petraeus will tell us whether or not the "surge" is working. And of course, even though it was his own policy, he will be totally objective about that.

Meanwhile, how many of those political benchmarks has the Iraqi government met? Oh, cough, never mind, they're MAKING PROGRESS on almost half of them. Or were, before they all went on vacation and a lot of them quit for good. But just you wait and see, everything will be fine by September.

Posted by: Susan at August 7, 2007 11:42 AM

Does it make you the slightest bit ashamed that you are rooting for failure? The fact that the left wing and it's pandering politicians must have the US lose in Iraq to win is sad and pathetic
I am ashamed of you all.
I am ashamed of you when I think of how hard they are working over there to get these positive results. Positive results that you will deny because it doesn't fit your narrative.

I wonder, for those who're simply here to tamp down any positive news from Iraq, if when asked what you are..
do you say that you're an American or do you say that you're a Democrat?

No matter...words are one thing and actions are yet another.

Posted by: Carrie at August 7, 2007 12:03 PM

he will be totally objective about that.

Ah yes, the "he hasn't even spoken yet, but he's a liar" Harry "Land Deal" Reid talking point.

how many of those political benchmarks has the Iraqi government met?

How many have Pelosi's 100 hour Congress met? Politics is a tough business, isn't it?

Posted by: daveg at August 7, 2007 12:09 PM

Carrie, if I were rooting for failure I'd support George Bush. If I wanted American troops to die and America to be hated around the world, I'd be the loudest cheerleader for this war based on lies. Dave, how many generals did Bush fire before he found one that would say what he wanted?

Posted by: Susan at August 7, 2007 12:24 PM

Susan,
See. You are the problem. This isn't about your opposition to this war. This is about your opposition to George Bush and Republicans.
And any thing that might, in your pea sized brain, make George Bush look better is wrong, a lie, and must be denied vigorously.

For me, this has little to do with George Bush and more to do with wanting OUR troops to succeed in their mission. Lord knows they want to and are willing to do what it takes.

Posted by: Carrie at August 7, 2007 12:28 PM

daveq...
zippy comeback. i suppose it does come off that way. but for supporters of this ill-advised so-called war to now try to take some sort of credit for any alleged progress, when they have spent years questioning the patriotism and intestinal fortitude of anyone who pushed for change and created the very pressure which resulted in this alleged progress, is flat out ridiculous. and for blogs like this one to continue to denegrate those who continue to push for change shows the true level of their blind partisanship.

Posted by: jay k. at August 7, 2007 12:36 PM

I am ashamed of you all.
I am ashamed of you when I think of how hard they are working over there to get these positive results. Positive results that you will deny because it doesn't fit your narrative.


I don't think you understand where people are coming from. They're not denying the positive news for political reasons; they're denying it because they've been burned too many times.


The problem is that the administration hasn't been honest with us about the progress of the war. They thought we weren't up for a long fight, so they said "Mission Accomplished!" and "The insurgency is in its last throes!" too early and too often. So in September, when General Petreus says that things are going swimmingly and he just needs another six months to wrap things up, the average American is going to assume that it's just one more lie.


So the writing's on the wall. No matter how much good news or how much bad news there is, and no matter who wins the next election, the troop pullout is going to start bright and early on January 20th, 2009. All we can do is hope that the Iraqi people are willing to defend their own country instead of continuing to site around while we do all the work.

Posted by: chaos_engineer at August 7, 2007 12:44 PM

The reason why I don't talk with the Left anymore (in a debate format) is because they don't got any answers. All the answers I would ever need comes from history and those in command slots similar to Petraeus'.

I can back up my point as well. Simply read my post concerning how MacArthur handled the same kinds of problems we face right now.

link

All we can do is hope that the Iraqi people are willing to defend their own country instead of continuing to site around while we do all the work.

This demonstrates that Leftist propaganda, psychological warfare, and destabilization has indeed born fruit.

There is a sizable percentage of Americans that no longer believe in victory or in the leadership of this nation. That's some pretty fast destabilization. I also explained in my blog that this is the inevitable result of Bush taking it easy on the domestic insurgency. If you allow people inside the US to propagandize and conduct psychological warfare against the American people.. can you expect anything else than the sentiments you hear on this thread? People believe Bush was the one that made them disillusioned. But like all good propaganda, it convinces you that it was your own idea to believe that Bush was the cause of your woes, not the idea and work of the Left.

Yuri still gives the best explanation of this process. Although it's been tweaked somewhat by the Left given the fall of their Soviet masters. And I actually mean that in the way it appears as well.

Yuri Bezmenov explains Soviet Propaganda operations

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 7, 2007 01:06 PM

Ultimately, however, victory solves everything. I'll back that up for those that are worried that all these comments and doubts would disappear once victory is achieved.

Please take a look at Neo's blog if you haven't already. link

here are the highlights.

While skimming through it, I came across a passage in which De Mille, a newlywed whose husband has gone off to fight World War II (he was to remain abroad for the two remaining years of the war but returned unharmed), describes some of the conversations she endured at social events during her long wait:

For dark, personal reasons, many people could not resist this chance at cruelty. There were the intellectuals who demanded aggressively if we believed in war and asked across our dinner tables did we relish the idea of being the widows of dead heroes? There were men of peace who fulminated against destruction and argued that no idea was worth fighting for that leveled Casino or Dresden….There were the newscasters who, after the fourth Martini, swore with something akin to professional pride that the war would last another eight years….



And this was World War II, the Good War. Interesting, no?

The bold were Neo's words. Achieve victory, Petraeus, and the rest will solve itself.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 7, 2007 01:09 PM

They thought we weren't up for a long fight, so they said "Mission Accomplished!"

"(AP) Remarks by President Bush announcing the end of major combat operations in Iraq Thursday evening from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln:"

"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We are helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave — and we will leave behind a free Iraq."

You heard what you wanted to hear, not what was said. Other similar quotes are very, very easy to find.

Posted by: daveg at August 7, 2007 01:24 PM

You know, Chaos, I agree.
People HAVE been lied to and the truth has been distorted for political points.
We just disagree on who exactly is guilty of such things.

So, in the interest of agreement, I don't think you should wait until Jan. 2009. I think you should go post haste to the nearest al Qaeda member and surrender yourself.
I will sing kumbaya as they slice your throat halal style.

Mabrouk and masalama.

Posted by: Carrie at August 7, 2007 01:25 PM

Carrie,

Reality is not rooting for failure.
What is it when people say terrorists want to kill Americans? Using your logic, it means they're rooting for the terrorists. (See, that is stupid logic).

What did Patraeus say about Iraq just before the 2004 election?
Sounds like God is batting .000 in his predictions.

WWII is nothing like this war.
All americans were asked to sacrafice for WWII.

Posted by: Robert at August 7, 2007 01:29 PM

Robert,
I wholeheartedly agree that rooting for terrorists is stupid logic.
See? I'm so agreeable...

Posted by: Carrie at August 7, 2007 01:33 PM

Thanks Carrie.
Now can you help stop all the Right-wingers from doing it?

Posted by: Robert at August 7, 2007 01:37 PM

...anyone who pushed for change and created the very pressure which resulted in this alleged progress,
Jay, I don't want to unfairly lump you into the wrong demographic, because it certainly is the case that many were pushing for a change in strategy, and while it has now come, it was arguably years too late. Still, it came, and early indications are that it is working. Now is not the time to drop fly and take a leak over the news of improvement in the situation.

That said, however, there are those that did not urge a change in strategy; no, they screamed for ignominious retreat. Those are the ones that I contend can take no credit whatsoever for any progress in Iraq, and to go further, I think made an appreciable dent in any progress that could have been made in the past.

If you are in the former group, fine. If you are in the latter, then I think you are self-aggrandizing if you believe you are to be complimented for your actions. Only you know to which group you belong.

Posted by: daveg at August 7, 2007 01:37 PM

if it wasn't for pressure from people who can grasp reality, the same people you choose to denegrate, there wouldn't be what you call progress.

Bush has never responded to public pressure concerning which policy he should pursue. If he did, we would have had him jailing Plame and crushing news reporters like Dan Rather and the Watadas with extreme prejudice. Rumsfield wanted to leave because he got tired of working his ass off for people like you. Bush wouldn't let him leave; up until the elections gave him Or Rummy an excuse to save face and go on a backup strategy, Bush denied Rumsfield's resignation twice. Or do you think Bush is smart (and fast) enough to immediately come up with new plans and new leaders just because of your own ego that says you are so important the President of the most powerful nation on the world would change course just because of your actions?

That probably feels good but it is not an accurate analysis. An accurate analysis uses the President's decision to launch Fallujah 2 after the 2004 elections. He delayed them because he didn't want it distracting people and possibly making them vote to re-elect him. You think that having done that, he would concede to your wishes just because you voted in some Democrats? You want a wheatie or something?

Rumsfield got tired of working for ungrateful retards on the Left a long time ago. He finally found a way to get out.

and for blogs like this one to continue to denegrate those who continue to push for change shows the true level of their blind partisanship.

Blind partisanship is pushing for a change and then having gotten the change, continue to push for "change". That's blind partisanship for those with eyes but see not.

*shrugs* just trying to help carrier and dave out. It is not that I care exactly about arguing over stuff that's nto going to change, but they are still good arguments. They are not the coup de grace that a victory would achieve or even the deterent that crushing the domestici nsurgency would achieve, but still.

h, but our savior David Petraeus is going to make everything all right now, so we should all just keep quiet and be good children until September, when Petraeus will tell us whether or not the "surge" is working.

i could mention the Leftist propaganda we saw about a year ago talking about how we need to listen to the "Generals" because they know what they are talking about and if Bush's own generals say that things are going bad, who are the Republicans to call them wrong? And now we have... well we have what we have. I could mention it, but what would be the point really? Propaganda is based upon half truths, some lies, and pure manipulation of truth and perceptions. The only thing that counters propaganda is more propaganda, or rather counter-propaganda. Like counter-insurgency up against insurgency.

Arguments can be counter-propaganda but it is not the best way to do counter-propaganda.

I am ashamed of you when I think of how hard they are working over there to get these positive results. Positive results that you will deny because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Technically carrie, it isn't their narrative. Because only propagandists have narratives, their targets are only victims of the narrative. Belief has a hierarchy just like the military. There are those at the top that give orders and then there are those at the bottom that carry out those orders. The narrative then translates as the Grand Strategy, i.e. COIN by Petraeus and Company. It is not Susan's Grand Narrative, but rather the Grand Narrative of the Democrat leaders and propagandists. It is their effort yes, but the strategy comes from top to bottom.

They're not denying the positive news for political reasons; they're denying it because they've been burned too many times.

Everyone is responsible for their own internal psychological defenses and education on political matters. I am not responsible for their guillibility, ignorance, or stupidity. This is America here, not the People's Republic of Europe.

I really don't feel any respect for folks that can get burned by Bush's non-existent propaganda. That's all that matters. After all, if you can be taken in by such non-existent operations, then how are you going to resist Democrat or Islamic Jihad propaganda?

The problem with understanding propaganda and psychologicla warfare is that you get to realize how easy it is to manipulate people. Yet there is a distinct power requirement for the manipulations of large numbers of people. I don't have that power, but the President does. He just doesn't use it either because he doesn't have the knowledge of how to, doesn't want the knowledge of how to manipulate people, or doesn't believe that it fits with his conservative compassionate ideals. The reason why I say that it is a problem to understand how easy it is to manipulate people is that I see why people say or do the things that they do, regardless of what side they have chosen. But the knowledge is useless in convincing anyone else to switch sides. Because the knowledge only allows me to see not to change and hence that is the problem. It takes psychic shock to change a person's beliefs. Analogous to Japan's defeat or America's victory in WWII. Some kind of experience that is so fundamental or powerful that it literally rewries a person's neuron paths. Vietnam was also an experience that rewired people's neuron paths.

Iraq is important to America because Iraq's fate will decide what kind of America will result. What personality that America will have, what morality, what ethics; essentially what brain structure would an America have after Iraq.

Some people want Iraq to fail while others want it to succede. Some people only think they want Iraq to succede while fooling themselves into believing that America comes first in this world of interlocking networks and inter-dependencies.

Essentially, "leave the Ameri Indian tribes alone, just let them all die off, since who needs them anyway". Right. Let's forget about the Navajo in WWII and the Comanches and what not. We don't need them, right? The Left doesn't need them; they just need slaves, not warriors.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 7, 2007 01:41 PM

All americans were asked to sacrafice for WWII.

There is a list of Americans I would like to see sacrificed for the war effort. Kennedy, Reid, Watada, Scott Thomas, Dan Rather, Michael Moore.

Just cause the Left doesn't want to sacrifice doesn't mean I have to agree. Ignorance is not a good plan for victory.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 7, 2007 01:44 PM

It's not "right wingers' who are rooting for terrorists to win which as we both agreed was stupid logic. When groups advocate for "Iraqi resistance" to win over the US, when they urge military servicemembers to "frag" their officers, when Representatives state in a public forum that it wouldn't be good for their party/election bids if Petraues came back with positive news..those are all good examples of stupid, shortsighted logic. If you follow their stupid logic...if we leave, if we surrender then who has won? The terrorists have.

And finally, when groups actually raise money for the very folks our troops are fighting against, that's not only stupid logic but should be considered treason. I wonder how many IED's that money purchased....

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2007/07/to_fallujahs_te.php

What I think you don't understand is that for many of us here, this is not a political argument about a political war.
Many of us are personally invested in it (and please...don't come back with how many shares of Halliburton do you own? That is not what I mean by invested.)

Posted by: Carrie at August 7, 2007 01:48 PM

Now can you help stop all the Right-wingers from doing it?

People are responsible for their own actions. Something the Left needs to recognize.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 7, 2007 01:49 PM

Ymarskar,
So was Bush for or aginst the creation of the 911 Commission?
Hint: He was aginst it before he was for it.

How about Katrina?

So much for never responding to public pressure on which policies he should pursue.

Just because it's an RNC Talking point (and repeated by the "liberal MSM"--Ha ha ha. Get it? liberal MSM. That's too funny), doesn't mean it's true. (In fact it usually means it isn't true).

Posted by: Robert at August 7, 2007 01:51 PM

A useful poll would be to see who here believes that there is nothing worth fighting, killing, and dying for. And what would they believe is worth fighting, killing, AND dying for?

Basic philosophy has always been a useful indication of the success or failure of propaganda operations. Since propaganda, like Iago, simply preys upon the existing doubts and beliefs of a person. It takes psychological warfare to actually change a person's fundamental beliefs. Russians called it demoralization. Which is a weird word and perhaps misleading as well.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 7, 2007 01:53 PM

"Early indications are that it is working." That cracks me up. How many times can you swallow the same dried out piece of bullshit? At least once more, I guess.

I can hear you all now: "Man, but this time, unlike every other time for the last 4 years, this time, when they say it's working, we should believe them, because, hey, just because somebody's lied to you every single time before now is no indication that they're going to lie again."

So everybody here should do the patriotic thing and forget about all the other times you've been lied to so you believe the lies that are on the horizon. If you don't believe the lies, you must hate our troops.

One thing that's for sure, though. This is all bad news for Democrats.

Posted by: Grog at August 7, 2007 01:54 PM

Who is this "boy"?
And why does he keep crying "wolf"?

Posted by: Robert at August 7, 2007 01:57 PM

So was Bush for or aginst the creation of the 911 Commission?

That has zero relevance.

How about Katrina?

Bush should have stepped on Blanco and called in the Marines and National Guard. Obviously there was some sabotage going on in that city by bureacrats. Only the military could be trusted to bring law and order back, given the disbanding of the police. It would have been a great propaganda coup, had Bush utilized it.

I know Katrina is a magic word about how the lemmings got one over on Bush, but you got to stop believing in your own propaganda. No conscientious (or was it conscienceless?) propagandist should believe in their own propaganda. That's called fanaticism or true belief. Something else going on there.

liberal MSM

liberal main sewer media? liberal mass septic (sepsis?) mind?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 7, 2007 02:00 PM

"...there are those that did not urge a change in strategy; no, they screamed for ignominious retreat..."
there are also those of us who know full damn well that anyone who pressed for change was branded as someone who wanted "ignominious retreat". branded as being unpatriotic and treasonous. yes, some on the extreme fringe want that. far, far more have been intentionaly and falsely labeled with it.

Posted by: jay k. at August 7, 2007 02:06 PM

How many times can you swallow the same dried out piece of bullshit?

I don't know. How do you feel about this:

Pelosi has pledged to restore integrity and civility to the People’s House and preside over the most honest and open Congress in history. As Leader, Pelosi authored principles for civility to reduce partisanship in House operations and to ensure the rights of the minority in all House activity.

I don't have to believe Bush and Co. I can just listen to people that are there, such as Michael Yon. You can call him a liar too, if you choose, but keep in mind that he was amongst the first to say that we were in the middle of a civil war in Iraq, long before opportunists in the MSM picked up on it, and he was damned unpopular for it.

Posted by: daveg at August 7, 2007 02:08 PM

Jay -

branded as being unpatriotic and treasonous.

It's not unusual to be branded along with the company you keep. Unfair, yes. Unusual, no. I caution my child about it constantly. Again, you may have been unfairly lumped in with that crowd. It's a risk you take.

You may want to deny that many on the opposing side of the argument are not, in fact, unpatriotic and treasonous, but you would be wrong. Many are.

Those in governemtn service that have pledged to maintain state secrets, yet willingly leaked them to the press, come to mind. There are appropriate paths to take if they believed unlawful activities were taking place; the news desk at the NYTimes is not amongst them.

Posted by: daveg at August 7, 2007 02:13 PM

When shown that his theory of Bush not responding to public pressure to set policies is total nonsense, Y responds with "That has zero relevance".

Y you're hilarious!

Posted by: Robert at August 7, 2007 02:17 PM

daveq...
on your first point; "...You may want to deny that many on the opposing side of the argument are not, in fact, unpatriotic and treasonous, but you would be wrong. Many are..." that is just total bullshit. actually questioning authority is at the very basis of patriotism. we would not have the republic we enjoy today without it. calling those who disagree with you un-patriotic is just a cheap way to appeal to the masses who don't care to think for themselves...which would include those who repeat such tripe.
on your second point; you are dead right. for instance if senior administration officials conspire to leak the identity of a covert cia operative. or if one or more of them subsequently commit perjury to cover up such a conspiracy. i am proud to see that the system can work even when obstructed.

Posted by: jay k. at August 7, 2007 02:50 PM

questioning authority is at the very basis of patriotism.

Agitating for retreat is not "questioning authority." Nor is selective and biased reporting. This is getting to be pretty old ground.

senior administration officials conspire to leak the identity of a covert cia operative.

Ah, yes, Richard Armitage. One does wonder why charges weren't filed and the "investigation" wrapped up immediately upon his confession. One might lean towards thinking a witch hunt was the actual goal in light of that.

One also wonders at the lenient punishment of one Sandy Berger.

if one or more of them subsequently commit perjury to cover up such a conspiracy.

You'll get no argument from me there, although I don't think I'm reading the point you were trying to make.

Posted by: daveg at August 7, 2007 03:02 PM

Ummm..wasn't Valerie Plame's lawsuit dismissed as well?

Posted by: Carrie at August 7, 2007 03:06 PM

"...This is getting to be pretty old ground..."
you are absolutely right. i suggest you just keep marching in mindless lockstep...it seems to suit you.

Posted by: jay k. at August 7, 2007 03:22 PM

Armitage, Rove, and Libby:
All outed a covert CIA agent during wartime.
Hang the traitors!!!

Daveq,
Do you want to bring the rope, or should I?

Posted by: Robert at August 7, 2007 03:30 PM

that is just total bullshit.

crackers right there.

People call the Left unpatriotic not because they disagree. I call folks on the Left unpatriotic because they are nihilists and also because they seek to dismantle the United States Constitution in order to remake it in their own image of leftist utopia.

for instance if senior administration officials conspire to leak the identity of a covert cia operative.

Watching successful propaganda operations result in such predictable results is sheer joy for me. Even if it is enemy propaganda that is the source of such.

you are absolutely right. i suggest you just keep marching in mindless lockstep...it seems to suit you.

Character assassination was originally a tactic the useful idiots on the Left picked up from their Soviet masters and creators. Since after all, the Soviets mastered character assassination to its highest level.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 7, 2007 03:30 PM

Do you want to bring the rope, or should I?

As is consistent with Leftist strategy. They will sacrifice their own friends and allies, so long as they get more of the enemy. After all, when has a Leftist revolutionary ever NOT proceded to purging their previous friends and allies after achieving power? Cuban Revolution. Iranian Revolution. Soviet Revolution. Trotsky was better than Stalin, but Stalin was more Marxist than the Marxists.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 7, 2007 03:32 PM

Everyone is responsible for their own internal psychological defenses and education on political matters. I am not responsible for their guillibility, ignorance, or stupidity. This is America here, not the People's Republic of Europe.


I've got to disagree. It's not like this is a zero-sum game. If people get smarter, then everyone benefits, and if people get stupider, then we all suffer.


I really don't feel any respect for folks that can get burned by Bush's non-existent propaganda. That's all that matters. After all, if you can be taken in by such non-existent operations, then how are you going to resist Democrat or Islamic Jihad propaganda?


I think Abraham Lincoln said it best: "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."


You can use propaganda to obtain political power, but once you've got the power, people will expect to start seeing results. As long as we keep having free elections, I think things will work out.


Yet there is a distinct power requirement for the manipulations of large numbers of people. I don't have that power, but the President does. He just doesn't use it either because he doesn't have the knowledge of how to, doesn't want the knowledge of how to manipulate people, or doesn't believe that it fits with his conservative compassionate ideals.


I disagree again. President Bush had the American people solidly behind him when he went into Iraq. He didn't lose support until people saw that he couldn't deliver on his promises. The WMD stockpiles never turned up, al-Qaeda has gotten more powerful, and the Iraqi people decided that they'd rather have a genocidal civil war than a stable democracy.


Basically the American People have lost patience with Plan A, and they want to move to Plan B, which is to redeploy the troops back home and focus on securing the border.


That might fail too, and we might wind up with the scenario that Carrie is praying for, where al-Qaeda invades the US and tries to cut her enemies' throats while she sings Kumbaya. In that case, we'll just move to Plan C, which is to defend our homes with shotguns and hunting rifles until the police show up. (I think Abraham Lincoln said it best: "Never bring a knife to a gunfight.")

Posted by: chaos_engineer at August 7, 2007 03:36 PM

President Bush had the American people solidly behind him when he went into Iraq. He didn't lose support until people saw that he couldn't deliver on his promises.

Of course that's true. What we differ on is why he failed. Or even what he failed in.

Basically the American People have lost patience with Plan A, and they want to move to Plan B, which is to redeploy the troops back home and focus on securing the border.

Iraq comes into the picture with the border as well. Do you really believe that you can fight drug smugglers and those that traffic in human beings at the Southern border without the experience of stopping IEDs and VBIEDs in Iraq? What do you think you can use to secure the border if not the military?

The destabilization in Iraq is already being mirrored at the border. The creation of separate victim minority groups. The supply of aid for insurgent operations from foreign nations like Mexico. If America cannot win Iraq, it also cannot secure the border. Currently Mexico is going it alone in the South. But when mexico connects with Iran and Syria, they will become more powerful and influential. The Meth cartels simply need an official source of ephedrine. Iran can supply such. If they ever started thinking about it, without Iraq or Afghanistan to distract them.

American can be brought down by drugs and illegal immigration and infiltration of our borders. For no one will fear you if you surrender Iraq.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 7, 2007 03:44 PM

Yes, of course, Chaos, I am praying that Al qaeda comes to the US and kills my enemies whilst I trill kumbaya...'cause I said that...well...hmmm.
I DIDN'T say that.

What I said was that if you surrender to the nearest al Qaeda terrorist, they are not going to take you prisoner and put you on their friends list at Facebook. They have said that they will kill Americans whereever and however they can.
They have proven time and time again that they mean exactly that.

And as a side note..it's interesting that you think I consider you my enemy. As far as I know, you're an American citizen. I don't view American citizens as my enemy. I don't consider you my enemy. My enemy is al Qaeda and those fellow travelers who seek to force their barbaric, medieval way of life onto everyone in reach.
You seem to be the one having trouble figuring out who your enemy is.
Or perhaps you're projecting.


Posted by: Carrie at August 7, 2007 04:01 PM

"My enemy is al Qaeda and those fellow travelers who seek to force their barbaric, medieval way of life onto everyone in reach."

Evangelicals?

Posted by: Robert at August 7, 2007 04:44 PM

Did you come from Michelle Malkin's blog, Robert?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 7, 2007 04:52 PM

Of course that's true. What we differ on is why he failed. Or even what he failed in.


Well, don't stop there! Let's see if we can come to an agreement.


Here's my list of the initial goals of the Iraq war and the current results:


1 - Goal: Prevent Saddam from using WMD's against America. Result: Succeeded, but Saddam didn't have a functioning WMD program so we could have gotten the same results without invasion.


2 - Goal: Weaken terrorist organizations. Result: Failed. Terrorist organizations are using Iraq as a training ground and as a propaganda tool.


3 - Goal: Stablize the Middle East. Result: Mostly failed. Libya counts as a success, I think, but the Iranian hard-liners used the invasion as an excuse to squeeze out the moderates, and the government of Pakistan is under severe pressure from hard-liners.


4 - Goal: Set up an Iraqi government which is stable, US-friendly, and respects the rights of women and minorities. Result: Too early to say for sure, but it looks like this is going to be a catastrophic failure. I guess we can still pray for a miracle.


What's your take on things?


American can be brought down by drugs and illegal immigration and infiltration of our borders. For no one will fear you if you surrender Iraq.


I disagree.


Before the meth epidemic, there was crack cocaine, and before that it was regular cocaine, and before that it was heroin. Basically every generation of young people discovers a new drug, and then after a while they see what the consequences of long-term use are and they mostly lose interest. (Like, omigod, have you seen what meth does to your teeth???)


Illegal immigrants aren't a threat if they're just here to find a better life. That said, I'm not happy with the current laws...we should be allowing more legal immigrants in, and we should work harder to discourage employers from hiring the illegal ones.


Infiltration isn't a problem if we've got a solid population of legal immigrants. Terrorists might occasionally get lucky, but it's more likely that they'll get spotted and reported by someone in the community. Infiltrators can certainly kill people, but they're not capable of defeating America.


And if any country is so unafraid of America that they try an actual invasion...well, they'd need to get air superiority before they could try a ground invasion. And even after they launched the ground invasion, they'd have a lot of trouble fighting off the insurgents, at least in my neighborhood. Americans can make IEDs and mortars, too. (Well, I can't, but I imagine the information is on the Internet somewhere.)

Posted by: chaos_engineer at August 7, 2007 05:01 PM

i suggest you just keep marching in mindless lockstep...it seems to suit you.

End of conversation. Your mastery of calm logic and intelligent debating style leaves me speechless.

All outed a covert CIA agent during wartime.

Evidence for that allegation is distinctly lacking. If it had existed, charges would have been filed. They weren't. You can cry "cover up" or "conspiracy" or whatever, but neither the facts nor the law are on your side. Again, end of conversation.

Amongst the lot of you, only Joe was willing to debate with facts and logic. The rest of you... well, I'm sorry to say that it's just not worth the effort.

Posted by: DaveG at August 7, 2007 05:07 PM

And as a side note..it's interesting that you think I consider you my enemy. As far as I know, you're an American citizen. I don't view American citizens as my enemy. I don't consider you my enemy.


OK, thanks for clearing that up! I just got confused by the metaphor.


I don't consider you my enemy, either. We've got our differences, but if I saw an al-Qaeda agent trying to cut your throat, I'd do everything in my power to make him stop. Then afterwards we could sing Kumbaya together.

Posted by: chaos_engineer at August 7, 2007 05:08 PM

Carrie.

So if some one does not support your ideas or Bush's about this war he/she is automatically a traitor and should go surrender to al-Quaida???

.... With that logic, if some one does not agree with my ideas, or those of the people that are against Bush, and you, then that will make you an al-Quaida recruiting agent and a traitor to America and liable to be shot on sight right?

Hey, we all have our strong opinions about who the real enemy is. In my opinion is you and your ignorance about what is really going on.

Posted by: gil at August 7, 2007 05:13 PM

daveg...
"...If it had existed, charges would have been filed. They weren't. You can cry "cover up" or "conspiracy" or whatever, but neither the facts nor the law are on your side..."
thanks for proving my point and spouting the party line...unfortunately the facts the law AND the verdict are on my side. charges couldn't be filed because the investigation was OBSTRUCTED by the commission of PERJURY. why is that so hard for so many to understand?
i'm leaving for the pub...if you see me introduce yourself and i'll buy you a beer.

Posted by: jay k. at August 7, 2007 05:17 PM

Infiltrators can certainly kill people, but they're not capable of defeating America.

No, that would require Congressional support. People in high places and with wealth like Moore or Soros.

And if any country is so unafraid of America that they try an actual invasion

Iran already knows that they can win in Iraq without invading it. Haven't you realized by now that unconventional warfare does not follow the conventions of MAD or the Cold War mobilizations of huge armored columns as was true in the past?

Why would anyone need an armored invasion with air support? That's now how you defeat America. A little use of money and bombs in Iraq has already defeated a large portion of the American public after all. You don't need much more than that for the Southern border.

What's your take on things?

My personal take, which is of course something Bush avoids, is these 4.

1. Flex American military power by demonstrating that the US can still point to a person or government and destroy that person or regime.

Completed, though the temporary effects lasted only for a few years, however.

2. Create logistics bases in a Middle Eastern nation or several nations in order to conduct both unconventional warfare as well as conventional warfare.

This is nearly completed by now.

3. Solidify American intelligence abilities by acquiring Human Intelligence sources in the form of Arabs, Persians, or anyone else in the region.

This is being processed by the development of loyal Iraqis and Afghans. The enemy's objective is to kill these loyal Arabs and make America think they are lazy and thus make it easier on the American conscience to abandon them. Same thing that worked in Vietnam and the Faill of Saigon.

4. Create elite assault troops that can be used to accompany American soldiers in taking down any other person or regime in the region. Secondary attachment to this OBJ is to provide Americans with real combat experience in Arab lands and with Arab people. If we can get 4 to 5 divisions from Iraq and 1 to 2 divisions from Afghanistan that can be used to perform expeditionary military operations supported by US logistics, I would call this a 100% success. The US military can always benefit from more soldiers and combat units.

This is most difficult part given the Arab's long history of un-military conduct and lack of discipline. It takes decades to train good NCOs and officers. Combat experience shortens this exponentially, however.


Illegal immigrants aren't a threat if they're just here to find a better life

The Democrats will support them with welfare in return for votes. They will be kept in a perpetual ghetto like situation, with no economic prospects. They will become dissatisfied and riot. As the French witnessed.

Keeping slaves always produce dissatisfaction amongst the slaves and slave revolts. The lower orders were a threat by themselves. It was always the people in positions of power and wealth that sought to use the powerless, that is the threat.

Basically every generation of young people discovers a new drug, and then after a while they see what the consequences of long-term use are and they mostly lose interest.

Crystal meth or pure meth is very hard to kick. The DEA have only had limited success with this drug on the streets due to the fact that they prevented the cartels from acquiring ephedrine from any factories. Leaving them with cold pills. Which limits supply and the rate of infection/addiction.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 7, 2007 05:21 PM

So if some one does not support your ideas or Bush's about this war he/she is automatically a traitor and should go surrender to al-Quaida???

She's talking about you surrendering to terrorists by leaving Iraq. is this too hard to integrate or something?

why is that so hard for so many to understand?

It is not that it is hard to understand. It is just that people have either heard the party line or simply can not believe that anyone would espouse such a line.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 7, 2007 05:24 PM

The lower orders were a threat by themselves.

That should be were never a threat by themselves.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 7, 2007 05:27 PM

Carrie.

Here's to you Carrie. We have progress in Iraq people rejoice!!!!!!!

Now, if we can only bring back the Iraqi Government from their 5 week Can Cun vacation to at least pretend they are working, while we tax payers pay for the surge, and our soldiers pay with their blod. Or if we can some how bring back all the Sunni back to the so called National Unity Government, that is not united, not National, and not even a Government any more. Or bring back the British that are living Iraq for good and living places like Basara to go back into chaos. Or come up with some way to continue re-deployig our troops into infinity. Or put Iraq's reconstruction budget ahead of our own crumbling bridges. Or convice the Sunni and SHiite that they need to like each other after a thousand years of hating each other..... You get the drift???

But who are we to question your idea of "progress" Carrie??? After all there is progress in Iraq comming from our troops, but then again.... Our troops are not the problem, but the Iraqi people. But, hey let's keep on demanding that our troops solve the Iraqi problems for the Iraqi people.... Maibe Gen.Petraeus can make a good Prime Minister of Iraq, and our troops can do it all... Fight the enemy, wherever the enemy might be on Bush's spin machine for the week, fight al-Quida, fight the Sunni Insurgents, fight the Shiite Militias, fight Iranian infiltrators, fight Syrian, and Saudi terrorist bombers, fight the Taliban, fight Jihadist around the world, and do it while we "go shoping" to support them.

I for one can report of "progress" on my front Carrie.... I just came back from the Mall.

Posted by: gil at August 7, 2007 05:34 PM

week Can Cun vacation to at least pretend they are working, while we tax payers pay for the surge

This is one of the most cynical Leftist party lines around. An extreme example of using projection to cover up for Democrat Congressional vacations, benefits, and corruption.

Our troops are not the problem, but the Iraqi people.

Exactly. Hating and despising people that are different and inferior in power is the fundamental bedrock of Leftist exploitation. At least Marxism didn't care if you were American or not, you all got exploited.

I for one can report of "progress" on my front Carrie.... I just came back from the Mall.

Just cause he sidestepped things, he wants to make you out to be as miserable as he is, Carrie. An interesting progressive perspective, eh?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 7, 2007 06:02 PM

Chaos Engineer..
Thank you. People can disagree and also remember who and what they are. It's what makes our country great.
I don't sing well though..perhaps instead of singing we could have margaritas? :)

Posted by: Carrie at August 7, 2007 06:10 PM

Posted by: DaveG at August 7, 2007 05:07 PM

I would include Chaos with Joe, Dave.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 7, 2007 06:21 PM

gil...
Wow...talk about your hate driven, spit speckled monologues...
Things that strike about your post:
1) Irapi parliament goes on "Cancun Vacations"..
no..they're going home. so is our Congress.
Are we mad about that too?
2. Our "soldiers" shedding blod (sic) in Iraq and Afghanistan..well, yes they are and so are Marines, Zoomies and Squids but they are not complaining about doing their job. They volunteered for it and they understand why we are there better than you apparently do. They want to complete the mission. They want us to succeed.
How about you? Do you want us to succeed?
3. I wish that you would read milbogs more and see for yourself what these guys have to say about what's going on. I wish that you would read what non-MSM reporters are talking about as they are on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are things perfect? What the hell is?
4. History shows that it takes at least two generations to make the kinds of changes that we want to see in Iraq. We're battling age old ideas and social structures. It is still worth it to attempt this.
5. If you want to try and beat me about the head and shoulders regarding our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan...you can try.
5. If you are complaining that you want to do more and going to the mall is your way of supporting the troops, you can email me. I'd be happy to give you many ideas of how you can do that.
You have only to ask...

Posted by: Carrie at August 7, 2007 06:25 PM

Ymar..
reading your comments, I alternate between total aumusement and deep appreciation..
Pure pleasure.
Thank you.

Posted by: Carrie at August 7, 2007 06:27 PM

ymarsakar/

Sinic me?, No my friend according to Mr. Bush.... You know YOUR leader on vacation in Crowford Texas, and A REPUBLICAN our surge was supposed to "buy vital" time to the Iraqi Governmet to help them come to the different urgent agreements they needed to stop the violence in Iraq.

Now I might be a sinic in you eyes by pointing out that the time we bought was for the Iraqi Government to go out on a vacation, but this sinic has the facts on his side. You on the other hand Sir, have what???? A remark that some how the Democrats did the same thing???

Pardon me Sir, but A) There's plenty of Republicans in Congress too, 2) Bush is on vacation also. As a matter of fact Bush has been out on vacation more by far than any other President in history, and 3) The Democrats are not the reason for the surge.

When I say that our troops are not the problem, but the Iraqi people I don't say it out of racism, but out stating a reality. We can't ask our troops to make the Iraqi people like each other can we? We can't ask our troops to put the collapsing Iraqi Government together for them can we??? We can's ask our troops to legislate for the Iraqi Government can we???

Our Military has a limit of what they can realistically be asked to do. You people don't get it. Our Military is designed to fight wars, not to nation build.

And finally, I side stepped nothing. Or can you point out to me exactly what did I sidestepped. You wanted congratulations for the "progress" I gave them to you, with all the things that we still need to do, and the time that is running out to do it.

Why instead don't you stop sidestepping yourself and aswer me, or tell me if any of the things that I sited are not true, or not needed to make Iraq the victory you always claim is comming, if we only act optimistic, and hope, and waith, and then waith some more, and hope some more while we go spend money at our local Mall to "support" the troops.

WHat? You don't like to hear the truth??

Posted by: gil at August 7, 2007 06:32 PM

I have better ways to support the troops than spend your money at the mall.
You have only to ask..

Posted by: Carrie at August 7, 2007 06:39 PM

Carrie.

You know Carrie I find it compleately unacceptable that you don't have a problem with our soldiers fighting in 120 degree heat and dying every day to "buy time" for politicians that honor their sacrifice by going on vacation. But then, you call any one that does not agree with this kind of ideas of yours, un-patriotic and people that "need to go surrender to al-Quaida". Are you for real???

Can Cun was a sarcastic reference PLEASE !!!!!I tought that was OBVIOUS!!! So the Democrats do it, that makes it fine Carrie???

Let me spell this for you Lady. The Democrats opposed the surge in the first place. The surge was advertised as "Buying time" for the Iraqi Government with the blood of our soldiers. The time we bought was for the Iraqi Government to go on a vacation. CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU????

What on heart does the Democrat vacation time has to do with it??? Do you seeour soldiers fighting in ALabama so that the Democrats can come to an agreement with the Republicans???? Are you mad????What does one thing has to do with the other??? Do you have any sence of reality at all???

Posted by: gil at August 7, 2007 06:41 PM

Carrie.

My reference to me shoping at the Mall to support our troops goes again as a sarcastic remark to the statement made by Bush..... You can support the war by spending money.

That's it. End of sacrifice. And as I can see all that we can do is shop in the mall and say things like our troops can take it, and they are professionals.

Indeed Carrie our troops are professionals and better individials than you and me. It is precisely because of that, that we owe them more respect than to call for a surge where no one but them shows up.

Posted by: gil at August 7, 2007 06:46 PM

We are a country at war and if our Congress can take time off for vacations, please tell me why the Iraqi gov't can't too? I'm fine with nobody taking time off and getting stuff done. Why aren't you?

The Democrats did not oppose the surge in the first place. They wanted it and pushed Bush to implement it. Now that he has, they pander...
You bought in...

And as for the first paragraph...my husband has fought in Iraq twice now and my son will go next spring so the idea that I don't care about what conditions they're fighing in is absurd.
It is simply this..that is where they fight and the conditions aren't great.
Do you want me to give you some military support orgs that you can donate to or work with or not?
You have only to ask.

Posted by: Carrie at August 7, 2007 06:46 PM

I can only add yet again..
you want me to direct you to wonderful milsupport projects that I know about and work with.
Just ask...
You don't have to go to the mall..I can give you better places to spend your money.

Posted by: Carrie at August 7, 2007 06:50 PM

daveg,
Those allegations were not proven because Scooter Libby obstructed the investigation through perjury(a felony, don't you know).

The facts and law are both on my side.
OTOH, who would have thought you'd lie like that just to make it look like I was wrong?

All others: Please continue the conversation!

Posted by: Robert at August 7, 2007 06:52 PM

Carrie.

Let me ask you the question again . Are our soldiers fighting in Alabama to buy time for the Democrats or are our soldiers fighting in IRAQ to buy time for the Iraqi Government????

Can you see the difference? Because if you can't then you just don't want to see the difference period. And there I can't help you.

The surge was opposed by the Democrats please re-visit your history notes. Very recent history because it happened in January of this year.

The conditions that your son and husband are fighting on desrve more respect than what they are getting. Or do you like your son to be fighting in Iraq in 120 degree heat to "Buy time" for a Government on vacation???

OH, I forgot you don't have a problem because the Democrats do it too???

Bless your hard, we continue to support this, and next thing you know there's no problem if the Iraqi people don't get to any agreements.... After all the Republicans and Democrats never agree to a darn thing either.

Hope your son can come back soon and in one peace, but since there is no problem with no agreements, and no results from politicians here, or in Iraq.... Your son will be there for a long long time.... Unless people like me bring him back home to you safely.

Or maibe we can start asking for ACCOUNTANILITY FROM POLITICIANS???? Instead of just the Army. What an idea!!!


Posted by: gil at August 7, 2007 07:02 PM

Sinic me?

No.

You know YOUR leader on vacation in Crowford Texas

He could always be put in charge of a nuclear missile submarine or something, if you want. Which target do you think he will fire on first as a cowboy, g?

but this sinic has the facts on his side

Course you do. We all recognize that.

A remark that some how the Democrats did the same thing???

Do I need something else?

Bush is on vacation also

I'm not the one forwarding the proposal that being on vacation is bad. You are. Do you understand what this means?

We can't ask our troops to make the Iraqi people like each other can we?

No, but the US government did send in troops to the south to stop southerners from trying to lynch many many blacks and freed slaves.

We can't ask our troops to put the collapsing Iraqi Government together for them can we???

The US did it for white Southern Americans...

I'm in Georgia right now and it doesn't look like a war zone to me. But maybe Americans, being brothers and sisters, get more perks than foreign folks.

We can's ask our troops to legislate for the Iraqi Government can we???

MacArthur had his own military write a Constitution for the Japanese. But then again, Japanese aren't Ayrabs.

You people don't get it.

Of course we don't get it. The questions of why you people want Iraq to fail or America to go Fortress America is not understood. What matters, though, is not that; what matters is how we will achieve victory. With victory comes silence, as everybody who complained before, shuts up. That's a good goal.

Our Military is designed to fight wars, not to nation build.

Even if the military was designed to do exactly that, you know it would not change anything for you.

I'm fine with nobody taking time off and getting stuff done.-Carrie

These MP minister guys still have their own provinces to administer and govern. Besides, summer is when the heat is high. And trying to work out deals always got Arabs hot and frustrated.

There's good reasons for pacing a politician. They are political animals after all and just like hamsters, you must pace them Carrie ; ) Don't want their poor hearts to burn out after all.

Pure pleasure.
Thank you.

My honor, Carrie. There are good people here. It is unjust that they would have to face such sentiments and demoralization attempts without some backup at least.

Morale is important. Especially for people worrying over family and friends.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 7, 2007 07:17 PM

we are a COUNTRY at war not just one state or another at war. If you are not upset that the Dem led congress is doing stupid crap and then going on vacation, I really can't understand why you're upset that the Iraqi congress is on vacation..
It seems an hypocritical position to take.

Accountablity? You want it from the side you don't agree with in our country and not the other side.
You want if from all sides in Iraq...again...hypocritical.

As for this :
Hope your son can come back soon and in one peace, but since there is no problem with no agreements, and no results from politicians here, or in Iraq.... Your son will be there for a long long time.... Unless people like me bring him back home to you safely.

This is really unbelieveable and undefendable.
You're going to "save" my son? Please..he's going to serve in hopes of, inadvertantly saving your sorry ass and the saddest part is that you'll either never acknowledge it or appreciate what he's done.
You are a pussoir and a tool..
and willingly so which makes it worse.

There..you got your hate. Congrats to you.

Piss.off.

Posted by: Carrie at August 7, 2007 07:19 PM

Some things never change; BUSH and the JEWS are the enemy not al Qaeda, not radical islam. Note all the lefties emigrating to the Islamic dystopias.

We are taking a chance by fighting a limited war of fairly long duration in hopes of averting a holocaust. Some feel a full scale war in the mideast is inevitable. I am one. Grim made an excellent post at B-5:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/08/where_are_we_go.html

Some folks think denial is a river in Egypt, that we are not at war, and the nuanced sophisticated left can make nice to the crazies and mollify them. These people are serious, both lefties and Islamotards. John Lewis explains the facts of war with radical Islam better than I:

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp

An Iran Israel war in the near future is almost a sure thing. When Iran gets nukes, this will be a nuclear war. Pakistan has nukes and a semi-allied government that is losing control. There is no reasoning with the crazies, only the possibility of making the struggle too costly for them to persue it.

Posted by: Mark at August 7, 2007 07:22 PM

I didn't bring out the Klingon painsticks as you did, Carrie, but I trust that my humble attempts met with your approval?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 7, 2007 07:23 PM

Wow - where to start? Not sure, but maybe I'll just try to sum the conversation up. Some of us believe that we have a shot at victory, some don't. Fair enough. We all have our opinions, and are free to express them, which, of course, is what makes this country great.

So, who's right? Well, eventually we will find out. This war will not continue forever. At some point in the not-so-distant future, we will know which side bet on the right horse.

Until then, there is nothing wrong with disagreement, but there is certainly something wrong with hoping for failure in order to score political points. You must understand that this war, as Carrie pointed out about 30 comments back, is not "political" to many of us, it's about hoping and praying for success. We WANT our troops to succeed because if they succeed, the Iraqis succeed and if the Iraqis succeed the Middle East is a better place. The GWOT is also intensly personal for most of us who have someone in the fight. While I'll admit that I tend to view things through the eyes of an Army Wife, I am not so jaded as to believe that this war has been executed flawlessly, or that mistakes haven't been made, etc.. War IS hell. But with all of the missteps and all of the concerns that most of us struggle with daily, I do believe we're turning a corner and I do believe a healthy, stable Iraq can emerge. Even so, I fully understand that there are people who don't share my optimism, and that's fine too.

I must take exception to those on this comment thread who have implied that some of us are war cheerleaders. Please understand this - nobody is more anti-war than those of us who stand to lose someone we love. Nobody.

So for now, let's agree to disagree, but here's hoping that we never accept failure as a means to a political end. That would be unacceptable. Unacceptable and sad.

Posted by: Andi at August 7, 2007 07:26 PM

And lost in my comment above was this:

I do not like the terms "anti-war" and "pro-war" because those terms, when literally intrepreted, are not adequate labels, especially for those of us who are pro-mission. But, like them or not, they are the terms we're stuck with.

Posted by: Andi at August 7, 2007 07:32 PM

Those that are demoralized no longer believe that victory is possible, Andi. I wish there was a loyal opposition but wishes are not fishes.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 7, 2007 07:49 PM

"So, who's right? Well, eventually we will find out. This war will not continue forever. At some point in the not-so-distant future, we will know which side bet on the right horse."

Strictly speaking, that is not so. A war can always be lost; it cannot always be won. You can lose a war you might have won, for example.

As a result, the question of whether we have a shot at winning or not can only finally be settled by victory. If we lose, it doesn't prove we lacked the capacity to win; but if we win, we'll know for sure that we could win.

This is why the Vietnam Syndrome has been so difficult for the country -- the sense that a war was lost in Congress, after the military had paid a high price for it. It is also why the Civil War was transformed into the Lost Cause by Southern historians, although as a point of fact, there are several times during the war that its outcome was uncertain. The myth of a futile but honorable fight, a fight that had to be fought though it couldn't be won, was a social necessity.

It's hard to imagine that the social turmoil in America unleashed by a loss in Iraq would be easily contained. It's hard to guess at the outer limits of the cost, in terms of our willingness and ability to defend the frontiers of the world. That's a serious matter: the economic system on which all human prosperity is based is ensured by the flow of the sea trade, which in turn is ensured by a system of relatively stable states backed by the United States Navy.

If the US Navy isn't there, the states bear the weight on their own; the system begins to suffer the strain of piracy, as it does in places now where the stable states are lacking; the states grow less stable as their economic systems begin to suffer; the pirates and others become freer to act; and the economy of the world contracts, year by year.

"The economy of the world contracts" is a gentle phrase, but it hides this reality: starvation, disease, and the ruin of poverty. In Malaysia, in Africa, in the poor parts of the world, the cost of losing in Iraq -- the loss of American confidence and willingness to defend the frontiers -- could be measured in millions of lives. The cost, in fact, may not be measurable at all.

Posted by: Grim at August 7, 2007 08:03 PM

That's a serious matter: the economic system on which all human prosperity is based is ensured by the flow of the sea trade, which in turn is ensured by a system of relatively stable states backed by the United States Navy.

Did you read Orson Wells post concerning the fall of Rome due to the economic collapse from barbarian raids?

You make almost the same point, Grim.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 7, 2007 08:11 PM

Not wells, orson Scott Card

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 7, 2007 08:14 PM

"This war will not continue forever."

Not necessarily. In fact, I suspect few of the people here (and probably none from the defeatist side) realize that we have fought the Moslems before, less than a year after the end of our Revolutionary War.

I was about to point this out to Andi, Grim, when you serendipitously introduced the subject of piracy. Any of you other folks ever read about the Barbary pirates?. Check it out.

Note particularly the following:

"In 1784 two ships (the Maria of Boston and the Dauphin of Philadelphia) were seized, everything sold and their crews ordered to build port fortifications.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then the ambassador to France, and John Adams, then the ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the ambassador to Britain from Tripoli. The Americans asked Adja why his government was hostile to American ships, even though there had been no provocation. The ambassador's response was reported to the Continental Congress:

That it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.[4]

Get the point people? This is part of the orthodoxy of a religion that commands that the church and state must be one-and-the-same.

There are many other historical things to learn before you defeatists can justify simply blowing jihad off as something that can never touch you.

Posted by: socialism_is_error at August 7, 2007 08:27 PM

ymarsakar.

Nice argument you have going here.

Our Army can legislate for the Iraqi people because McArthur did it in World War II, the Military can make the Shiite and Sunni like each other because after thousands of years of hatred because "our government send troops to the South to stop linchings"!!! WHOW, your grasp for balanced views is astounding!!! . Now I am "reazoning" with a real balanced person, what an honor to talk to you!!! The Army can do anithing, very realistic indeed.

You know Sir, If we have such a grat capable Military that can do all these things why do we need Republican Right Wingers, Liberals or Bush at all? Let's just say, Hey, McArthur ran the show in Japan in World War II presto!!! They can run our country, or Iraq, or Mexico.... Brilliant conclusion indeed, you are a genious.

Now and then I come across people in blogs like this, and others that simply refuse to make an honest debate.

You know perfectly well unless you are insane that McArhut aside we can't legislate for the Iraqi people.... And still keep the Democracy promise we have. Or is it Gen. McArthur Jr running a Democratic Iraq now with no Iraqi politicians in the show??? Now that's a good one!!! Call Bush and tell him..

You know perfectly well unless you are delusional that our Army can't make the SHiite and the Sunni like each other "because we sent our National Guard to the South to stop some linchings" What on earth was that example about??? Are you OK???

As for the Iraqi Government vacation. Let me go slow here because I am starting to get worried. Do you know of any agreement that the Democrats are supposed to make to keep America from the chaos and killing we are in????
Do you see bombings in Georgia, Shiite running around you neighborhood, or Sunni attacking your family that will keep the Democrats in sesion by any chance???? Do you remember Bush comming out and saying " We need to buy the American Government some time to come to the agreement that we need to stop the killing in our cities"? .... Funny because I do remember the guy refering to the IRAI GOVERNMENT, and I do believe our troops are in Iraq and not in Alabama or Georgia.... And not stoping, the linchings of a few blacks, but stoping mass killings and dying every day in the utter chaos that is Iraq. Therfore silly me!!! I ask the Iraqi Government to resolve their differences and not the Democrats and Republicans, and not go on a vacation while our soldiers die IN THEIR COUNTRY FOR THEM.... And you make pretend that that's not a problem because the Democrats did it too.... You take people for fools? Who buys that "idea" you are trying to sale her??

Any Republican in Congress that has come out publicly to say what you just saud??? I DARE YOU TO GIVE ME ONE NAME FROM A REPUBLICAN..... I DARE YOU.

The surge was desigend to give the IRAQI Government the chance to come to an agreement.

You know Sir, I like to debate all you want over fair topics, not Bull that you pull out of your ears, and crazy incoherent examples.

The surge is in IRAQ TO HELP THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT not in America to help Americans....... See the difference?

Why am I asking you, of course you do see it, you just want to make pretend.

Posted by: gil at August 7, 2007 08:29 PM

Carrie.

You can't understand why I am askink from accountability from the Iraqi Government not going on a vacation, and not from the Democrats AND BUSH I MISHT ADD?

Simple, because the surge was to help the Iraqi Government. "TO BUY THEM TIME" The time you bought they spent on a vacation.

Are you blind, or what is your problem???

Posted by: gil at August 7, 2007 08:32 PM

Grim, after pondering your comment,

"Strictly speaking, that is not so. A war can always be lost; it cannot always be won. You can lose a war you might have won, for example."

Stictly speaking, it IS true that we could lose a war that might have been won.

If that turns out to be the case with respect to Iraq, inevitably what will happen is that those of us who wanted to give it more time will argue that we lost because we were not granted that time. And those who argued that it was never working and was never going to work will claim a victory of sorts, though let's hope gloating would not be in order for the reasons you mentioned and more. All of this means that we'll be engaging in the same arguments for years to come, which is not a comforting thought at all...

*sigh*

I choose to cling to the belief that a clear victory is in the cards and yes, I realize that each of us have a different definition of "victory," but that is probably best left to a post all its own.

Great comment, Grim.

Posted by: Andi at August 7, 2007 08:37 PM

your grasp for balanced views is astounding

Indeed, I would have to agree.

what is your problem?

You of course.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 7, 2007 08:39 PM

Carrie.

You have no idea who I am or if I served or not, so please stop your insults will you?

Do you think you are the only one that has some one in war OR HAS GONE TO WAR????????????????????????????

One thing I can tell you, and ask your son, and your husband. Given a choice between war and peace a soldier will always choose peace. It is the politicians obligation, and YOURS to see that they have it.

I do not pretend to tell you what you need for your son, I do speak for myslef when I tell you that every day your son spends in a surge with politicians vacationing is a dishonor to their service and commitment. Every day that Politicians in Iraq (THAT'S THE REAZON FOR THE SURGE) are on vacation the purpose of the surge is negated, and your son then fights for what? You don't think there's a problem with your son fighting and politicians vacationing because the Democrats do it too??? Is that a fact? What a lame excuse Carrie.

You as her Mother should be the first one to recognize that, instead of hiding on the "Democrats do it too"... What kind of ideas are those????

If the "Democrats do it too" Carrie, well then the Democrats are not getting out of Government as the Sunni, the Democrats are not running Militias and killing people like you, the Democrats are not the one torturing civilians with electric drills.... So there why can't the Iraqi Government DO AS THE DEMOCRATS???

Very convenient your point of view don't you think?

Posted by: gil at August 7, 2007 08:46 PM

All of this means that we'll be engaging in the same arguments for years to come, which is not a comforting thought at all...

I don't think that is the primary threat to losing Iraq. The effects of losing Vietnam are influencing Iraq right now given the number of people in power that also caused Vietnam to fail. Kennedy being one of them. The point is, the reason why there is such opposition to US wars and what not is due to the Left knowing that they can win because of Vietnam.

This will plague the military's attempt in any war or conflict should Vietnam and Iraq both be lost. It will set a tradition and the military understands the power of traditions

Success will motivate more success while failure will motivate more failure. The chattering over failure would be almost trivial in comparison.

Every future member of the armed forces will have to live with the consequences of Vietnam and Iraq affecting their deployment. Because the truism that the victors write the history books cannot be bypassed. Just as Vietnam may be argued as a "could have won" war, does it then change anything or anyone's views? No. Because those views were locked in by that event. Just as the defeat of Germany and Japan were locked into the psyche of Germans and Japanese.

I hear a lot of people say that Vietnam may have been won if more time was given to them. I don't really want Iraq to become like that.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 7, 2007 08:46 PM

Carrie, I recommend that you disengage from gil because he is attempting psychological warfare on you.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 7, 2007 08:47 PM

Andi.

I like your view, and you siund reasonable.

So if you are you can understand that disagreeing with a surge, or a policy does not mean we want our troops to fail to make a political point. That's absolutely unfair.

Can you please tell me how can any one disgree with the present and past course of events, as 70% of the American people do, and not be critical of the policies that create the disagreement in the first place?

Posted by: gil at August 7, 2007 08:50 PM

Ymarsakar.

I am tired of you talking in the abstract.

Please spell for me how "success" can be achieved with a collapsing Government, and no political agreement at all comming???

The Army can deliver that too??

Posted by: gil at August 7, 2007 08:52 PM

Can you please tell me how can any one disgree with the present and past course of events

Just go to Loyal Opposition school and you'll learn how.

The Army can deliver that too

better than u.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 7, 2007 08:55 PM

ymarsakar.

About your "examples"

Gen. McArthur service in Japan as the "Supervisor" of the Allied ocupation of Japan was carried out after the country was defeated ..... As in there were no chaotic fighting between warring Japanese, and Americans getting killed, etc, etc.

Japan was and is a HOMOGENEOUS country, not a mosaic of hatred. Japan was, and is an advanced secular society. McArthur was there on a temporary bases to make the Japanese Government take over, as they did in peace, and with the concent of the Japanese people. In Iraq the Government we help elect is desintegrating as we speak, and the surge, or a thousand surges can't prevent that from happening.

In the 60's the U.S> Government activated the National Guard of several Souther STates to stop rioting, and some linchings. In Iraq you have had almost five years of constant DAILY killing of civilians, and Coalition soldiers. In Iraq you have the Shiite killig the Sunni, the Sunni killingthe SHiite, the Shiite killing the SHiite, the Shiite and Sunni killing the Kurds, we killing and beeing killed by every one but the Kurds, the Iraqi infraestructure collapsing, the Iraqi Government utterly corrupt any inept, the Iraqi security force infiltrated by Militias, people dying by the tens of thousands, millions displaced, etc.... But some how you compare this utter chaos to the South in the 60's!!!!

That Sir, is not an honest debate. What you do is post a bunch of dodo, and make pretend that you some how are giving counter points.

Posted by: gil at August 7, 2007 09:11 PM

Ymarsakar.

I asked you a question.

Let me repeat it.

How can your success be achieved with the Iraqi Government collapsing, on vacation, and no agreement comming???

Then I asked Can the Army deliver that too?

Now your "answer" was

Better than you.

The Army can do a lot of things better than me, but you did not answer the question... Hey, maibe I can answer it for you in your usual way, so let's try.

In the Civil War Americans came together after all the fighting so the Iraqi people can do it too.

SO there, problem solved.

See how easy life is when you can just extrapolate anithing to make it fit your ideas.

Posted by: gi; at August 7, 2007 09:16 PM

Ymars..
you're right and I'm done..
thank you.
Carrie

Posted by: Carrie at August 7, 2007 09:17 PM

But some how you compare this utter chaos to the South in the 60's!!!!

1860s perhaps.

I asked you a question.

Unlike most people you talk to on the internet, I don't really give a frack what you want. I never have.

Carrie, your offer of information and help was very honorable in my view. Others, however, have stopped caring. To care and to believe that things should get better produces pain. But to not care at all is the same as being dead.

SO there, problem solved.

Indeed.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 7, 2007 10:07 PM

ymarsakar.

I asked you a question..... And you could not answer it.

What now you are cutting and running???? Or you did not like my ymarsakar impersonation?

Let me do another one impersonation for you.

How can your "success" be achieved if the Iraqi Government is collapsing and on vacation?

And Imarsakar answers:

"Because I stayed at Motel 6".

Like it better than "Because if Americans can do it in the Civil war, so can the Iraqi people in 2007? Like I said we can extrapolate at your own convenience, history is out there to prove your point, wherever that point can be at the moment. Hell, McArthur can be made to look and sound like Gen. Petreaus if you like.

Hey man this is no fun (at your expense). You can't even answer one lousy question without me helping you along.

As for the other that don't care... I do not care for your policies that's a fact. After almost five year of substituting victory for time and incompetence, what do you expect? I do care tremendously for our man and woman in uniform, and I do hate for people to take them for granted and use them as if they were some red meat for the grinder.

In your comments you expect the Military to basicaly do the Military mission, as well as the political mission.

Maibe there was no "Roger" in your brain... So let me repeat this for you. THE MILITARY IS TRAINED FOR COMBAT, NOT FOR NATION BUILDING.

What part of that you don't understand?

Posted by: gil at August 7, 2007 10:47 PM

I've read many of these blogs and I cannot understand how most of these people ever graduated from elementary school. Most can't spell cat, they don't know the difference between a comma and a question mark, and almost none can spell. Seldom can they capitalize a sentence.

Posted by: Noah Neace, Metropolis, IL at August 7, 2007 11:07 PM

Saying that the Democrats are rooting for defeat makes about as much sense as saying the Republicans don't care how many soldiers we lose in Iraq.

Posted by: John Ryan at August 8, 2007 01:02 AM

The Democrats are not rooting for their own defeat.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 8, 2007 02:02 AM

The comments section on this thread has been a huge exercise in psychological operations. My compliments to Ymarsakar, Andi and Carrie. At least some of the OPFOR provided useful input.

Keep Up the Fire, as the Manchus say. If the forces who seek to diminish America fail to reproduce February, 1968 in September, 2007, some small part of that failure can be attributed to the counter propaganda and conditioning of the domestic target audience being accomplished by bloggers and commenters.

Posted by: Cannoneer No. 4 at August 8, 2007 03:28 AM

Andi:

My earlier disagreement with your statement that

"This war will not continue forever."

is founded upon the notion that a war has existed between Islam and the world (chiefly Western civilization) since Islam’s beginning. I claim that Islamic radicalism will always reappear until Islam’s underlying philosophy is clarified or reformed. I repeat part of the earlier citation:

“In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then the ambassador to France, and John Adams, then the ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the ambassador to Britain from Tripoli. The Americans asked Adja why his government was hostile to American ships, even though there had been no provocation. The ambassador's response was reported to the Continental Congress:

That it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.[4]

Some may say that this is a distortion of the “true” Islamic philosophy, but I say that the fact that this same type of sanction is repeated throughout history and most recently by bin Laden and the other radical leaders makes any distortion irrelevant. Islam’s call for the necessity of universal conversion/subjugation easily lends itself to such a formulation, making broad refutation by the religious authorities inherently difficult from their perspective but vital from ours. Until then, we can only play inter-cultural ‘whack-a-mole’.

Now, you closed your piece with the following:

”This whole being in charge thing looks easier than it really is.”

That touches on my greatest fear about this whole business, the possible ascension of the Democrats. If they really have become seriously beholden to the Left and hard-line anti-war elements, they’ll quickly lose this battle. If they do, what Grim suggested becomes a real possibility, in that the Islamic radicals gain tremendous influence in world affairs, particularly over the world’s chief oil center and could easily start a world-wide economic contraction without ever approaching our shores.

Our present battle plan is the process of separating the radicals from the general population. It’s slow, expensive and costs the blood of so many of the brightest, bravest and best of our young people; but it’s the only humane way to get the job done while minimizing the loss of innocents.

Once stopped, the Democrats could not reinstitute this method. Their impatient base wouldn’t accept it and they would have to concede that their excoriation of the present administration’s method was mistaken. Ha.

They can’t just ignore an economic meltdown; that would be an even bigger admission of error.

What’s left? Any ideas? The only ones I see are horrifying.

Throughout recent history, Leftists with any power have reacted to any opposition, legitimate or not, with repression, up to and including genocide. They inevitably excuse it by claiming to be sacrificing a few for the benefit of the many. A few. Yeah, a few tens of millions. So we know where they will come down. We can only hope that the party leaders will not listen to them.

But those same party leaders may be worse; certainly they are no longer predictable. Consider the most recent statements (we’ve all seen them), implying that good news from the front “might be a problem”. This is neither moral nor immoral. It’s amoral, meaning that their pursuit of power is not to be constrained by any other consideration, good or bad. What won’t they do?

God knows.

Posted by: socialism_is_error at August 8, 2007 02:57 PM

Lefties, why don't you take out your frustration on Nancy Pelosi and Harry Ried instead of the members of this board, many of whom come from military families?

Quit bashing the soldiers. It's Pelosi and Ried who have the power to stop the occupation of Iraq right now, yet they refuse to even try.

Wanna know why they are scared to end the war?

If you lefties start acting nice around here, I'll tell you why they won't do it.

Well?

Posted by: bulbasaur at August 8, 2007 02:58 PM

Folks, we must stop the absurd "Lefty" "Socialist" "Troop Hater" epithets hurled here. If someone disagrees with the nature of this post claims, that a surge is working, deal with the facts they present.

The other propagandist term spun out by William Kristol and the bunch is that if you disagree and believe that "Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks is right on, then you are "rooting for failure". There is one solution to this. Read. There are more than one source which states that Kristol and his friends are writing for the Whitehouse and it's flawed plans, thus creating a public relations campaign aimed at deflecting criticism and fact.

I don't know what the solution in Iraq is, but I do know that the errors in judgment, and the disregard for truth have put our soldiers and military in an untenable situation.

Posted by: Sammy at August 8, 2007 04:12 PM

If you lefties start acting nice around here, I'll tell you why they won't do it.

Just give them some wheaties. It should go well with the uber cookies Matt passed out at blackfive.

I don't know what the solution in Iraq is, but I do know that the errors in judgment, and the disregard for truth have put our soldiers and military in an untenable situation.

If you don't know what the solution is, how then do you know what the errors are? is there no ability for humanity to learn from their mistakes? Are we forever condemned to walk the perpetual lifeline of war, poverty, and misery as the nihilists believe?

I wish this was otherwise, but reading is not a counter to propaganda. Simply because knowledge was never a counter to propaganda. A person could know exactly how a propaganda operation has been constructed, yet still feel what the propagandist wanted the person to feel.

Noam Chomsky has many sources at his disposal. Yet, he specializes in cognitive psychology and linguistic. Otherwise known as manipulating people through words and their thoughts.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 8, 2007 06:47 PM

Bulbasaur.

Has it ever occurred to you that in staying in Iraq we only are playing to the hands of the so called "Jihadist"?

If staying in Iraq is what it takes to win Vs. the "Jihadist" I have a few questions for you that if you don't mind I would like for you to answer.

1) Who are the Jihadist in Iraq??? The SHiite fighting the Sunni, or the Sunni and the Shiite fighting the Kurds, or the Shiite fighting the Shiite, the Militias, the Insurgents, the Pashmerga,al-Quaida, the Saudi, Syrian, Iranian, Libian, Pakistani, Egitpian Palestinian, and other terrorists infiltrating into Iraq to put bombs at every corner street?

2) We are supposed to stay and fight them all? With what troops the ones on their third re-deployment or the ones on their fourth??

3) If as any one knows we need aproximately 400 billion per year to maintain the war effort, and that has taken us into our present sorry situation, then how much more do we need to make things better? And from where are we going to get the money, and soldiers to keep the effort going into infinity?

4) If it takes us 300-400 billion per year to "kill Jihadist" in Iraq, but Jihadist can be replaced at the drop of a hat for free in a region of the world where millions can become Jihadist because they hate our presence in the Middle East.... How do you work out the math
here???

5) If we need the Iraqi Government to win, and the Iraqi Government has not come to any agreement, is on vacation in the middle of our surge to "buy them time", and is near collapse now with the entire Sunni delegation, as well as all al Sadr Shiite representatives out from the Government ... How do we win like this???

6) If 70 % of the American population is now against Bush's war policies. If Bush has a 24% job approval in Iraq... How do you win without having the American people on board, and looking at Bush as an incompetent fool?

I can ask you many more questions. For now I would just like for any one on the Right to stop making sweeping pronouncements like " My greatest fear about this whole business is the possible ascension of the Democrats. If they really have become beholden to the left and hard line anti war elements they'll quckly lose the battle" BY Socialist is error.... And focus on facts and answer questions given to you in an honest way.

I can allways come here and post things like My greatest fear is that Republican Right Wing policies take root and gives us a generation of fighting in the Middle East in a never ending spiral of death.... But then again, would you not want to know what the hell ever gave me that idea???

So here's your chance Right Wingers let's see what you have.... Answer some of my questions with facts, and adressing the clear and factual issues I post in my questions, and again, lets see what you have.

Posted by: gil at August 8, 2007 07:13 PM

bulbasaur.

I know that you guys on the Right like to create your own little world, so I will give you a chance to correct your post.

NOw can you please tell me where did I bashed the soldiers in any of my posts?

Hey, quote me bashing the soldiers, and will give you the point and an apology, can't quote me I'll call you a liar.

Posted by: gil at August 8, 2007 07:17 PM

Is gill Charbydis or Scylla?

That should be an answer that is factual enough.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 8, 2007 07:44 PM

ymarsakar

Actually you do remind me of CHARYBDIS, not Charbydis.

But we all have our personal opinion.

Posted by: gil at August 8, 2007 08:39 PM

gil:

If you want to have a serious discussion about my thoughts, I'm game; otherwise, I would not have commented.

But I'm not going to answer silly rhetorical questions; you know, the kind that are deliberately constructed to make any answer embarassing? You really don't construct them very cleverly anyway.

I have proposed that, if the Democrats do succeed in controlling both the executive and legislative branches after the next election, that they will face very difficult decisions about the Iraq campaign. If you think there is a clear path that they can take without too much potential cost to either themselves or the country at large, then by all means present your step-by-step analysis for examination and comment. There are people here who will be happy to engage in civil debate.

And one last little proposal:

Alright, so Ymar transposed a couple letters in Charybdis. We understood his intent and I think you did as well.

We even understood you when you typed "sinic" instead of "cynic".

So, let's drop the childish sneering about spelling errors and stick to substance instead of form.

Posted by: socialism_is_error at August 8, 2007 09:25 PM

socialism is error.

Of course you are not going to answer any of my questions.... I did not expected you to have what it takes to do so.

If it is any consolation, your answer is typical of Right Wingers, in any Right Wing blog I go into. They all never ever answer any quations.... Because none of you can.

You are simply used to posting your rethorical points fill with generalities, and when confronted to be more specific. Focus on one question, and see if it is logical, if it has merit, if it can be sustained under hard questioning.... You all cut and run.

How convenient of you to call me "childish" for my answer to Yari, but have no problem with the guy insulting me with the wrong mithological creature.... He can't even do that right.

As for you debate. Let's start right here, at least I don't cut and run from challenges.

First of all let's start by stating the obvious. If the Democrats win it all in 2008, they will be inheriting Bush's and the Republican's mess in Iraq. A mess that you guys could not fix, only talk. A mess of historic proportions that defies fixing even from the most agile, and best minds. Why? Because there are some problems in life that can't be fixed. In Iraq after five years of absolute incompetence, what we have is no good solutions.... Only which bad solution do we end up having to take.

If we stay in Iraq as you people propose, the reality tell you that we will have to reduce forces because it is litteraly impossible to keep the same level of troops into infinity. Right there you guys continue to insist in a plan that can't be done. We can't stay in our present capacity period.
The Iraqi Military never got up to speed. We keep on hearing the same broken record from the Bush Administration..."We need to train the Iraqi Military, we need more time"After five years all these guys hould have Phd's by now.


So what;s the solution.

Simply put. PARTISION.

We are looking at a defacto partision right now. Is going on in the streets.... The Bush Administration delusion, and obsesion in creating a democracy come hail or high water is what's standing in the way of a real solution.

The demented idea that the Kurds for rxample will give up all their current liverties, their own Army, the Pashmerga, and put thier future in the hands of a bunch of mad Mullahs is idiotic, but jet you guys continue to support it.

Buy what's the street telling you????? You see any Kurds embracing Shiite culture, and inviting Shiite to go live in Kurdistan. Do you see the Shiite willing to share power with the Sunni???? Do you see the Kurds willing to give up their oil to the Sunni?????

NO!!!!!! , so please if you want a solution let's start by RECOGNIZING WHAT IS REALALY GOING ON ON THE GROWND....And stop your usual make believe, policies that obviosly did not work.

You want an example of what could have been in Iraq? Look at Kurdistan. But at the same time see why the difference, don't be naive.

Kurdistan is in peace, because they have their Peshmerga Army to stop any Sunni or Shiite incursions. They did not need one second of training, let alone five years and counting like the so called Iraqi Army.

That's why partision is the only way. That's because partision is already a fact of life... Only you people are too blinf and to arrogant to recognse that your idea not only will never work, but is actually prebenting a real solution.

So you wanted our ideas, I gave them to you. That's more than I can say about the answer to my questions.

Now, that we are clear on that point

Posted by: gil at August 8, 2007 11:25 PM

Wow, gil, you almost sounded like you thought you meant to say something. Unfortunately, your grasp of the English language and it's quaint little nuances regarding spelling (not that you would point out such...) make it very difficult to seriously consider (much less read) anything you might have thought you meant to say.

Did you have a point, or was that just a general rant?

Posted by: Sly2017 at August 9, 2007 01:13 AM

gil:

You can use SIE if it's more convenient; some do.

All right, let's consider your first question.

"1) Who are the Jihadist in Iraq??? The SHiite fighting the Sunni, or the Sunni and the Shiite fighting the Kurds, or the Shiite fighting the Shiite, the Militias, the Insurgents, the Pashmerga,al-Quaida, the Saudi, Syrian, Iranian, Libian, Pakistani, Egitpian Palestinian, and other terrorists infiltrating into Iraq to put bombs at every corner street?"

So, #1 starts by asking "Who are the Jihadist(s) in Iraq???"

That is a legitimate question. If the definition of a Jihadist is important to something you are about to say, we should make sure we agree on that definition.

Instead of waiting for a reply, however, you construct a reply to yourself in the form of a rhetorical question. You propose a whole mixed-up laundry list of nationalities, religious sects and formal or informal armed groups and assume that I can't help but agree that they are all Jihadists. I don't. Then:

"2) We are supposed to stay and fight them all? With what troops the ones on their third re-deployment or the ones on their fourth??"

Another rhetorical question, based on your assumption of my agreement with your pre-selected answer to #1. In fact, I can't agree here, either. Why? Because you included the Peshmerga in your list. Do you actually think the Kurds are hostile to us?

This is why the style of using rhetorical questions is so dangerous. Unless you are dead certain of basing your implied answers on iron-clad, univerally accepted premises, the method will break down.

Now we get to the second part of #2.

"With what troops the ones on their third re-deployment or the ones on their fourth??"

You do understand that you are commenting in a milblog, don't you? I think I will defer to the career personnel and their families here for a definitive response, but I simply have to say this much:

It is hard for me to envision a more gratuitous insult to warriors and the supporting families than the assumption that they just aren't strong enough to do the job and should be pitied.

What can you have been thinking?

You should be able to see by now why I can't go on with your questions. You really need to stop and reflect. You're ranting emotionally and making errors rather than constructing solidly rational arguments.

Posted by: socialism_is_error at August 9, 2007 09:20 AM

Actually you do remind me of CHARYBDIS, not Charbydis.

See, didn't I say "that would be an answer that is factual enough"? Logically speaking, that would make gill Scylla.

I did not expected you to have what it takes to do so.

I've always tried to counsel people to take Sun Tzu to heart when he suggested that you might not want to fight on terrain chosen by your enemy and favorable to your opponent.

They all never ever answer any quations.... Because none of you can.

Gill is correct in a sense, because he does not nor will he ever believe that historical accounts such as MacArthur or Sherman are an answer to his quoted questions. It will never qualify as a quantifiable answer to his inquiries. Yes, I am repeating the "quat" sound because I'm making fun of g's gills.

So you wanted our ideas, I

Sign of multiple personality disorder.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 9, 2007 11:45 AM

It is interesting to see the intensity with which people who have never been to Iraq or engaged in any in-depth studies of the region will refer to "divisions between the groups" and other vague regurgitations of media buzz (on either side, really).

The focus of the current strategy is not to simply defeat bad guys by killing them. We've never lost a tic unless it was precipitated by a mechanical accident (for example, some SEALs got chewed up because their helo went down in bad-guy land because of mechanical problems). We can win on the battlefield and do every day. That is not at issue.

The focus of this "new" strategy is to have the whole Army do what the Special Forces have always been doing (which makes me wonder why this was not left up to the experts to begin with... SF): engaging with local people and learning what their civil problems are, not just their military ones. We needed troops to do the fighting (already had enough before), and then immediately after we needed another set of troops to secure the newly won areas (not enough before the surge), engage the local leaders and people and resolve their long-standing civil conflicts.

This strategy predicts a different required troop level to be sustainable, and that gives us this concept of having a surge.

The focus of the surge is to bring communities closer together and bridge the gaps that exist, not simply to do a lot of ass-kicking.

Posted by: Murasaki at August 11, 2007 01:18 AM

I believe it demonstrates the miltary's internalization of the criticism of Marine LtCol. William R. Corson who was at one point in charge of the Combined Action Program in Vietnam. It's been awhile since my last reading of his "The Betrayal" but, as I recall, his main complaint regarded the failure to extend support for what he termed the "provision of social justice" up through the interactions between the highest-level military brass and their counterparts in the ARVN and, even more importantly, the lack of support by our government outside the DoD with respect to the Vietnamese civil government.

What you observe shows that the first of those issues has been dealt with; the second can only be enforced by political pressure from the public (thus, the critical importance of what Gen. Petraeus will say).

Posted by: socialism_is_error at August 11, 2007 08:45 AM

(which makes me wonder why this was not left up to the experts to begin with... SF)

Army wanted a slice of the action since the SF and Rangers got most of it in Afghanistan. They, the Army, were getting antsy since the Cold War got cold dead.

Besides, SF was always designed to either operate independently or in assistance to large conventional forces. The idea of turning the entire Army into a SF contingent would nullify the purpose of the SF to certain small scale actions. What might have worked was to have the SF, the Army's that is, advise and train the US military like the SF does with foreign armies. Course that would raise command chain issues.

Since the Army is already learning and adapting, that is no longer necessary, perhaps.


Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 13, 2007 07:10 PM

test


Posted by: Ymarsakar at August 13, 2007 07:10 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)