...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...
The President has now outlined his new approach for Iraq. Do I think it will work? Really, who cares what I think? I don't care what anybody else thinks. The time for punditry has long passed. This is the time for results. I sense that the President finally understands this.
As I've said before, arguing about whether we should set a timetable for withdrawal is stupid. We already have one, and the deadline is January 20th, 2009. No amount of wishful thinking by war hawks can change the fact that unless there is significant and obvious improvement in Iraq, and soon, the next president of the United States will be elected on a platform of withdrawal.
Therefore, we who long for success should know that this is our last chance to succeed. We have less than two years. Those who oppose us know that this is the endgame for Iraq too. Our foreign enemies will do everything they can to embarrass U.S. forces by creating atrocities or inventing them wherever possible. Our domestic enemies will then do all they can to portray these atrocities as evidence of the failure, futility and immorality of our purpose.
Whether we succeed or not depends very little on what you or I say here at home, given those facts. Our men and women at arms will accomplish everything that is asked of them, as they always have. The question is whether the President and his generals will have the guts to keep fighting when the inevitable criticism hits fever pitch. Based on past experience, I need convincing.
This country is anti-war; our domestic enemies have already won that battle (with the unwitting help, I might add, of Mr. Rumsfeld and the commander-in-chief himself). The President's speech tonight will not magically transform the public's fatigue any more than it can change the Washington press corps into a group of people who love their country. If success is possible at this late hour, Mr. Bush will have to do it without the support of Congress, the media, or the majority of the American people.
But as President Bush explained less than half an hour ago, failure in Iraq would be a disaster. And therefore, I hope he understands above all that now is the time for results.
Technorati: iraq, bush, bush+speech
Well, what are the majority of the American people thinking? I want the new i-Phone? We can't alter the course of a country without making sure we help them get on their feet to some degree before we leave.
Posted by: Joules on Jan. 10, 2007I'm weary of defeatist sentiments. Hopefully Petraeus is Bush's Grant. A man with the strength to do what needs to be done.
Ultimately, there is no way to walk away from this war. The cowards stayed home from Vietnam, and bullied the people into turning their backs on the sacrifice and victory of the valiant. That won't work this time. The war will find them here if they accomplish the same thing in Iraq.
Posted by: Casca on Jan. 10, 2007Casca hit the nail right on the head with that one. This is unlike most any war we've fought in the last century. If we don't win this war, we can't just bring everyone home and say "Oh well, at least we tried." The war will follow us here, and I would much rather we fight in their streets than ours.
Posted by: Frank on Jan. 11, 2007I agree that words are fairly meaningless now, but I'd still like for the President cogently to define the enemy (Islamo-fascism); to re-emphasize our strategic, long-term goals in the region. And then make the obvious link between the two. The President has spent more time the past few years peddling PC nonsense about the "religion of peace" and worrying about collateral damage than he has about making a strong argument for our presence in Iraq. This adminstration and more specifically this President has refused to speak directly and honestly to the American people about the enemy and why Iraq is so strategic in winning the GWOT. Reagan he ain't. The war of ideas is every bit as important as the war on the ground. We, the good guys, are losing both.
And somebody tell me again why Sadr is still alive...
Posted by: blu on Jan. 11, 2007From President Bush, I smell a hint of desperation, and of urgency. Good. It has been missing.
Only desperation and urgency moved President Bush to put Iran and Syria on notice: we will take military action against you. Finally! President Bush had not been serious enough to take that necessary step.
Bush to Ahmanutjob: "You and I have unfinished business!"
Posted by: gcotharn on Jan. 11, 2007"The war of ideas is every bit as important as the war on the ground. We, the good guys, are losing both."
Exactly HOW are we losing the war on the ground? It's unconventional warfare. The more powerful side only loses when it quits.
Posted by: Casca on Jan. 11, 2007You think we are winning? You think Iraq is stable? You think having Sadr running around doing what he likes when he likes to do it, is winning? You think we are winning when the President admits that Syria and Iran are sending in bodies and weapons? Delusion is not a strategy. Neither is a PC-run war. I hope the President's "surge" begins to address the current reality.
As you well know, I'm a Bush supporter and a supporter of the war. That, however, does not preclude me from exercising critical thinking. I don't think we've lost. But, we have a very short window to turn things around and start winning the both the physical and propoganda war.
The gloves need to come off or we will lose. Winning for the other side just means keeping the chaos going. Winning for us means a stable Iraq that is a dependable ally and is not run by Muslim fanatics. Winning for us is a much more difficult task.
Posted by: blu on Jan. 11, 2007p.s. there wouldn't have been a speech last night if we were winning.
Posted by: blu on Jan. 11, 2007Nah, there would have been more speeches were we winning.
Yet, I hesitate to say we are losing. It's like playing a very long invloved game of Monopoly. Sometimes you are up, other times down.
I like to play Monopoly, but, I actually hide my properties and money under the board, so my foe doesn't know my hand.
Posted by: Jenn on Jan. 11, 2007Jenn, I hope that both you and Casca are right, and I am wrong. In the meantime, let's pray the President's new plan has a positive impact both in Iraq and America. As Annika said above, our enemies - the insurgents and the American Left - both want America to fail in Iraq and so they will be working OT in pursuit of that goal.
As a side note, I believe there are two kinds of people: those who enjoy Monopoly and those who despise it.
Posted by: blu on Jan. 12, 2007> This country is anti-war; our domestic enemies have already won that battle (with the unwitting help, I might add, of Mr. Rumsfeld and the commander-in-chief himself).
1. Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz are the main reason this country is anti-war. They bumbled the intelligence to lie their way into a strategy to secure oil resources, the bumbled the troop levels, they bumbled the plan for the aftermath, Bremer made numerous bumbles, ammo depots were not secured or demolished, and it goes on and on.
2. Domestic enemies? We are the American people, though there is much partisan hate that creates a chasm of disunity. You can't blame people for saying, "Wait, what are we really getting ourselves into?", or "the adminstration is making serious errors in decision-making". Such people are not enemies, but patriots. Yes, patriots. I'm all for giving a leader the ability to threaten engagement if a threat to our nation or world stability must be confronted. I utterly despise being lied to about the reasons for unleashing the dogs of war, especially when the objectives of keeping WMD out of the hands of madmen are completely and incompetently bumbled, as in the case of North Korea and perhaps soon to be Iran. If you mean domestic enemies as those who are tired of the policies of the arch-conservative wing of the Republican party, then that is well over 50% of the American people.
While blu will likely disagree with much of the above, I happen to agree with his comments above.
Casca> "Exactly HOW are we losing the war on the ground? It's unconventional warfare. The more powerful side only loses when it quits."
There were other uncoventional wars such as Vietnam and the American Revolution, to name two, where the superior force was routed because of unconventional tactics. This is a complex subject, so a few paragraphs in a comment won't really capture the essence of the many nuances.
Posted by: will on Jan. 12, 2007Well Blu,
I like monopoly but rarely find the time to play. It helped me to clarify the dilemmas of wealth and moral ambiguity of capitalism at an early stage of my life. That said I don't like the war in Iraq, nor am I an enemy of the US. That kind of thinking is, as you know, really shallow and primarily the retort of those whose real arguments and policies have failed. Casca thinks that because he doesn't see people clambering aboard helo's from the embassy roof we are not beaten. Beaten we may not be but winning we certainly are not. Sure, in each fire fight and house to house we are not overwhelmed, pushed back or do we suffer losses greater than our enemy. If you are living in a box with tinfoil lining your hat, that may look like winning but this attempt to subdue a country, install a government that has little meaning to most of the population and has terrible meaning to a violent minority will require more than successful house to house searches and winning a fire-fight whenever the enemy is too stupid to avoid it.
Winning would be a political decision on the part of the Iraqi population to embrace the heel of America's boot and to call it freedom. You can kill millions and that won't happen. The GWOT is not being fought in Iraq. Iraq is just another thinly disguised American attempt at projecting influence in the service of maintaining access to raw materials and markets exchanging the wholesale destruction of non-American lives and societies to ensure America's continued gluttonous consumption of the world’s resources and maintaining our "quality of life". We have no humanitarian interest in Dafur because acting there cannot further Capitalism's goals. Saving 100,000 lives in Africa returns no gain to the US economy nor advances our influence in matters that are truly important to us.
The transparency of this equation to the rest of the world is the essence of why America is despised. It’s neither our freedom, nor our quality of life (which is obviously terrific) it is our hypocritical plundering. Our schoolyard bully approach to our clear military might yet our clear weakness when we must confront the nature of our core values. I thought it was very telling yesterday when Condiliar said it would be coming to them as the "supplicant" should we seek to negotiate with and possibly enjoin the governments of Syria, Jordan etc. to help with stabilizing Iraq. Powerful people or nations do worry about such things if they believe in their strength and the value of their goals unless, of course, if their stated goal is a lie and their strength in doubt.
Ironic, Straw, that you like Monopoly, while I have always freakin' hated it. (Not because I don't love capitalism. More because I have a very hard time sitting still. Monopoly is not a game for those lacking patience or for the restless.)
Posted by: blu on Jan. 12, 2007Blu,
Truth be told I have not sat at a Monoply board since I was 14 or so and have not given the idea of playing a thought since then. It made for an opening sentence that i liked.
Posted by: strawman on Jan. 12, 2007Ahhh....we all like a good lead in.....
Posted by: blu on Jan. 12, 2007I think a monopoly game with all you guys would be really fun.
Will, I do think that most Americans who today identify themselves as anti-war have a real hard time understanding why we invaded a country that did not attack us. I do not fault them for that point of view, I totally understand it, and I do not consider such people "domestic enemies," as among their number I count many friends and family members.
By "domestic enemies" I mean people who are actively working to aid the enemy and to bring about the defeat of United States forces in Iraq and elsewhere. Many of the people I mean are doing so knowingly, and many are doing so unwittingly, but I consider them enemies either way. But in no way do I mean to imply that anyone who questions the Iraq War is a "domestic enemy." I am sorry I did not make that distinction clear in the post.
Posted by: annika on Jan. 12, 2007Annika, perhaps I went a tad overboard, though your distinction helps. Could you identify by name who you think some of our domestic enemies are?
Posted by: will on Jan. 12, 2007"They bumbled the intelligence...."
Of course, but so did everyone else outside of and before the Bush administration. Anybody remember Operation Desert Fox?
The pre-war intel failures also make the conservative/libertarian case that Big Gov't is prone to Murphy's Law. As someone already pointed out in another thread, that is why we're fucked if we ever have to rely on the bureaucrats to stop climate change or blow up giant asteroids before impacting on earth.
"....to lie their way into a strategy to secure oil resources,"
I'd love to see Will prove this accusation. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that he was indeed a "moderate" or "independent", but it seems that he's really just some poseur trying to re-package his Leftism into something "hip".
Even if that were true, I'd rather it be us controlling oil supplies than China.
[- China and the United States are the largest users and competitors for the world's rapidly diminishing oil reserves. Going forward, the US and China’s projected requirements will consume 60%-70% of the world’s production. This demand cannot be met and one country will experience brown outs, gasoline shortages, factory shutdowns as a result of having a lack of energy.]
Strawman might consider our national interest to be an obsolete pursuit, but I'm sure he's in the minority if the country had to choose between self-destruction or conducting imperialism to prevent it.
"the bumbled the troop levels,"
That's somewhat true, but it isn't entirely Bush Jr.'s fault or even under his control(besides the draft). Remember all of that talk before 9/11 that our military was large enough to fight 2 wars simultaneously, such as one major war and a smaller regional war? We never had sufficient troop levels in the Army and Marines before Bush was even elected. The bi-partisan(still mostly Dems') blunder of the 90's, known as the "Peace Dividend", cut our forces in half, so we can't even stabilize one occupied capital city. Bush is finally correcting this with his recently announced plans to expand the size of the total force.
"they bumbled the plan for the aftermath"
That's true, but it probably wouldn't have mattered even if they hadn't. While I was hoping the Iraqis shared the same sentiments as the Arab characters in Three Kings, it looks like they were dead set to turn the place into Yugoslavia from the get-go. I'm not sure there's anything that we could've done that would have contained the sectarian conflict, besides installing a Sunni Arab dictator to maintain the status quo.
"I utterly despise being lied to about the reasons for unleashing the dogs of war"
They did not lie. They were just gravely mistaken. It's like a situation where a thug was shooting at pursuing cops and threw his gun in a dumpster without them knowing it. When the thug gets shot and killed during the chase, you come around, like Al Sharpton, to bludgeon the police department for acting based on what they knew at the time.
"especially when the objectives of keeping WMD out of the hands of madmen are completely and incompetently bumbled"
You might be right, but it doesn't change the fact that one of the Axis of Evil members had to go down. By choosing Iraq, we're within striking distance of Tehran. Hopefully, we'll initiate, as Kerry would say, a "Jenjis Khan" strategy before the Iranians get the bomb. With them out of the way, our Arab pseudo-allies in the region will most likely back away from their own nuclear development programs since they won't have to worry about the "Persian bomb" anymore.
Posted by: reagan80 on Jan. 12, 2007I welcome the opportunity to have a reasoned discourse with reagan80.
1. They bumbled the intelligence...."
Of course, but so did everyone else outside of and before the Bush administration. Anybody remember Operation Desert Fox?
The pre-war intel failures also make the conservative/libertarian case that Big Gov't is prone to Murphy's Law. As someone already pointed out in another thread, that is why we're fucked if we ever have to rely on the bureaucrats to stop climate change or blow up giant asteroids before impacting on earth.
"Bumbled" was too kind a word; "distorted" would have been better. The initial CIA findings were that Iraq did not have a WMD capability. Cheney/Rumsfeld didn't think that was sufficient enough, so they pressured Tennant by threatening to create a foreign intelligence unit in DoD, and by good old arm-twisting. It was win-win for them; when the intel proved grossly wrong, they would be able to boot Tennant and put in someone of their own choosing.
Would you have national intel run by multi-national corporations? States? Don't forget that it was the conservatives who royally screwed this one up.
2. "....to lie their way into a strategy to secure oil resources,"
I'd love to see Will prove this accusation.
I freely admit that this is more an opinion formed from my understanding of global oil resources and the nature of Cheney's influence. Blu criticizes me for not being opinionated, so you two need to get together to determine a happy medium.
I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that he was indeed a "moderate" or "independent", but it seems that he's really just some poseur trying to re-package his Leftism into something "hip".
This is not simply a "lefty" opinion. There are many moderates and conservatives who also are concerned about our current oil consumption levels and recognize the need to change. For a start, look at the names on these documents (e.g., Bates, no less);
http://www.secureenergy.org/reports/ESLC_Oil_Report.pdf
http://www.secureenergy.org/reports/oil_shock_report_master.pdf
Even if that were true, I'd rather it be us controlling oil supplies than China.
"China and the United States are the largest users and competitors for the world's rapidly diminishing oil reserves. Going forward, the US and China’s projected requirements will consume 60%-70% of the world’s production. This demand cannot be met and one country will experience brown outs, gasoline shortages, factory shutdowns as a result of having a lack of energy."
Strawman might consider our national interest to be an obsolete pursuit, but I'm sure he's in the minority if the country had to choose between self-destruction or conducting imperialism to prevent it.
http://www.secureenergy.org/reports/Briefing-OilDependence.pdf
I agree that there is the potential for a serious oil supply disruptions, though I take another view on what the need truly is, and agree in large part with the solutions in the first link a couple of paragraphs above. I encourage your comments on those documents.
3. "the bumbled the troop levels,"
That's somewhat true, but it isn't entirely Bush Jr.'s fault or even under his control(besides the draft).
I completely understand your rationale about fighting multiple wars. Hence, we shouldn't have gone in at that time. Period. I don't see how you can escape this reality. Two years ago, perhaps, but not now.
4."they bumbled the plan for the aftermath"
That's true, but it probably wouldn't have mattered even if they hadn't.
They didn't understand the situation during planning, nor did they have a clue what was going on shortly thereafter. The aftermath plan was put on the backburner, because it was perceived as unimportant by Rumsfeld. Bremer was using an inexperienced staff of young ideologues who were political appointments rotated through on 3 month shifts, and also grossly undermanned. This discussion alone could take up an entire book. I suggest you read "Fiasco" for a perspective that you probably haven't considered before. If nothing else, talk to a senior military acquaintance of yours and ask their take on the matter. Be prepared to listen.
5. "I utterly despise being lied to about the reasons for unleashing the dogs of war"
They did not lie. They were just gravely mistaken.
Perhaps you even disagree with Powell, who regrets his role in the matter, especially the sexing up of the intel. His fault was being a good soldier, and he was always outnumbered to begin with. Note that he is not shy now about speaking his own mind.
6. "especially when the objectives of keeping WMD out of the hands of madmen are completely and incompetently bumbled"
You might be right, but it doesn't change the fact that one of the Axis of Evil members had to go down.
Perhaps at some point, but the timing was horribly wrong. We were in Afghanistan at the time, and negotiating with NK to stop their nuclear weapons program. But someone wanted to be a war president, egged on no doubt by the VP. After all, if Bush secured future energy supplies, and conservatives got to push their agenda through under the fog of war, they would come out smelling like roses. The odor is something else entirely now.
our Arab pseudo-allies in the region will most likely back away from their own nuclear development programs since they won't have to worry about the "Persian bomb" anymore.
That completely ignores the situation in Iran, the only other country with the resources to undertake such a venture.
Posted by: will on Jan. 13, 2007"The initial CIA findings were that Iraq did not have a WMD capability."
Really? Then, WTF was Operation Desert Fox about? The intelligence community thought Iraq had enough WMD capabilities to justify bombing them in '98. From then on, there were no UN weapons inspectors in Iraq until late 2002. You're telling me that the CIA conclusively knew that there was no way in hell that Saddam was acquiring WMD's, despite a 4-year absence of inspectors in the country? Riiight. Could you direct me to the store that sold them their time machines and crystal balls? k thx
The "consensus", at the time, on pre-war intelligence could have been just as wrong as it was in the final years of the Cold War. IIRC, the CIA was caught by surprise when the Wall came down and the USSR collapsed. At the time, they actually thought the Soviets had a sustainable economic system matching our own.
"Would you have national intel run by multi-national corporations? States? Don't forget that it was the conservatives who royally screwed this one up."
No, I was just making another one of my obligatory arguments for limited gov't. Bush expanded the size of government more than the last 3 administrations combined. If you haven't noticed already, conservatism in the current Republican Party is vestigial, at best.
If we're going to have Big Gov't, I'd rather see less of it here, and more of it going overseas to plague our enemies.
"Hence, we shouldn't have gone in at that time. Period."
No, we should've gone in, but not to conduct democratic nation-building. We had enough troops to destroy the Iraqi military, but we needed the Iraqi army intact. If we had ensured the Sunni Arabs that one of their own would succeed Saddam and maintain the status quo, the post-war transition would've proceeded more smoothly and allowed us a graceful exit. Disbanding the Iraqi army and attempting to democratize a bunch of tribal primitives was the real blunder. We should've been waging the war as a punitive expedition to put the Iranians and Syrians on notice that we wouldn't put up with their shit anymore. Instead, it was turned into a liberal social engineering program that ended up emboldening them.
"I don't see how you can escape this reality."
Try renting the Matrix trilogy sometime.
"I suggest you read "Fiasco" for a perspective that you probably haven't considered before."
That won't be necessary. I was already aware of those details from my other sources. I don't need some closet Leftist telling me how to attain enlightenment.
"Perhaps you even disagree with Powell,"
Where's the quote that has Powell stating the administration LIED to, or DECEIVED everybody? It better have him using a synonymous term that denotes malicious intent on the part of the administration, or I call BS.
"Perhaps at some point, but the timing was horribly wrong."
When would have been a good time, then? After an extra year of weapon inspections? If they would've waited that long, the administration would've had a grand total of 9 months to conduct the war, assuming there was an electoral defeat in '04. The administration didn't want to take any chances that their potential peacenik successors wouldn't finish the war properly, so they went for a head start.
If we would've let sleeping dogs lie, the sanctions would've eventually been lifted after Bush was gone. Then, if not to deter us, Saddam would've definitely entered the nuclear arms race against Iran.
"That completely ignores the situation in Iran, the only other country with the resources to undertake such a venture."
Sorry for not being clearer:
[With them(Iran) out of the way, our Arab pseudo-allies in the region will most likely back away from their own nuclear development programs since they won't have to worry about the "Persian bomb" anymore.]
Iran isn't an Arab country. It's population is mostly Persian. Arabs don't like Persians. It's kind of like how Sunni Arabs don't like Sunni Kurds in Iraq, or how Arab Muslims don't take very kindly to black Muslims in Darfur. Islam resembles an Arab supremacist cult movement. Hence, a potential nuclear arms race is brewing in the Middle East. Religion of Peace, my ass.
Posted by: reagan80 on Jan. 13, 2007en, WTF was Operation Desert Fox about?
Continued failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors. We know now that there was no evidence of WMD in Iraq at that time.
No, I was just making another one of my obligatory arguments for limited gov't.
Then who do you believe should be acquiring and analysing intelligence of national strategic importance?
Try renting the Matrix trilogy sometime.
I don't get my reality from Hollywood science fiction.
No, we should've gone in, but not to conduct democratic nation-building. We had enough troops to destroy the Iraqi military, but we needed the Iraqi army intact. If we had ensured the Sunni Arabs that one of their own would succeed Saddam and maintain the status quo, the post-war transition would've proceeded more smoothly and allowed us a graceful exit.
There are any number of woulda-coulda-shoulda monday morning quarterbacking scenarios. Suffice to say, the spreading of democracy was a post factum justification. If a Sunni was put in charge through strong arm tactics, the Kurds would have simply flipped us off and the Shiites would have been push fully into the Iranian fold. rebeling in an outcome that could easily have been worst than what we are in now.
When would have been a good time, then?
After we had Afghanistan under control and NK dropping their bomb strategy. Although it is unclear whether the CINC could have pulled both of those off.