 |
December 04, 2005A Quick Aside on MoDoThe National Strategy for Victory must have come from the same P.R. genius who gave President Top Gun the "Mission Accomplished" banner about 48 hours before the first counterinsurgency war of the 21st century broke out in Iraq. Oh Maureen. Here's what the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq document had to say on this front: The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists, and terrorists affiliated with or inspired by Al Qaida. These three groups share a common opposition to the elected Iraqi government and to the presence of Coalition forces, but otherwise have separate and to some extent incompatible goals. Now, I actually thought the fact that the Bush administration finally got around to stating so openly that we weren't just talking about terrorists and Baathist dead-enders was a good thing. Finally, some straighter talk in the air! After all, if you listen to many Rummy aficianados--the only people we are facing down in Iraq are bearded meanies streaming in from Syria to stoke some jihadi fun and a few members of Saddam's old Tikrit circle ginning up some neo-Baathist thuggery. Now, it's true the term 'rejectionist' is a bit cute, as it appears to quite purposefully traipse around uttering the dreaded "I" word (it seems hot-shot Don doesn't like it, you see)--but it is still a move in the right direction to not only say that there are Baathist dead-enders and terrorists causing us trouble in Iraq, but also 'rejectionists', and, to boot, to further admit they constitute the "largest group" operating there (and terrorists the smallest). All this to say, the prominent mention of rejectionists in the Victory Strategy document was actually the most direct, high profile and detailed admission that we are facing a numerically significant homegrown rejectionist insurrection in Iraq (which I'd prefer to call an insurgency, but hey, you take what you can get these days). So, you might hope against hope that MoDo would play it fair and give a smidgen of credit for this little bit of straight talk emitting from the Bush folk of late, no? Alas, it seems MoDo read Dexter Filkins and took him a little too much on faith, en passage displaying for all to see her rather ditzy understanding of the composition of the insurgency. Filkins: The Bush administration has long maintained, and Mr. Bush reiterated in his speech Wednesday, that the insurgency comprises three elements: disaffected Sunni Arabs, or "rejectionists"; former Hussein government loyalists; and foreign-born terrorists affiliated with Al Qaeda. Memo to MoDo: Most (if not all) of these groups mostly fall under one of the categories mentioned in the Victory Strategy--those in the terrorist grouping (certainly those claimed by Ansar al Sunna and Al Qaeda). There is nothing about the loose cell structure and variegated, diffuse locus of these individual cells that makes the description of the composition of the Iraq insurgency in the Victory Strategy document fraudulent or fake or some Big Lie. In other words, there shouldn't have been over 100 categories of insurgents detailed in the document--that would have been very silly indeed--as said small cells fit within the overarching rubric sketched out in the report. But Dowd's little screed is the second most E-mailed story of the day over at the NYT, and likely a lot of people are reading it and swallowing it hook, line and sinker through the Upper West Side and other such enclaves where foreign policy is imbibed through Hollywoodish, bubble-gum lens, in the main... P.S. We'll have a substantive analysis of the so-called Victory Strategy document soon....a mixed bag, all told, but an improvement on what came before.... Posted by Gregory at December 4, 2005 12:05 AM | TrackBack (1)Comments
Great, but of course you do not address the following main points that Dowd made: 1. These are political talking points, not a plan to achieve victory. 2. The statistics cited by Bush, to the extent he cited statistics were inaccurate wishful thinking. 3. We are well on our way to installing an Iran influenced theocracy. Not to mention that the "terrorists" are there because we invaded and many were created because we invaded. Why doesn't the President answer the hard questions and appear before people that he does not literally command? But then you are on the bunny slope, are you not? Posted by: Stephen Kaus at December 4, 2005 01:33 AM | Permalink to this comment
MoDo hasn't been keeping up with the polls. About half the country thinks that we're winning in Iraq; presumably, us deluded souls think that the strategy we're using has something to do with that. Posted by: Robert at December 4, 2005 01:42 AM | Permalink to this comment
Yeah, Stephen, he's on the bunny slope. On the other hand, you don't even have a blog. At least he's in the game, and not just taking cheap shots and fleeing. Posted by: Mister Snitch! at December 4, 2005 01:59 AM | Permalink to this comment
1. These are political talking points, not a plan to achieve victory. The man specifically lists the ones that can be talked around, the ones that have to be killed, and the ones we're simply going to have to put up with. It's a strategy speech, not a tactical instruction session, which he wouldn't do in public anyway. 2. The statistics cited by Bush, to the extent he cited statistics were inaccurate wishful thinking. And yours aren't? All the statistics are bullshit. The only polls that matter are the ones that (in Iraq's case) result in purple fingers. 3. We are well on our way to installing an Iran influenced theocracy. Just because you're afraid of it doesn't mean it will happen. It took us RWDBs long enough to figure out that among Shia, Sistani is a bigger cheese than almost anybody. One of the strategies here is to make Iraqis think of themselves as Iraqis. They already think of themselves as superior to the Iranians/Persians. Not to mention that the "terrorists" are there because we invaded Right. Before the invasion they were all doing the same things, but they were on Civil Service and expected a pension for it. and many were created because we invaded. And many would have been created if we hadn't invaded; they just wouldn't have been the same ones. Why doesn't the President answer the hard questions and appear before people that he does not literally command? Because he's established, by repeated and conclusive experiment, that he will not be quoted and in fact his message will not be fairly presented even in refutation if he does so, and that most of his interlocutors will make defiant speeches instead of asking questions and listening to the answers, then "report" their speeches instead of the substance. Cherrypicking the individual phrases, without or in defiance of context, is rampant even in venues where the full text is readily available. As here. Regards,
1) It's just a shame that the President HAS to make "political talking points" about the war. He steadfastly refused to do so for almost a year. All he got in return was MediaCrat "policital talking points" or, more precisely, "political shrieking points" For the record, the points Dowd refers to are not the "Strategy" part of the speech. Try actually reading it, Stephen, before you deign to proclaim it's contents. 2) If there is an "innacurat" statistic cited by the President, why don't you, you know, tell us what it is? 3) This "Iran theocracy" we're establishing will be news to the Sunnis and Kurds who approved the new constitution. Yes, the Shiites are flexing their muscles a little: they are, oddly enough, the majority. But they are woking very hard not to alienate the Kurds and Sunnis because they knw - much beter then even you - the dangers of not ding so. They're not nearly as dumb as you lefties think and hope they are. If the "terrorists" were not in Iraq, they'd be someplace else. Am I going too fast for you? As for the US "creating" terrorists, could ou give me an example of one of these? This is just another "intuitive" leftist meme that has very little basis in fact. Not that it matter to your kind. Sure. The President should appear before a crowd of leftists so they can scream invectives at him. You guys have no credibility on this sort of thing, an more than Cindy Sheehan, who doesn't want to "hear" what W has to say, she just wants to lecture him on being a murderer. That's what you mean by "he hard questions" and everyone knows it. Ridiculous. Sorry, pal. our stuff doesn't even qualify as the Bunny Slope. Just the usual left wing "I hate Bush" silliness. Why don't ou and your pals try getting serious instead of just mouthng nonsense? Posted by: Bill Archer at December 4, 2005 02:18 AM | Permalink to this comment
Ric, excellent post. We are winning the war in Iraq and people like MoDo can't stand the fact the guy who they claimed was an idiot was right. The real issue with people opposing the war is simple, they can't stand that Bush was right. They see it as proof that he is smarter than they are (and it is). This is hard for some to swallow. Bush was right and they were wrong. Yes, they can have an opinion, but once we have facts clinging to faslehoods is UNAMERICAN and unethical. Posted by: bert at December 4, 2005 02:19 AM | Permalink to this comment
it is amusing to see these same comments, YEAR AFTER YEAR from the pro war people. I have no doubt that in 2011, when we are still in the ridiculous quagmire in Iraq, you all will still be reiterating "things are going great, this is part of the plan, just trust Bush...he knows what he's doing!" LOL Posted by: CG at December 4, 2005 02:37 AM | Permalink to this comment
Stephen Kause :"These are political talking points, not a plan to achieve victory." Rubbish! The President has a very well thought out plan which IS actually working.
Says who? Every statistic cited by The President has been confirmed to be exactly right. Idiot Stephen Kaus "We are well on our way to installing an Iran influenced theocracy." You mean like when Jimmy Carter let a bunch of Islamic crazies in Iran hold Americans histage for to the tune of 444 days waaay back in 1979? Moron Stephen Kaus :"Not to mention that the "terrorists" are there because we invaded and many were created because we invaded." Yeah?
Well then CG how about that quagmire in Japan and Germany been there sixty odd years. Posted by: djohn66 at December 4, 2005 02:49 AM | Permalink to this comment
CG :"it is amusing to see these same comments, YEAR AFTER YEAR from the pro war people." You mean like the self same nonsense we keep hearing from the people who simply love America's enemies like Hanoi John Kerry? We have been hearing the same nonsense and stupidity from the loony left anti-war crazies for ever. Unfortunately for you idiots, this is not 1973, where the anti-American liberal media can spew out vicious propaganda and just get away with it. Today we have Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio, Fox News, and the conservative blogs etc.
My biggest concern is the potential alliance between the Shiites of Iran and those of Iraq. This would have been a major interest of Iran, and I see no reason for us to secure it for them. But historical perspective: during Vietnam (I realize REAL references to objectives of that period dates me, cough, hack, where is my walker?") the liberal echlon argued that nationalism is the driving force. I.e., Vietnamese can be split from Chinese and USSR interests despite their unity as marxists (which amounts to a secular religion). This prediction appears to have been accurate. Vietnam has pursued its own interests, whether those serve China or those of the former USSR. Perhaps Shiite Islam is a different, stronger, creature. But it is something worth considering. Posted by: David Hardy at December 4, 2005 03:07 AM | Permalink to this comment
I recognize that, as a retired military officer, I come from a very distinct group that generally tends to favor the Commander in Chief. But if any CinC actually started disclosing military strategy in anything but the most generic of terms that would be extremely damaging to the troops in the field. Can you imagine anything more irresponsible than the President stating that in December we're going to clean out Fallujah and Ramadi, and then in January our focus will be on Mosul and Kirkuk? You want an appropriate military strategy statement from a President? Try this - We will pursue the enemy and capture or kill them wherever they are. And we will continue until we have destroyed their will to fight. Posted by: ts at December 4, 2005 03:22 AM | Permalink to this comment
Bert, yes we are winning the war. My guess is that it will be won long before 2011. You, MoDo, and the rest of the panic stricken left are obsessed with the fact that “W”, that moron with a Harvard MBA, was reelected, running on his record, and won with a full majority of the voting public. There has never been a war that did not contain the unexpected, and require adjustments. The ability of our military to adapt, and prevail is exemplary. The lefts problem is that you have no real understanding of how long it takes to establish a functioning Battalion, capable of acting independently. You can turn out your basic rifleman in about 4 to 6 months, but to get those corporals, Sergeants, Staff, First, Master etc. takes years. Add into the mix a functioning officer corps and factor in that you do not want unreconstructed Sadamists in your new army, the task is even harder. The political progress in Iraq, is probably well beyond expectations. Why is it that Left feels that democracy can only work in Western Europe, and North America? I suggest you look at where we have been confronting the insurgents over the last 2 years. You will see that once we were fighting in Baghdad suburbs, and Shiite militants, and now we are securing a border with Syria. As far IED’s they are the last gasp of a defeated enemy. Used solely for terror purposes. A few fanatics, can cause death and destruction, but does not give them popular support. The Irish Republican Army, is a classic example.
The left is angry and is justified. They are wrong and they have been caught (yet again). Instead of accepting the fact they are wrong they have gone on a rampage. Lets look at who is being dishonest. I could go on but won't to help lefties save some face. I will end by saying that those who are attacking the President are of two camps mentally or enraged that they are dumber than the President. Those who feel dumber you are in good company - Kerry.
Did FDR publish America's war strategy to the world? Posted by: Observer at December 4, 2005 03:47 AM | Permalink to this comment
Obersver very good point. What was FDRs exit strategy for WWII for both Germany and Japan? We have been in both for more than forty years. It's cost America a lot of money to be in both countries all this time. Bush is doing quite well in comparison. Exit startegy stuff is nice to talk about but in the real world we have more to address than exit strategies. Posted by: bert at December 4, 2005 03:52 AM | Permalink to this comment
A lot of people are still making the mistake of thinking "Shi'ism" is one, monolithic entity. It is not. Sistani is a follower--and leader--of the Akhbari school of Shi'ism. Iran follows--and leads--the 'Usuli school. They differ in many way. Aside from differences in ritual, they differ completely when it comes to civil governance. To not recognize that is to make and remake stupid mistakes. The Akhbaris--Sistani's group--believe that when the 12th Imam went into occlusion, religio-temporal authority went with him. No one, consequently, has the religious right to declare as law something good or bad, something forbidden or permitted. It's up to the individual, following wise counsel, to decide for himself. It has no rigid theocratic hierarchy. The 'Usulis--Iran's group--believe that the power of the Imam has been passed down through the ages and is held by the current Grand Ayatollah of Iran. He makes his beliefs known through the high religious council which determines both matters of faith and secular life and law. The two groups don't like each other very much at all. This is heightened by the fact that Akhbaris tend to be Arab and 'Usulis Persian. That's another oil-and-water combination. Iran could end up running Iraq, but it would be through a war, not some sneaky little act of subversion. Iraqi Arab Shi'a don't disregard everything that comes out of the Mullahs in Qom, but they take it with reservations and only on religious matters. They are happy to be Iraqi, Shi'a, and Arab simultaneously and have no burning desire to change. Posted by: John Burgess at December 4, 2005 04:21 AM | Permalink to this comment
I have no doubt that in 2011, when we are still in the ridiculous quagmire in Iraq, you all will still be reiterating "things are going great, this is part of the plan, just trust Bush...he knows what he's doing!" If it's 2011, I trust you mean President Jeb Bush. Which, given the pathetic state of the Democratic Party, is entirely possible... Posted by: Ofc. Krupke at December 4, 2005 04:32 AM | Permalink to this comment
BTW, I neglected to mention that Sistani is, ethnically, a Persian. He was born in Mashad, Iran. He left Iran because he believed the practice of Islam there was overly confining and that that being led by Al-Khoie--who died, and his son, who was assassinated by Saddam--had a better take on the religion. He is essentially filling Al-Khoie's shoes. Posted by: John Burgess at December 4, 2005 04:38 AM | Permalink to this comment
Arm-chair bloggers venting spleen on MoDo will not resolve the dilemma of sending our sons and daughters to Iraq. When General Eric Shensiki was retired early by Rummy for testifying before a Congressional committee in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq that a minimium of two-hundred thousand to three-hundred thousand troops would be needed to accomplish the pacification, the Bush Administration embarked on the yellow-brick road of delusional denial. And after three years and more than two thousand WIA's they have finally realized that they aren't in Kansas anymore. We have sqaundered the precious blood and treasure of our nation so that political hacks and PR operatives can plant stories in the Iraqi press for millions of dollars charged to the American tax-payers. This is democracy in action? If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I want to sell to you.
george, Were you drafted or did you volunteer like the folks serving now? You say "our sons and daughters" - which is it for you, son or daughter? How does your son/daughter feel about what they are doing? It would help to know the specifics just because there have been several documented cases of folks claiming to be veterans who are just using it as a stalking horse to blurt out a bunch of DU talking points. I would hate for anyone to dismiss your comments out of hand without being given the opportunity to seriously consider your actual experience. Posted by: marko at December 4, 2005 05:14 AM | Permalink to this comment
Nobody's "sending their sons and daughters to Iraq", George. These young men & women are just that - men and women. They are adults, not naive simpletons who need to be protected from foolish decisions by mommy & daddy. It is a sad state of affairs, but Democrats learned all the wrong lessons from Vietnam. You guys bailed on Vietnam; you wanted to bail on the Cold War; you'd have happily abandoned Central America to the Castro & the Sandanistas; and now you want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. I'm sorry you don't think there's anything special about America that's worth defending. But curling up into a fetal position and kissing your butt goodbye is not a strategy. Posted by: BD at December 4, 2005 05:16 AM | Permalink to this comment
The Spanish-American war ended about 1898. Our exit strategy started in 1992 when we withdrew from the Phillipines, and won't end until we withdraw from Guantonimo Bay (but that's strategically important to the USA).
George, you can either make your point with sound reasoning and facts or you can condescend. Since you've decided to call us "naive" and have resorted to "proving" your POV by using words like "bullshit", all you've done is demonstrate that you've got nothing. Iraq is Vietnam? Substantiate it, prove it, don't just claim it. Why not say the Earth is flat, just because it looks that way to you? Fact is, the guys on the ground tell a different story. They offer us stories, they offer us photos, they offer us facts that can be corroborated. YOU, on the other hand, offer us "bullshit". Sorry George, I want better. Posted by: Mister Snitch! at December 4, 2005 05:46 AM | Permalink to this comment
george hoffman :"Arm-chair bloggers venting spleen on MoDo will not resolve the dilemma of sending our sons and daughters to Iraq." What an idiot! george hoffman :"When General Eric Shensiki was retired early by Rummy for testifying before a Congressional committee in the lead"
Rubbish. You RATS simply can't be trusted with national security. That might explain why the pathetic RATS have won the presidency only 3 times in the past 40 years, and are on track to lose come 2008 again.
How many years did your fuehrer BJ Klinton, the greatest draft dodger on the planet, serve in Vietnam again? george hoffman the idiot :"But I was dead against this quagmire in the sand that we now find ourselves in Iraq, because I saw as a Vietnam Veteran what Yoggi Berra called deja vu all over again" A big YAAAAWN! You suckers have been screaming "Vietnam" even 2 days after the invasion started. HUGE progress has been made in Iraq, in fact at a faster rate than was made in post WWII Germany. You idiots were wrong then, you are still wrong today. The American left is totally STUCK ON STUPID!! Find something else to whine about. Posted by: Smithy at December 4, 2005 05:58 AM | Permalink to this comment
george hoffman :"Arm-chair bloggers venting spleen on MoDo will not resolve the dilemma of sending our sons and daughters to Iraq." What an idiot! george hoffman :"When General Eric Shensiki was retired early by Rummy for testifying before a Congressional committee in the lead"
Rubbish. You RATS simply can't be trusted with national security. That might explain why the pathetic RATS have won the presidency only 3 times in the past 40 years, and are on track to lose come 2008 again.
How many years did your fuehrer BJ Klinton, the greatest draft dodger on the planet, serve in Vietnam again? george hoffman the idiot :"But I was dead against this quagmire in the sand that we now find ourselves in Iraq, because I saw as a Vietnam Veteran what Yoggi Berra called deja vu all over again" A big YAAAAWN! You suckers have been screaming "Vietnam" even 2 days after the invasion started. HUGE progress has been made in Iraq, in fact at a faster rate than was made in post WWII Germany. You idiots were wrong then, you are still wrong today. The American left is totally STUCK ON STUPID!! Find something else to whine about. Posted by: Smithy at December 4, 2005 05:59 AM | Permalink to this comment
"When General Eric Shensiki was retired early by Rummy for testifying before a Congressional committee in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq that a minimium of two-hundred thousand to three-hundred thousand troops would be needed to accomplish the pacification" My god, this one is like the plastic turkey thing. As the much villified Rumsfeld says, "everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not their own set of facts." The above is not true. Sure the subject of whether we had enough troops is a legitimate topic that can accept different opinions. The subject of whether Shinseki was "retired early" is another matter. It is not true, not true, not true and that is FACT. Shinseki's retirement was announced well in advance of any announced planned invasion of Iraq, and he retired precisely when his term was up as he previously said he would. http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=275.html
MARINES BLEEDING IN BABYLON: PHANTOM FURY – vol.2 Friday, December 2nd 2005: “10 Marines Killed in Bombing Near Fallujah”... One might recall that Fallujah used to be a peaceable and sleepy provincial town where Sunnis, Christians, and Shiites lived in harmony…that was long long time ago, before the US Government decided to teach “Ayyrab terrorists” a lesson they would never forget: In November 2004, George W. Bush launched Operation Al-Fajr ("The Dawn" in Arabic), also known as Operation Phantom Fury, a joint U.S.-Iraqi offensive against “rebel strongholds” in the city of Fallujah. The Pentagon called it "some of the heaviest urban combat Marines have been involved in since Hue City in Vietnam in 1968." While listening to the latest wave of robotic Neocon platitudes churned out by the US military’s PR and Information Management Department, I remembered the words of a famous 19th century American philosopher of Gallic descent who once said of brainwashed pseudo-patriots “Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power?... Visit the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts—a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniments...The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense…” Truly, Thoreau’s prose was prescient in many ways…
Don't you just love the argument that fighting terrorists only creates more of them? It combines the theories of spontaneous generation and spontaneous combustion. How else to rationalize the belief that the War on Terror is the source of terrorism on the one hand with 9/11 on the other? Spontaneous combustion to the rescue. 9/11 was the architect's fault for not making the WTC more resistant to burning jet fuel, or if you will Boeing's fault for not making their jets' fuel tanks more resistant to impacts with buildings. Now, wouldn't you know, thanks to the reckless actions of the Bush administration we have a brand new problem to contend with: terrorists, who every day attack our troops in the quagmire of Iraq. It's too bad nobody listened to Hollywood's appeal for calm amidst the ashes of the WTC; if we had we wouldn't be in Iraq and there wouldn't be any such thing as terrorists. A few more unexplained incidents of spontaneous combustion, perhaps, but certainly no such thing as terrorists. Every good liberal knows that you don't reduce the terrorist population by killing terrorists but by wishing them away. Only a smirking ChimpHitler simpleton could believe that war is ever the answer. Posted by: Spontaneous Combustion at December 4, 2005 09:19 AM | Permalink to this comment
Dr Victorino de la Vega: Yeah, and I seem to recall that early 1930s Germany was a pretty nice place, where Christians, Jews and others could get together and have a grand old time. Why wouldn't we all want to live under those idyllic conditions? I'm not going to say any more because I'm just going to violate Godwin's Law if I do. Dr. de la Vega must have never met any US Marines. He knows nothing whatsoever about them. Those of us who have met them know they are human beings, and far better ones than some I could mention.
Yes, of course - the "its the U.S.'s own fault," argument. It is as tiresome as it is dimwitted. It is no surprise that some hate the U.S. so much they identify with the terrorists, even if only as proxies. Advanced degrees obviously do not save such persons from this moral and intellectual idiocy. Posted by: Tim at December 4, 2005 11:40 AM | Permalink to this comment
In the same column, MoDo was nice enough to type with the "Auto-Rebut" feature activated: He added, "We've made our views very clear when it comes to freedom of the press." Exceedingly clear. The Bushies don't believe in it. They disdain the whole democratic system of checks and balances. At the Naval Academy, President Bush talked about how well the Iraqi security forces were fighting. He claimed that 40 Iraqi battalions were taking the lead in the fight against insurgents, and that in the battle of Tal Afar this year, "the assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces - 11 Iraqi battalions backed by 5 coalition battalions providing support." Anderson Cooper of CNN swiftly produced Time magazine's Baghdad bureau chief, Michael Ware, who was embedded with the U.S. military during the entire Tal Afar battle. "With the greatest respect to the president, that's completely wrong," Mr. Ware said, adding: "I was with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with Al Qaeda. They were not leading." Let's see - the Bushies, who disdain a free press, allow embedded reporters to travel with our military to fact-check official reporting. She's right - more evidence of how incompetent Bush is! Posted by: Tom Maguire at December 4, 2005 12:00 PM | Permalink to this comment
"Dr" Victorino de la Vega : "One might recall that Fallujah used to be a peaceable and sleepy provincial town where Sunnis, Christians, and Shiites lived in harmony…that was long long time ago, before the US Government decided to teach “Ayyrab terrorists” a lesson they would never forget: " Huh? Fallujah was "peaceful" and "sleepy" during Saddam's regime huh?
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzz I'm sorry Tom, that's incorrect. Iraqi units were leading the attack. Under Mr. Ware's definition of primarily led, unless everything, down the last bullet and buckle they used, was made and used by 100% Iraqi's, then it wasn't so. As was pointed out in another blog, according to Mr. Ware's definition, the British General Montgomery, and his troops, led nothing in WW2 because they were under Eisenhower's command. Judging by the speed these lefty attack poodles attacked, I'd say the President scored a direct hit. Posted by: Defeat from the Jaws of Victory at December 4, 2005 01:18 PM | Permalink to this comment
George, you used WIA when I think you meant KIA. A "vet" should no that. You also failed to blame things on Israel. Tom; You are, I think, on the bow wave of the new plastic turkey. He was imbedded on "the front lines" with Iraqi units. That means that the units were the leading elements. Mr. Ware further states that the Iraqis were "lead" by Green Berets, which is contrary to their mission as advisors. Were they doing the planning? probably not, but without trained joint planners its very diffucult, and those don't grow on trees. Planning even the simplest combined op is difficult (beleive me, I know). Posted by: monkeyboy at December 4, 2005 01:19 PM | Permalink to this comment
It is completely obvious that we are winning in Iraq both politically and militarily. The parliamentary elections in less than 2 weeks will doom the insurgency except for the foreign and homegrown jihadists. The ongoing Iraqitization (Nancy Pelosi's term) will break the insurgents will and ability to fight. The best evidence of this the marked decrease in violence along route Irish (the road to the However the administration has been disingenuous re the issue of withdrawal. Assuming things go as planned we will not be withdrawing completely from Iraq for the forseeable future, because that would be an obvious strategic blunder that even John Kerry would not make. Posted by: noah at December 4, 2005 01:33 PM | Permalink to this comment
noah :"However the administration has been disingenuous re the issue of withdrawal. Assuming things go as planned we will not be withdrawing completely from Iraq for the forseeable future, because that would be an obvious strategic blunder that even John Kerry would not make." The adminstration hasn't even come close to saying we will be withdrawing completely from Iraq after the elections or in the forseeble future.
Rightists should avoid overstatement. Iraq isn't going all our way, and was never likely to. That's going to give the lefties, and thoughtful people like the host of this blog, repeated opportunities to criticize, including blowing things out of proportion. Hint: response to hysterical criticism that is itself hysterical is not especially helpful. This is particularly true here. Leftists should take anti-clues from Dr. Loserino de la Betelgeuse, or whatever its real name is. I'm the last one to criticize drive-by commenters -- it's my normal mode -- but here's a perfect example of carefully crafting a short essay, being careful to shade in all the "nuances" that save it from being damnable, palpable, bald-faced lies, then spraying it randomly across the comment sections of non-wingnut rightists and right-centrists. It isn't convincing. It isn't even very funny any more. And I wish both sides would use cut and paste less. In the entire above thread, the only new information (at least to me) was John Burgess's tidbits about the Shi'ia. I knew the general situation from the Iranian/Persian side, but not the Iraqi one. Thanks, John. Everyone: this is the blog of a highly literate person. Follow his lead, to the extent you are able. Paragraphing and uppercase letters are your friend; the former needs only hitting the [ENTER] key with your pinky, the latter is more difficult but still worthwhile. I, personally, just skim past the solid blocks of lowercase text, and never read your words of wisdom at all. I suspect there are a lot of people who follow that custom. Regards,
The word Revanchism (see Winipedia) fits so well ( I looked it up after reading it on a will informed blog). It is not only the Saddamists who feel this tug but also the American democrats. The belief that the world was peachy and they were the proper rulers of it driving them to any mode of opposition necessary to achieve the overthow of the usupers. Understanding this leads us to understand the very long nature of the war. We are called to stand fast until the new breath of change and freedom can win over the hard liners. Posted by: Dennis Clark at December 4, 2005 04:00 PM | Permalink to this comment
Oops...just now John Kerry on Face the Nation emphasizing that the Bush team should reiterate that it has no interest in long term basing rights in Iraq!!! Again I say horse-hocky!! I predict that the Iraqi government will insist that we stay after Iraq is stabilized to guard against a military dictatorship or a descent into civil war. Just one glance at a map of the ME shows why we will gladly say yes. Posted by: noah at December 4, 2005 04:05 PM | Permalink to this comment
Just for the record, George did have some things right. First, although technically Gen Shinseki was not "fired," he was made a lame duck Chief of the Staff by Rumsfeld in the naming of his successor almost a year early. Shinseki did in fact confront Rumsfeld about the numbers of troops needed on the ground for the invasion and also the aftermath. There was no General Officer that I am aware of who agreed with Rumsfeld's numbers on how many it would take to do the invasion. Actually, his initial estimates of how many troops would be required for the invasion was quite outside the realm of reality. This was the main point of disagreement between Franks and OSD. Also, there was little if any post war planning because OSD thought that the there would be enough coalition partners and maybe even the UN available to take over the post war development in Iraq. Clearly, OSD did not anticipate the insurgency and more importantly, Rumsfeld laughed off the looting during and after the war when, according to the Law of Land Warfare, we had an obligation to establish law and order immediately. In any event, Rumsfeld, Cambone and others treated Shinseki with disrespect and contempt. George's description of Rumsfeld treating the military like "like an arbitrager dismantling a company for profit" is just spot on... I know, I saw this personally as I was assigned to the E-Ring (I am an Active Duty Colonel). Others who have stood up to Rumsfeld have been asked to retire (but not out right fired) as well, including Marine General Newbold who was a true warrior and hero and knew what he was talking about. The general sense in the "tribune of Colonels" is that our senior leadership is pretty much intimidated by Rumsfeld and no one confronts him on anything anymore. It does seem like SecDef however does not intimidate General Pace, so there is hope. There are many things this administration has got right: Going to war finally after over twenty years of attacks and finally suffering the most humiliating and crushing defeat ever (9/11 out does Pearl Harbor in this respect because even in 1941 the US was not considered the superpower it is today) in an attempt to reverse the defeats and put an end to Islamo-facism. Destroying the Taliban, bringing democracy to Afghanistan, destroying Sadaam Hussein and bring democracy to Iraq, pre-empting an Islamo Fascist take over of the Horn of Africa with the JTF-Horn of Africa are all central to the Dominoes of Democracy theory for SWA. This is a brilliant strategy that has and will continue to change the course of world history. The administration can only be congratulated for its imagination. The big things we are doing great. The smaller things that that we are getting wrong are keeping us from obtaining our bigger strategic goals. Number one in our mistakes is not telling the American people what this war really is. It is not a war on terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic-a means to an end-a method by which one side uses to bend to their will their enemy. The war is really against the Islamo-facsist ambition to dominate the world-and it is a fight to the death. This leads to the second mistake and that is that we have allowed ourselves to be hamstrung in fighting a politically correct war. The Bush administration missed its opportunity to galvanize the nation with righteous anger and a driving the American people's will to victory (this is also Newt Gingrich’s position by the way). Now, three years later, he is trying to open up the window he allowed to close. That is very hard to do. I think he was right to take us in to Iraq; he should have waited a little longer until we had Afghanistan totally nailed down. Like Lincoln said "one war at a time." Or, if he was going to do two separate campaigns, fine, but unfortunately with the draw downs begun by the Republicans and sped up by Clinton, the "troop to task" ratio was/is beyond the scope. Ask most senior officers like myself and the one thing we will say is that the only reason we have been able to gain the success we have on the ground in Iraq is because our soldiers and Marines are just so damn good! We as the American people owe them so much more. This post is getting long and maybe boring to some so I will close on this final note; The focal point in this war against Islamo-facism right now is in Iraq. The enemy obtains publicity of their tactical victories extraordinarily out of proportion to the tactical results because the IED is so spectacular and newsworthy. And, the IED is the only weapon of any real import the enemy has used for over two years. We need to put everything on hold in terms of big ticket defense buys (F-22's, Air craft carriers, etc.) and focus our huge scientific and industrial energies on this problem until we solve it. It is the least we owe to so many of our brave men and women and to the very brave Iraqi's who have been fighting side by side with us as well. Take away the IED’s and the enemy in Iraq has nothing. Posted by: Wolverine at December 4, 2005 05:23 PM | Permalink to this comment
Quote: "it is amusing to see these same comments, YEAR AFTER YEAR from the pro war people." I would just point out that from the invasion of Iraq to this exact moment has only been two and one half years. Roughly, the length of one congressional term. Think about that. A fear society that was in the grip of a mad and brutal dictator for 30 years has been free of that control for the length of one Congress. Is it so surprising that every problem hasn't been solved in that space of time? If it's surprising to you then I would assert that you need to open your eyes a little wider and take a closer look at how the real world works. There are no instant solutions and things worth having generally take a lot of effort to achieve. How come we're in Kosovo six years later and in Bosnia ten years later if every problem is supposed to be solved in one year? Also, think about it this way. The only full year we've been in Iraq is 2004. We've been there parts of two other years. I'm not quite sure how that squares with your "YEAR AFTER YEAR" criticism. Posted by: kcom at December 4, 2005 05:50 PM | Permalink to this comment
lol, that's ok guys, just keep telling yourselves that things are fine. i am sure you are the same group of loonies that think Bush is doing a great job, even though his approval numbers are in the shitter. please post a link to the incredible drugs that you all must be smoking. in 10 years, when there is a thread on here just like this one, with you pro war loonies claiming that things are going exactly according to plan, i will make sure to come in here and say "i told you so!" btw, your beloved republican party is having some SERIOUS problems, with all of the scandals and lack of trust, you better enjoy W now because there won't be a Republican in office after the next election. Don't believe me? Just look at the last set of mayoral elections where several Dems took over seats from the Republicans. Your party has fucked themselves and all that is left are the devoted apologists, like those on this thread, that are trying to spin everything into good news when it is clearly not. Posted by: CG at December 4, 2005 07:42 PM | Permalink to this comment
loony left idiot CG :"lol, that's ok guys, just keep telling yourselves that things are fine. i am sure you are the same group of loonies that think Bush is doing a great job, even though his approval numbers are in the shitter" The only poll that matters is the one that took place November 2004. As for those dopey, heavily tilted to RATS sampled "polls"you suckers keep bleating about,the latest poll from Rasmussen has President Bush at 47%,that is like nearly 10% higher than BJ Klinton's lowest poll ratings. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm You clowns lose yet again.
CG the moron :"in 10 years, when there is a thread on here just like this one, with you pro war loonies claiming that things are going exactly according to plan, i will make sure to come in here and say "i told you so!"" In 10 years time, you will probably be in hospital from self inflicted high blood pressure, that you would have brought upon yourself from all the bottled up Bush-hatred you have bubbling inside you, and you losers would have lost yet another TWO presidential elections,as the American people solidly reject your normal cut and run, pro-terrorist policies.
You loony left jokers are on the wrong side of history..just ,like you were on the wrong side of history during the cold way, before Reagan came in and got rid of the evil empire for the world, despite the normal doom and gloom from the totalitarian regimes loving liberals in America.. Posted by: Smithy at December 4, 2005 09:17 PM | Permalink to this comment
CG :"Just look at the last set of mayoral elections where several Dems took over seats from the Republicans" You mean like in the elections in the biggest city of them all, New York City, where the Republicans totally CLOBBERED the RATS candidate by a staggering 60% to 40%, despite RATS outnumbering Republicans in New York by 5 to 1? You gotta try harder than that. Posted by: Smithy at December 4, 2005 09:22 PM | Permalink to this comment
Ok, MoDo wants the President to answer this, or answer that... I want MoDo to answer some questions. Who the f*** is Dexter Filkins, and why should I give a sh** what he writes? Posted by: Foot at December 5, 2005 01:10 AM | Permalink to this comment
come on now smithy, show at least a hint of intelligence. the elections that I am speaking of are when republicans were REPLACED my democrats. the changing of the guard, if you will. New York was nothing unexpected...and he is a moderate republican which is why the NY dems can stand him. and no, the election is not the only poll that matters. that is history. what matters is what is going on RIGHT NOW, and RIGHT NOW the majority of Americans are deeply displeased with the idiot in the white house, as well as the entire republican party. Job approval = 38% HAH! these are the very latest poll numbers from Gallup and are accurate within 2 percentage points. You don't have a leg to stand on Smithy, and right now, neither does you entire pathetic party. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, along with the other drugs that you must be doing to think that things are just dandy. Posted by: CG at December 5, 2005 02:00 PM | Permalink to this comment
You know, even though I am very sceptical about the progress of the war and would generally consider myself left of center DNC-Dem in American terms, I really enjoy reading comments by Wolverine and Ric, because they are intelligent, well-informed people who cause me to consider matters. Were Ric and I both sitting on a legislature, he would be one of the first people I would approach if I wanted to create a bi- (multi-?) partisan effort to accomplish something.
Among the most encouraging things I have read in this forum are the fact that no president will publicly announce specific strategy in a war for obvious reasons, and the very informative post on the difference between the Iranian and Iraqi Shiites. Another cogent point- we still occupy some countries after decades because it is our national interest and in the best interest of the region. I find it disconcerting that that some who consider themselves on the left side of things seem so focused on being right that they appear to actually root against allied forces so they can win a political argument. If I were presented with evidence that my country would be better off about something, I would subordinate my ego to an honest examination of the facts, partisanship be damned. Posted by: J Philip at December 6, 2005 02:57 AM | Permalink to this comment
Greg, Thanks for one of the most entertaining comments sections I've read on here in a while... Although I come here for your, by and large, excellent Foreign Policy analysis, I can't help but wonder if your get the sudders on occasion when the comments section degenerates to the extent it has done here... It certainly highlights at one the positives and the downsides of the freedom of the internet! Posted by: Aran Brown at December 8, 2005 12:39 AM | Permalink to this comment
Posted by: payday loans at December 14, 2005 05:33 PM | Permalink to this comment
|
|
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
Recent Entries
No Commenting Today
The UBL Tape In-House Note Wanted: More Troops Questions Re: a Post-Sharon Israel Zbigniew Brzezinski Speaks The Former Secretaries Meet POTUS DeLay Steps Aside The Rancid Stench of L'affaire Abramoff The End of the Sharon Era?
Search
English Language Media
New York Times
Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion Washington Monthly New Republic National Review The Atlantic Harpers The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Real Clear Politics
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
U.S. Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
Instapundit Mickey Kaus Josh Marshall Oxblog Katrina vanden Heuvel Armavirumque Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum Romenesko James Taranto Volokh Conspiracy &C (TNR) The Corner Laura Rozen Innocents Abroad Juan Cole Tom Maguire Matthew Yglesias Chequer-Board Spencer Ackerman Wonkette Brad DeLong The American Scene Eric Martin Mark Kleiman Winds of Change Jon Henke American Footprints Steve Clemons Jack Balkin Cunning Realist Democracy Arsensal Crooked Timber Austin Bay Becker-Posner James Wolcott UN Dispatch Matt Drudge Phil Carter Clive Davis Obsidian Wings Bainbridge America Abroad Red State Huffington Post The Plank Nikolas Gvosdev Times Watch Mitchell Report
Columnists
Tony Blankley
David Broder David Brooks Roger Cohen Maureen Dowd Fred Hiatt Jackson Diehl Thomas Friedman Bob Herbert Jim Hoagland Richard Holbrooke David Ignatius Robert Kagan Michael Kinsley Charles Krauthammer Nicholas Kristof Paul Krugman Robert Novak Mark Steyn Sebastian Mallaby Frank Rich John Tierney John Vinocur George Will Anne Applebaum The Reliable Source Washington Whispers Howard Kurtz
Think Tanks
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bruce MacEwen Bull and Bear Wise CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog D.C. Toedt Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance
Security
Books
The City
Curbed
Gawker Lockhart Steele NY Magazine Nick Denton NY Post NY Press New York Observer Tribeca Trib Walk Through Village Voice
Western Europe
France
United Kingdom
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
Spain
Central and Eastern Europe
CIS/FSU
Russia
Armenia
East Asia
China
Japan
South Korea
Middle East
Egypt
Israel
Lebanon
Across the Bay
Lebanese Blogger Lebanese Abroad Lebanon Matters Lebop Bliss Street Journal American in Lebanon Beirut Spring For Lebanon
Syria
B.D. In the Press
The Sunday Times(UK)"If It Makes America Look Bad It Must Be True, Musn't It?"
The Guardian "Trial and Error" Online Journalism Review "Feeling Misquoted? Weblogs Transcripts Let the Reader Decide" Online Journalism Review "Bloggers Rate the Most Influential Blogs" (see chart) The Sunday Times (UK) "Rise of the Virtual Soapbox" MORE"
Archives
January 2006
December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
Categories
Area Studies
Beltway Banter Books Department Cultural Missives Euro-American Relations In-House News Iraq Legal Matters Mailroom Media Monitoring Middle East--Iran Middle East-Peace Process Philosophy Presidential Politics Terrorism U.S. Foreign Policy Syndicate this site:
 Powered by 
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||