Captain's Quarters -

Sounds like reality is busting its way through into some pretty unlikely places.

Sure nice excuse. So you did a wrong war on Iraq nad screwed hte place up and that give's you a convient excuse to stay there.

Sorry. No dice. Just because of what this one guy said or wahtever does'nt make The Iraq War not wrong.

Suddenly the media is shocked to find gambling going on in this establishment.

Ed, it's time to wake up and smell some bitter coffee:

US analyst derides ineffective US-created Iraqi military - (4/30/07)

An excerpt:

The crisis in the Iraqi military found a political reflection last week. The Iraqi presidential council re-instituted the death penalty for desertion and three years imprisonment for being absent-without-leave. The Iraqi newspaper Azzaman reported: "The harsh penalties come following reports of large-scale desertion from army ranks in the wake of the latest surge in rebel attacks against US and Iraqi forces." Hundreds of Iraqi soldiers now face the choice of being killed fighting on behalf of the US occupation, or being executed by their own commanders.

In opposition to the hype of the White House and the Pentagon, Washington Post journalists cited by Cordesman estimated in November 2006 that just 10 Iraqi army battalions—less than 10,000 troops—could be considered effective and capable of operating independently of US forces.

Little has improved in the months since. Cordesman concluded: "US and Multi National Forces-Iraq (MNF-I) plans that called for Iraqi regular military forces to allow significant Coalition troop reductions in 2006 have failed. Worse, the effort to develop the Iraqi police and security forces has gotten badly out of balance with the effort to develop regular forces and lags more than a year behind it... Real-world Iraqi dependence on the present scale of US and allied military support and advisory efforts will continue well into 2008 at the earliest and probably to 2010. Major US and allied troop reductions need to be put on hold indefinitely." [emphasis added]

While the majority of the American people want troops withdrawn, Cordesman’s report sheds light on the discussion taking place in US political and military circles about the war in Iraq. The US ruling elite will never be able to rely on a loyal, local puppet army to repress the opposition of the Iraqi people to the country’s reduction to an American client state. Hundreds of thousands of American soldiers will be required for that task into the indefinite future.

BTW, I doubt the U.S. can prevent other nations from withdrawing their troops from Iraq, when they're not so willing to keep them there indefinitely.

Leave Iraq? Why? Leaving Ramadi and Fallujah alone certainly didn't allow islands of peace, love and tolerance to break out.

Perhaps America should openly announce she won't leave until a functional tolerant, egalitarian society with a free, uncenspored press, open, transparent elections, independent judiciary and a national treasury open to public scrutiny is up and running.

After all, if Mookie Al Sadr and his Iranian minions, Al Qaeda, wanna be jihadis and Syrian proxies want us to leave, why not stay and show them America is NOT interested in their goofy dreams of an intolerant, murderous, corrupt, gender apartheiding, honor killing death loving sha ria based loserdom?

iww:

I agree with what are probably your views about the administration's manipulation and the casus belli that got us into Iraq. But as time goes on, attacking a lame duck admin is becoming more and more of a hollow fight over principle, and taking responsibility for what we've done so far in Iraq continues to be the more tangible, more practical, more urgent issue.

As long as AQI is weakening and Iraqi national forces are gaining competency, this is a worthwhile fight, in which we are progressing. It disheartens me to see where the line in the sand has been drawn based on domestic politics, but there you go.

"Sure nice excuse. So you did a wrong war on Iraq nad screwed hte place up and that give's you a convient excuse to stay there.
Sorry. No dice. Just because of what this one guy said or wahtever does'nt make The Iraq War not wrong."--IWW

IWW invariably cracks me up. It's not only the picture perfect recitation of moonbat talking-points, although he has has that down to a science, it's the speling misteaks and grammatical cluelessness that are truly the icing on the cake.

IWW --- you the boss.

Responsiblity? Responsiblity is GETTING OUT. How can we stay there if you admit that The Iraq War was wrong(!). News flash that means' we should'nt even be there.

As long as AQI is weakening and Iraqi national forces are gaining competency, this is a worthwhile fight, in which we are progressing. It disheartens me to see where the line in the sand has been drawn based on domestic politics, but there you go.

It isn't al-Qaeda in Iraq that the U.S. is fighting, it's a nationalist Sunni insurgency. There are only a thousand or so foreign Salafist fighters in Iraq, as compared to upwards of 100,000 Sunni guerillas in the field. Killing an al-Qaeda figurehead won't affect the level of fighting in Iraq at all, any more than the death of Zarqawi did. Nor is the Iraqi Army gaining competency anytime soon, as Cordesman's report in my previous comment makes clear. Some would like to pretend this is all just "domestic politics" but the fact is that the U.S. is faced with a dilemma in Iraq that can no longer be denied or wished away.

Exactly starfleet_dude. Have to doublecheck my #s but I'm pretty sure you're numbers (1000 or so foreign Salafist fighters vs. upwards of 100,000 Sunni guerillas) are right-on within 2% or so.

EVerbody are you listening to starfleet_dude. He just told you flat out the detailed #s breakdown of whose killing people in Iraq. How you can still argue after that is beyond me. But your dhingers so wahtever.

It isn't al-Qaeda in Iraq that the U.S. is fighting, it's a nationalist Sunni insurgency. starfleet_dude

I prefer IWW's comments . He makes more sense. It is not the Sunni 'insurgency' that is the problem. It is quite probably in the process of dying by pieces. It is the terror attacks that are the preserve of Al-Queda and it's fanatics. These are the things that might instigate a non-controllable civil problem in Iraq. Granted (some) Sunnis are supporting Al-queda but that does not the problem a 'nationalist' insurgency. Not any longer.

And the US is not really faced with a dilemma in Iraq. it can always just walk away and let the whole region blow up. Sure that would not be pretty but it could be done. Since you obviously have no solutions to offer but merely more of the same woe-is-us hand-wringing, can you leave the Iraq commentary to more qualified analysts, such as IWW ?

Even the mindless media is beginning to push the panic buttons in a flash of understanding that perhaps using the Iraq War against Bush was not the smartest thing they ever did. Now we see all those reports of how much of a disaster it would be if the US left 'prematurely'. After years of incessant defeatism and negativity. Now the usual suspects start to wonder if perhaps things have gone a little too far. Too late. The Media can't have it both ways and pivot on a dime to a new paradigm. Their audience can't adapt fast enough. They have deliberately worked to undermine support for the Iraq War and that is a pure fact.

The Media is absolutely responsible for the mess in Iraq. Not for the actual mess of course but for the perceptions of that mess that it has fostered in its agenda driven crusade against Bush. It has a LOT to answer for. I hope to live long enough to see the day that it will.

sfdude, you're right that although our main enemy in Iraq is AQ, THE main problem there is a vicious Sunni insurgency and a de facto Shiite police state (which has matched the Sunnis in its own brutality ).

It's a circular problem. What is our goal? Can we continue to fight the Sunni extremists while the legitimacy of the state is undermined by Shiite death squads and militias? The government appears to view our presence as an unconditional gravy train (or acts like it) and shirks its huge responsibilities. If the Sunnis were rational they would accept their minority status and the generous piece of the pie allotted them by the constitution. But it's too late to backtrack now. That is indeed due to mistakes by Rumsfeld, and in light of that it hardly matters what (if anything) he did right.

The rightwingers should acknowledge that there is a point at which if no one is cooperating with us we cannot make it happen and should go.

They should also acknowledge that it is going to take an authoritarian government exercising martial law for a long time to come (in many areas) to maintain stability. Courtneyme's comment that

America should openly announce she won't leave until a functional tolerant, egalitarian society with a free, uncenspored press, open, transparent elections, independent judiciary and a national treasury open to public scrutiny is up and running

shows how out of touch with reality a lot of folks are. What we don't need are more impossible promises that demoralize us and make us look weak. We need to start underpromising and overdelivering. The fight between the two parties has been useful in expressing the U.S.'s limited patience.

In a no-win situation such as this, the political game is to mount an opposition, but let the other side have their way.

If the Dems weren't around, I believe more Republicans would be more insistent on certain time limits and parameters for our involvement. But because of domestic politics, much of the middle ground politically has become too hot to handle.

Never mind that the middle ground is where most Americans are, polls notwithstanding. When the rubber hits the road, if the troops withdraw and leave behind a bloody civil war, those same Americans who polled in favor of redeployment may well resent the Dems for leading us out. If we leave, AQ's stature and numbers will grow, and radicalized shiites will upset the delicate political balance in Iran, where a liberal mainstream is emerging. To answer IWW's questions, that is why our choices now carry real responsibility, not just a simplistic equivalence of "it was wrong in 2003, so let's fix it by leaving."

A great analogy I saw, somewhere:

However we got there, we are the control rod in the nuclear reactor of sectarian civil war in Iraq. If we pull out now, expect a meltdown with lots of regional fallout. And someone will be waiting there to pick up the pieces, and that will likely be al-Qaeda. They're just waiting for the Democrats to mark it off on the calendar. Then they can plan.

The real question, as I pointed out yesterday, is the *timing* of these stories.

CNN and the LA Times could have posted these stories weeks ago when the Dems first seriously considered surrender, or months ago when the Dems too control of Congress, or even further back before the '06 elections.

Indeed, the conclusions in the article were as true 4 years ago as they are today. It's painfully clear that now that the Dems have lost their bid for surrender and are spiraling down the drain, it could be finally that the MSM is seeing how Americans aren't going to tolerate the Dems even after only 4 months of their partisan baloney. With their own numbers showing Harry and Nancy are polling well below the President, the MSM is bailing on the anti-war fringe of the Dems.

But as many people here in this thread have remarked, it's too late for both the MSM and the Dems.

Withdrawal from Iraq is not an option now. It was not an option in 2003. It may very well not be within our lifetimes, frankly. Let's face it, as long as the world economy runs on oil, we owe it to ourselves to realize that securing that oil is a national priority. If it's controlled by Islamists who want to kill us, well gee, maybe we should do something about it.

The Media is absolutely responsible for the mess in Iraq. Not for the actual mess of course but for the perceptions of that mess that it has fostered in its agenda driven crusade against Bush. It has a LOT to answer for. I hope to live long enough to see the day that it will.

The media's responsible for the mess in Iraq, not the actual one, but the perceived one? The media is responsible for how people perceive the mess they report on?

Blame the messanger?

“If we pull out now, expect a meltdown with lots of regional fallout. And someone will be waiting there to pick up the pieces, and that will likely be al-Qaeda. They're just waiting for the Democrats to mark it off on the calendar. Then they can plan.”

What’s staying there going to do? A phased withdrawal over the course of a couple years in what we should do. Make Iraqis own their country. AQ is not the biggest problem in Iraq. Iraqis will fight them. They ain’t taking over Iraq. This is being proven. What’s not been proven is if Iraqis will fight for this government.

We’ll find out if we start drawing down. The longer we stay, the longer we enable a government who can’t come to terms on basic fundamentals of how a new Iraq should operate/look.

Of course, starting a withdrawal has its risk. But the current situation isn’t exactly ideal either. We’ve got to do something to end this bloody stagnation. And, of course, we have the daydream believers in the WH to blame for this Iraq-and-a-hard-place situation we find ourselves in.

The real question, as I pointed out yesterday, is the *timing* of these stories.

CNN and the LA Times could have posted these stories weeks ago when the Dems first seriously considered surrender, or months ago when the Dems too control of Congress, or even further back before the '06 elections.

Indeed, the conclusions in the article were as true 4 years ago as they are today. It's painfully clear that now that the Dems have lost their bid for surrender and are spiraling down the drain, it could be finally that the MSM is seeing how Americans aren't going to tolerate the Dems even after only 4 months of their partisan baloney. With their own numbers showing Harry and Nancy are polling well below the President, the MSM is bailing on the anti-war fringe of the Dems.

But as many people here in this thread have remarked, it's too late for both the MSM and the Dems.

Withdrawal from Iraq is not an option now. It was not an option in 2003. It may very well not be within our lifetimes, frankly. Let's face it, as long as the world economy runs on oil, we owe it to ourselves to realize that securing that oil is a national priority. If it's controlled by Islamists who want to kill us, well gee, maybe we should do something about it.

The MSM may well affect our views of the Iraq war here at home, but in Iraq it doesn't have the same effect. I doubt very much that some idiot suicide bomber reads the editorial pages or listens to any of "talking heads".

On the other side, Sadr's forces aren't inspired by a love of Pelosi or our MSM either, they want control of their country.

Sadr's guys are laying low right now (thank goodness) because Sadr is smart enough to recognize that our troops are fighting their enemies.

Today is May 3, 2007.

This is the same news as 3 years ago, 2 years ago, last year, next year, 2009, 2010, etc.

This clusterf*** is going to happen no matter when the US pulls out.

I guess we'll just have to stay there forever, have more of our brave soldiers die, and spend billions of dollars to make sure this never happens.

On the good side: we'll control Iraq's oil fields (that's not why we started this war, as far as me and all my head-in-the-sand ostriches know) and you, I , and all us well-off Americans can leave the magnets on our cars showing how much we support the troops.

Those troops?
Suckers.

Us?
Not so much.

Geez, can't you all see? Time and the LA Times have been given the go-ahead by the Democratic Party to publish these opinions. Now that the legislative tangle and veto have run their course, the Dems are going to pull the timetable issue in negotiations with the White House. So, it's now okay to talk about early withdrawal and what a disaster it would be.

The MSM, lapdogs of the Democratic Party, have been given their marching orders.

Lightwave said

"Let's face it, as long as the world economy runs on oil, we owe it to ourselves to realize that securing that oil is a national priority. If it's controlled by Islamists who want to kill us, well gee, maybe we should do something about it."

If that is the case, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing, then the oil companies profits from what has occurred should be taxed at a much higher rate. We are subsidizing their companies.

Exxon, et al, have done very well with the jump in oil prices caused by the turmoil in the Iraq. I have no problem with my tax dollars going to support the troops, pay for veteran's benefits, etc., I do resent billions of our $$$ being spent on a war so a "bonus" of a 1/2 a billion can go to a war supporter.

Though, in truth I don't see that it matters who controls the oil "in the ground". Whoever controls the oil will eventually put the oil on the world oil market, which benefits us. Take Iran's oil for example, Iran's oil is still out there, keeping the market liquid, even though "we" can't buy it. Take it off the market, it will effect our prices. The same is true of our friend Chavez.

Your point in conflating control of the oil with Islamists who want to kill us, implying that that is a negative thing for the oil market, only makes sense if your argument is that the Islamists will withhold Iraqi oil from the world oil market (and forego all that money) due to their animosity towards us.

Wow. The quislings at the LAT and CNN (aka Cover For Saddam Network News) have finally grasped that Iraq will REALLY degenerate into a civil war if we pull out too soon. Whoda thunk it???

O' course, our lefty trolls are hitting the Benedict Arnold talking points really hard. Is there anybody who can't recite them by heart after reading them so many times?

"Bush is stupid."

"Bush lied."

"We shouldn't have gone to war in the first place."

"We can't win."

"We're fighting their war for them."

"Iraq will never be a democracy."

"War for oil."

Blah, blah, blah.

I must say that seeing Robert refer to the troops as "suckers" is a bit of a new one. Not that I didn't know that the quislings think so poorly of our troops, but it's a little surprising that one of them would slip out of the "We Support the Troops!"(TM) meme and say what the left REALLY thinks of the American fighting man.

For almost three years, training the Iraqi army has been among the top priorities for the U.S. military. And for nearly that long, U.S. officials have considered it among their chief frustrations.

Yeah, training a professional army takes a certain amount of time, especially when the country / people have little or no tradition of a "professional" (i.e. apolitical) military. Ask Baron von Steuben.

Cap'n Ed wrote:

What's most interesting, though, is the sudden media interest in the consequences of withdrawal. That topic got very little coverage, or if it did get attention, it always came in the context of "it could hardly be worse than what we have now". Suddenly, CNN's analyst says that a withdrawal "would hurt America's image and hand al Qaeda and other terror groups a propaganda victory that the United States is only a paper tiger ... It would also play into their strategy, which is to create a mini-state somewhere in the Middle East where they can reorganize along the lines of what they did in Afghanistan in the late '90s."

Yep, it's pretty mind-boggling. The MSM has reported nothing but bad news and body counts from Iraq since day 1 (when we were "bogged down" in the deserts south of Baghdad, and were going to lose 50,000 troops in street fighting in the capitol), and NOW they realize that, like it or not, we've gotta win.

Why they've waited so long, I can't imagine. Did they think that Grand Admiral Reid and Commissar Pelosi wouldn't REALLY cut the funds? That the dems would play "Chicken" with the president and swerve at the last instant?

The MSM bears a huge share of the responsibility for public disenchantment with the war (I believe that we would have lost World War II by 1943 has the modern media covered it as they've covered Iraq) and will bear a huge share of the blame if we surrender as their masters in the democrat party seem hell-bent on doing. Unfortunately, there's nobody to hold them accountable. CNN shilled for Saddam, and they're still shilling for al Qaeda, yet they're still on the air.

It is too bad.

In advance, sorry for the long post, but these goofballs can't go unquestioned. First, Idiot With Wateronthebrain:

"Sure nice excuse. So you did a wrong war on Iraq"
wrong in YOUR opinion. Of course, when you start with the premise that war is wrong, all wars must be wrong. But that's not you, is it, IWW? You only think it's wrong when a REPUBLICAN declares war. Even if we're being shot at, even if we're being threatened, even if the entire world decides he has to go, Bush did a "wrong war". I don't suppose you could give an example of a "right" war, could you?

"nad screwed hte place up and that give's you a convient excuse to stay there."
Uh, WE didn't screw the place up. It was screwed up long before WE got there, unless, of course, you think that killing hundreds of thousands (since you think three thousand is so many) of people isn't screwed up. What kind of idiot does it take to say that Saddam was not a screwed up leader? The kind who can only find ridicule and scorn for Republicans, no matter what they do.

"Sorry. No dice. Just because of what this one guy said or wahtever does'nt make The Iraq War not wrong."
So, just because ONE EXPERT says the war wasn't wrong, it was still wrong. Okay, here's two things for you, goofball. That means that since you're ONE GUY, your opinion is now just as worthless as his, per your own reasoning. That's called being hoisted on your own petard. Look it up. Probably the most education you'll have had...well, ever. Two, he's an expert, and gives solid reasons as to why it wasn't wrong. Your reasoning? Because you said so, which, as I pointed out, you invalidate yourself. Welcome to Moron status.

Posted by: iraqwarwrong at May 3, 2007 09:18 AM

Posted by starfleet_dude at May 3, 2007 09:44 AM
As for you, SD, I won't bother posting your screed, since it was simply a cut and past of ONE GUY (and we know from IWW that ONE GUY's opinion is nothing, right?) who thinks that Bush was wrong. What a surprise. Again, no evidence, just his opinion. And to answer two points you make:
"Hundreds of Iraqi soldiers now face the choice of being killed fighting on behalf of the US occupation, or being executed by their own commanders."
Guess what? This is the same as US forces, or just about any other military in the world. You desert, you get shot. You show cowardice in the face of fire, you get shot. Nothing new here, except why it wasn't like this to begin with. Most who were joining were probaly insurgents looking for weapons or training or to gain information.
"While the majority of the American people want troops withdrawn,"
Nowhere do you see this. The figure is something like twenty percent. The rest comes because you lie, and say that those who want this over with (after kicking their butts, not just surrendering) are in the same group. Most of that group wants the soldiers to come home, but only a small minority want them to surrender. This is a lie, and you know it.

"The US ruling elite will never be able to rely on a loyal, local puppet army"
and here we see the bias creep into the report.

"to repress the opposition of the Iraqi people"
who aren't opposed to us being there at all, and in fact, ask us to stay.

"to the country’s reduction to an American client state."
No such thing, no chance of such a thing happening. If you think so, name me one single "client state" we have now.

"Hundreds of thousands of American soldiers will be required for that task into the indefinite future."
You have no idea what it will take, nobody does. Once again, you push your agenda, tell your lies, but I will not let them go unchallenged. We've always said, right from the beginning, that it will take time (and there are already hundreds of thousands of soldiers involved, you moron) for Iraq to stand up. It's not like we can run some three week training course, then leave. Only you idiots say those kind of things, then get mad when it will take longer than three weeks. Stop putting words in our mouths, and then calling us failures. Our plans didn't "fail", they didn't happen as expected, but failure is too harsh, unless, of course, you'd like to call every single plan ever made a failure, since they all change and adapt at some point.

"It isn't al-Qaeda in Iraq that the U.S. is fighting, it's a nationalist Sunni insurgency."
More willful ignorance. We're fighting BOTH. AQI attacks, and so do the various sunni groups. Same thing, doesn't matter what group they belong to, they are terrorists who want to bring about Sharia law in Iraq, and take down the democracy. Both are enemies, and we fight both at the same time, and who cares if they agree with each other or kill each other.

And now biwah:
"The rightwingers should acknowledge that there is a point at which if no one is cooperating with us we cannot make it happen and should go."
What utter stupidity. We have ZERO cooperation at the start, and it's gone up, but you say if NO ONE is cooperating with us we should go? WRONG. That's where force comes in. This is war. We won. They don't cooperate, they obey. We secure the country, but if some want to keep fighting, then we SHOOT them, we don't COMPROMISE with them. That's for quislings and Democrats.

"What we don't need are more impossible promises that demoralize us and make us look weak."
So you'll send that instruction to the Democrats today, right? Or else, show me one single promise made that has made us look weak and demoralized us (and Bush being reelected doesn't count, you were already about as de-moralled as you could be. Oops, I mean, de-moralized. Well, okay, de-moralled, too, as in, total lack of morals).

"We need to start underpromising and overdelivering."
How about, you Dems need to stop underperforming and start delivering?

Tom Shipley:
"Blame the messanger?
No, Tom. The media isn't the "messenger". They have constantly barraged the American public with everything wrong with this war including dozens of things that weren't wrong with it at all. Fake photos, fake stories, fake, fake, fake. Why would the media have to lie if it was really true, Tom? Why don't the media ever report the good news, Tom? When's the last time you heard about schools being opened, the power situation in major towns, or anything else except "we're losing, they're winning, ahhhhh!!!!"? Never, because the media is firmly in the Democrats camp, and they are trying to bring down this adminstration with lies and half truths and lies of omission. Treasonous, and they should be tried and hung for it.

"What’s staying there going to do? A phased withdrawal over the course of a couple years in what we should do."
And now that's YOU *and* Harry Reid who have embraced Donald Rumsfeld's "failed" plan. What an idiot. Can't you even read, or do you just not bother?

"The longer we stay, the longer we enable a government who can’t come to terms on basic fundamentals of how a new Iraq should operate/look"
Damn, Tom, you shock me. You were thiiiiis close to actually being right, you scared the living bejesus out of me. Just a couple of words added makes that statement true:
"The longer we stay, the longer we enable a government who can’t come to terms on basic fundamentals of how a new Iraq should operate/look to stay in power and find ways to bring Iraq back together and agree on those basic terms. They need time, among other things, and we're giving it to them.

"We’ve got to do something to end this bloody stagnation."
Step one, FUND THE TROOPS. Step two. KILL THE ENEMY. We're doing just that, Tom, as fast as we can, but they need funding.

"And, of course, we have the daydream believers in the WH to blame for this Iraq-and-a-hard-place situation we find ourselves in."
No, we have Saddam Hussein to blame for Iraq, and we have the Dems/Rinos to thank for the hard-place part. You should get your facts straight. Saddam was in charge of Iraq and did what he did, not George Bush. And the Dems scream surrender, trash the troops, charge them for murdering -GASP- the enemy, and the other thousand things they do to try and attack the Bush Admin that encourages the enemy to continue fighting that makes it a hard place.

"Let's face it, as long as the world economy runs on oil, we owe it to ourselves to realize that securing that oil is a national priority. If it's controlled by Islamists who want to kill us, well gee, maybe we should do something about it."

Posted by Lightwave at May 3, 2007 11:29 AM

A) we're not there for oil, but saying it won't stop you and the other idiots from repeating it. Just tell me how we're there for oil when oil has doubled, even tripled, since this mess started?
B) Who cares if anything is controlled by Islamists who want to kill us, the main point here is that Islamists want to kill us, and THAT's why we're there. We don't want to do something about it because they control the oil, we want to do something about it because they are rich enough to hurt us, so we need to hurt them before they can. So close, lightwave, you could almost touch it.

"The MSM may well affect our views of the Iraq war here at home, but in Iraq it doesn't have the same effect."
You're wrong. They watch CNN and Al Jazeera religously over there. Especially the insurgents. Everything they do is for publicity, so they can see themselves on television. You can hear a sound bite from a Democrat and the next day, almost the same words will come out of Sadr or Masri or some other spokesman's mouth or message sent to some tv station.

" I doubt very much that some idiot suicide bomber reads the editorial pages or listens to any of "talking heads"."
No, maybe not the lower echelon, because they are told not to, after all, it's the Great Satan. But if you think the largest portion of them DON'T watch the media, then your head is in the sand.

"On the other side, Sadr's forces aren't inspired by a love of Pelosi or our MSM either, they want control of their country."
Finally, truth.

"Sadr's guys are laying low right now (thank goodness) because Sadr is smart enough to recognize that our troops are fighting their enemies."
Wrong. Sadr has left the country because he knew we were HUNTING HIS ASS. His troops aren't 'laying low", they are HIDING FOR ALL THEY ARE WORTH.

Posted by AnnieW at May 3, 2007 11:40 AM

And Robert, I erased what I was going to say to you. Let's just say, I hope we meet someday.

Once again, my apologies for the long post.

This is all sophistry.

Reality in Vietnam, the opponents were fighting and fielding Regiments and Division level organizations with a blank check on equipment and supplies from the Red Bloc economies.

It still took an regular military invasion headed by 5 armored divisions to break the So Vietnamese after we cut off arms and ammunition resupply, three YEARS after we quit.

AQI and the Mahdi Army stand-ins for Iran don't even field platoons, never mind companies, battalions or regiments. Osama may be a Billionaire but wars are expensive. Iran faces an internal civil unrest; the cost of funding Hamas;, and replacing its no longer available western "foreign aid". There is also the cost of rebuilding Lebanon and re-equipping Hez'b-Allah. Then there is the cost of propping up its "Syrian Ally" economic basket case; and also paying for an expensive domestic "Manhattan Project" to build Bomb. All on its own dime, and only having a third world economy to draw on.

Nonsense.

The opponents are heavily oversubscribed; and over extended. Oh, did I mention that Iran faces a UN economic sanctions to boot? Iran's' oil exports still requires them to import gasoline and lubricants. The year's of economic isolation have meant little investment in the oil industry and exports results show that dis-investment.

AQI isn't much more than a collection of several hundred relatively ub-coordinated UNA-BOMBERS like teh USA's Ted Kozlowski. These clowns can be disruptive, set suicide bombs to kill unarmed civilians, generally raise hell, and get headlines for the MSM media, but a hundred or a thousand Ted Kozlowski can't conquer didly squat with those actions.

The North Vietnamese never lost a single member of the Politburo or the General Giap's high command. AQI has lost EVERY one of its leaders, including both the current one (Al Masri) whose job it was, and more than that, his designated replacement,(Al Iraqi) even before he got there to take over.

The only question is with the numbers planned have been achieved for the Police and that was scheduled for 1H 97 and I have seen nothing to indicate that these unit levels haven't been reached. Meanwhile the Army reached planned manpower levels last fall.

Fifteen of the eighteen provinces are peaceful. Ssafer than San Fran Nan's own slummy, druggy Haight-Ashbury district. One additional province is changing from a AQI stronghold to a contested area (AN Bar) province and Baghdad City province is the subject of contention by the Surge. Only Diyalla province at the conjunction of AQI and Mahdi Army activity is untouched.

But that mixed Sunni, Shia province is where the AQI and the "Mahdi Army" spend lots of time killing each other. There is a three way fight there. The Surge plans envisions going after Diyalla after Baghdad is addressed, to quell teh scene of "Sectarian violence".

This discussion is pure reversepropaganda. It is addressed to us to discourge us by the MSM and anti-War crowd. It's horse pockey propaganda to believe that it iss hopeless since we "have to stay for for 20 years" to keep at it.

More nonsense.

We will W-I-N before the 2008 elections. That is truly what the Democrats fear. I get reports from friends in the military, that the back of the rebellion can be seen to be breaking. Declaring "Victory !" and a troop drawdown, before the next election is the thing the Anti-American Left TRULY fears.

After all if it wasn't for the WAR, who in their right mind would even consider for a moment voting for that brain-dead collection of no-idea, no-program, Anti American, economic-doofuses and bozos?

Sorry if I offended with the "suckers" line, but you tell me how America doesn't treat them as such?
The mercenaries get paid more.
We've cut funding for Vets.
We sent them to a war without a plan (or the proper armor).
Our President and Veep use them as pawns in a game of chicken with the dems.

Now we want to leave them in harm's way so (1) we don't look weak (i.e. vanity) and (2) to hold off the inevitable explosion of civil war and mass genocide.

Meanwhile, there's lots of money being made by those who pushed for this war.

It's unfortunate they are being played for suckers, but it's also the truth.

As for Doc Neaves wanting to meet me, I'm tempted to leave my street address here.
Since he already showed his lack of reading comprehension skills, I wouldn't be in too much danger.

Robert wrote (May 3, 2007 04:14 PM):

Sorry if I offended with the "suckers" line, but you tell me how America doesn't treat them as such?

If you want to argue that we don't treat them as they deserve, I am right with you. We only hear about the Lyndie Englands and the Charles Grabers; we don't hear much about the Paul Smiths (1) or the Leigh Ann Hesters (2). We can never pay them what they are worth, nor repay the debt we owe to them for the sacrifices they make for our country. If they are "suckers" it's because of a willful, selfish, and contemptible effort on the part of some people to stab them in the back and make vain and empty their efforts and sacrifices.

They aren't "suckers" for what they've done.

We're a bunch of loathesome ingrates for not treating them as they deserve.

-------------

(1) Citation for the Congressional Medal of Honor:

Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action with an armed enemy near Baghdad International Airport, Baghdad, Iraq on 4 April 2003. On that day, Sergeant First Class Smith was engaged in the construction of a prisoner of war holding area when his Task Force was violently attacked by a company-sized enemy force. Realizing the vulnerability of over 100 fellow soldiers, Sergeant First Class Smith quickly organized a hasty defense consisting of two platoons of soldiers, one Bradley Fighting Vehicle and three armored personnel carriers. As the fight developed, Sergeant First Class Smith braved hostile enemy fire to personally engage the enemy with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons, and organized the evacuation of three wounded soldiers from an armored personnel carrier struck by a rocket propelled grenade and a 60mm mortar round. Fearing the enemy would overrun their defenses, Sergeant First Class Smith moved under withering enemy fire to man a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on a damaged armored personnel carrier. In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded. His courageous actions helped defeat the enemy attack, and resulted in as many as 50 enemy soldiers killed, while allowing the safe withdrawal of numerous wounded soldiers. Sergeant First Class Smith’s extraordinary heroism and uncommon valor are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, the Third Infantry Division “Rock of the Marne,” and the United States Army.
http://www.army.mil/medalofhonor/smith/citation/index.html

(2) SGT Leigh Ann Hester, 617th MP Company, KYARNG, was the first woman since World War II to be awarded the Silver Star for her heroic action near Salman Pak, Iraq on March 20, 2005.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/national/17medal.html?ex=1276660800&en=3bd095bc6926bf6a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

To borrow from James Mitchener, where do we get such men and women?

dougf was right "The Media can't have it both ways and pivot on a dime to a new paradigm. Their audience can't adapt fast enough. They have deliberately worked to undermine support for the Iraq War and that is a pure fact."

The timing for this, and I predict, many future such articles makes complete sense to me. Dems accomplished their first objective in '06 - - demonize Bush and the war - - get elected. They have to start turning the rhetoric now for a Dem Pres. in '08. They've known all along we can't cut and run and suffer no US security consequences. They're paving the way for a DEM victory in Iraq, just as soon as they're elected.

And Robert, IMO, it's the Dems who have made our soldiers into political pawns. You're the sucker for falling for their BS.

I also agree with dougf and Lightwave's opinion on the timing. The MSM has made a nice income these last few years by playing up the anti-war side's message. It's been profitable for them - public loves drama and the MSM has to have two conflicting sides for every issue to attract a big audience + advertisersing dollars. But now that Bush has vetoed Pelosi's call for retreat this story's dead. Time to find a new conflict between left and right. So, reporters are free now to write the obvious truth about what an immediate pullout would mean to the innocent humans living in Iraq.

We almost did a wrong pullout.

Thanks, Doc Jim. Exactly. The heroes of Iraq are yet to receive the honor they are due.

And Captain, Fadhil can compare his country not only with Germany and Japan, but with South Korea and especially the Philippines. Iraq is the new Philippines. Establishing a secure democracy in Iraq would be a giant leap forward for world progress and peace.

soldiers mom...
"...They have deliberately worked to undermine support for the Iraq War and that is a pure fact..."
I don' think fact means what you think it means.

soldiers mom...
"...They have deliberately worked to undermine support for the Iraq War and that is a pure fact..."
I don' think fact means what you think it means. fact. noun. something having real, demonstrable existence. so much of what the so-called conservatives accept as fact really isn't. a critical re-evaluation would be helpful to the country (and not just your favorite political team) as we try to salvage what can be salvaged from this mis-guided, failing, foreign policy experiment.

When the standing up of the New Iraqi Army started the first question that came to my mind was: how long until they get a reliable NCO Corps? That is vital to a modern military force as it is the backbone of order interpretation and ensuring that they are carried out properly in the command structure. Because that *is* what is being created, not a Arab Middle Eastern Army like the rest around the area, save Turkey and even that is seeing internal problems which need addressing by them. Thus the whole problem of what it takes to create an Army has been unaddressed by the commentariate and punditry, with notable exceptions.

The reason the NCO Corps is important is that in most other Arab and Middle Eastern Armies, conscripts are not treated as individuals and often not as humans. The NCO Corps is often rife with politics and corruption to the point where such jobs are seen as a way to extort money from the lower troops.

But, even further, is creating the knowledgebase inside the NCO Corps of how to operate properly under combat and non-combat conditions, keep up morale, and serve as the main first conduit for potential long term problem diagnosis. That is not done in most other Armies in the Middle East, but is being done in the New Iraqi Army.

The US had opportunity to learn what it means to rebuild the NCO Corps after Vietnam, and getting to a reliable Corps that could properly interpret and execute orders took more than a decade and that is *with* the War Colleges serving as reservoirs of information and training. While the Armed Forces could fight, and well, their ability to actually operate as a large organization only got battle tested in 1991, and demonstrated that the system of how to address morale, knowledge and keep the information flowing up and down in the structure were working properly.

I do agree with Frank, above, that the Philippines offers the positive example on what can be done on some of the most horrific counter-insurgency work the US has ever seen. Bombing folks is nothing compared to the sheer brutality of the Moro counter-insurgency and, to this day, boys in the tribe have names like 'John' and 'Pershing' to show they understand what a good, hard and victorious leader is... they know as they lost to him.

What is more problematic is the Haiti involvement 1915-34, in which the political winds and outlook on the command side drifted so much that the Marines were not allowed to actually sort out the factions and get to any conclusion on things.

From those we also come down to the problem of post-war Iraq fitting none of the then existing templates from DoD, CIA, State or, basically, anyone. All plans had cited *something* being left from the previous regime, but it had disintegrated completely from Army to secret police to political operatives to government agencies to civil police: gone. You cannot do classical counter-insurgency in that vacuum. This is backed up by two journalists who actually *have* spent years in-theater and is derived from their views: Michael Ware and John F. Burns.

The absolute lack of anyone in the punditocricy and commentariat to do long term historical analysis of post-war situations with digit prefixes lower than 194_ is astounding and even most of those want to limit that to 196_ and higher. Thus the scale and perspective of historical conflicts is utterly lost and the 'lessons learned' from those conflicts is likewise lost, leaving us blind to the problems actually facing us in the Middle East as a whole and in Iraq in particular. If you can't figure out what works, what has been tested and doesn't work and then see the problems of the things that *have worked*, then how can anyone claim that Iraq is going well or poorly? As compared to *what* exactly? Detroit? Mongolia? Iran? Botswana? Rwanda? What is the yardstick being deployed and what is the rationale behind it?

Success? Why are we still in Germany? Can't they defend themselves now? Japan is only getting ready to do that *now* and we are doing final withdrawal agreements with them to take effect over the next few years. The deadly fighting in the Philippines took nearly a decade to end, and only restarted with al Qaeda and Abu Sayyef operatives infiltrating there during the mid-1990's. Did we succeed by 1915 there? Can we say that today in the Philippines? Full success with a fully integrated Nation and no ethnic problems serving as the basis for destabilization? Or did things change along the way and success is relative to the times involved? Or is it that Freedom and Liberty need constant vigilance and willingness to address enemies of it as enemies and fight when necessary to constantly secure freedom?

The tradition of helping up people who had been under tyranny to stand on their own is one which the US has tried to do in a post-war situation. That is when we choose to fight... we chose not to fight in that region when doing so would support Allies and oppose common enemies. Trade was seen as more important than confronting tyranny and stopping genocide. International institutions failed that place ever afterwards, and the problems have grown worse because the US could not influence the peace deals as it did not take part in the war fighting. Getting peoples into Nations of their own so they could stand up as separate peoples was left up to others to decide and poorly. And Congress was more than willing to expand declaration of war to that region because it was known that if the US did not fight it would get no say in the peace. We did not do that. And now we pay for the truly awful war that had no good consequences because America was just a bit squeamish and the President saw the Nation as unable to fight. The place was the Ottoman Empire as the known Armenian Genocide was going on. The time was 1917.

If the Left and Right bothered to look at their memes of international institutions solving problems and 'free trade freeing people', then by rights the Middle East having that practiced upon it for 9 decades should be the freest place on the planet. I look there and see those ideals as failures. And the baggage that goes with them.

Now we see the butcher's bill that needs to be paid because America would not fight an Empire to help her Allies. The blood red interest drips all the way to this day and the full bill of blood is looking to be cashed in on because we did not fight then.

Not fighting and running has, apparently, not made that region nor the world safer and, in fact, has made it worse off.

But you don't get *that* with a constricted lens that ends in Vietnam or post-WWII.

And the vital question is: how long does it take to create an NCO Corps for the New Iraqi Army that is reliable and accountable? As such has never been done there we do not know. Running from that question means giving up on fighting to protect the weak so they can learn to defend themselves and fight on their own. And that emboldens the butcher who has already come to our shores... for now there is nor running from it.

We can put paid to the butcher while the cost is cheap.

Or pay in full with our blood and freedom.

It's called nuance, Doc.
SOME soldiers are heroes (the ones you mentioned), others aren't (Lynndie english, the ones that raped a 14-year old girl and murdered her family to cover it up, etc).

But this is the world the Republicans pushed for. Nuance (isn't that some kind of French (i.e. Surrender) word?) went out with the disgraced John Kerry.

Republicans want to toss false dichotomies around to win arguements (with us or against us, If you're against the war you love Saddam, etc).

BTW, I am against the war, and using the false dichotomy that the right has thrown out, I'm for Saddam. After all, Saddam was against al quaeda, so if you're against Saddam, you're for al quaeda.
Why are Republicans on the side of a group that killed 3000 Americans, instead of being on the side of saddam, who didn't?

So back to the point. Based on the false dichotomy arguements of the Right, you either support all the troops or you don't support any.

How comfortable is that bed you made?

Robert,

You referred to the troops as "suckers". No exclusions, no "some of the troops have misbehaved", no caveats at all. As I wrote earlier, I'm not surprised that you hold such an attitude; lefties have hated the military since Vietnam. It's as tres chic to talk about "babykillers" and "suckers" as it is to wear Che t-shirts. I'm simply surprised that you were so blatant about it.

Now, as for the "false dichotomy" you refer to, let's try changing the situation a bit. Spin the clock back to 1943 and imagine saying that you oppose our involvement in World War II. Just who do you think such a stand would "help"? The US, or nazi Germany?

The bottom line is that, by opposing the war, you and your fellow Benedict Arnolds are giving de facto aid and comfort to the enemy. They know that all they've got to do is hang on in Iraq for a few more months (perhaps even weeks), and we'll leave. When one side leaves the war without winning, that's called "surrender".

jay k. tries so hard to dress up this pig:

a critical re-evaluation would be helpful to the country (and not just your favorite political team) as we try to salvage what can be salvaged from this mis-guided, failing, foreign policy experiment.

Um, nobody on your side is talking about a "critical reevaluation". They aren't offering a new strategy for victory. They want to cut 'n' run, period. The best they can offer is some pablum about "the Iraqis will be forced to step up" after we abandon them. They won't even discuss what will probably happen in the wake of our surrender, because they know that no good will come of it... except at the polls, where they hope to win elections on the dead bodies of our troops.

Try again, quisling.

Doc,

Define winning the war in iraq.
I've got all century.

I didn't say the evil soldiers were suckers. I said they were ALL suckers.
They being used as pawns, We don't treat them well when they come back. (Walter Reed).
I'd love to hear a republican really support our troops.
Be willing to have american tax dollars pay for their healthcare for the rest of their lives. Including mental healthcare.
Pay for their homes, and provide them job training and help them find work when they return home.

Raise taxes to support our troops? Ha F'n Ha.

So if you won't support the troops, who are you supporting? Our enemies?

BTW, bringing up WWII is so silly when talking about the Iraq War. Go talk to someone who was alive then. ALL Americans sacraficed (higher taxes, paper drives, gas rationing, etc).
The only thing ALL Americans have been asked to sacrafice for the Iraq war are their freedoms.

Also, the Republican Party spent the whole debate last night praising President Cut-n-Run. Now you want to lay blame on Dems for doing the same?
That's life in the IOKIYAR world nowadays.

Robert,

Winning in Iraq HAS been defined numerous times by me on this blog, by other bloggers, and by the president. However, like a good quisling, you don't want to hear it or proclaim that it can't be done, so why bother? You'll spout the usual line about "occupation forever, Sunnis and Shiia will always try to kill each other, war for oil, blah blah blah".

Let's try something different: YOU define "winning" in Iraq. No doubt you'll set a bar that no country on earth could reach, and so victory is impossible.

As for trying to repay the troops, I'm all for it. I'd even (gasp!) agree to having my taxes raised IF I had even an iota of confidence that the Congress (BOTH sides) wouldn't blow them money on everything BUT the troops. $25 billion for spinach growers, anybody?

Thanks again for calling the troops "suckers". Anything else you want to say about them? Babykillers? Murderers? Terrorists? Losers? Wanna go to Walter Reed and throw dogs*** on them in the fine tradition of American quislings? Or do you confine your "support" for them to name-calling and setting them up for defeat?

A suggestion: move to France. You'd fit right in! A pack of smelly losers who hate Americans and have surrendering down to a science. And here's the bonus: BUSH ISN'T THE PRESIDENT THERE!

What are you waiting for?