…

The folks at “??Hot Air?? are whining about”:http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/29/devastating-woodwards-new-book-on-bush-and-iraq/ the occupation of Iraq not going well. Yes, it’s not going well…….

To say I told you so. The current mia culpas coming from the right almost cry out for it. I could point out that all of us who criticized this war were called traitors, Bush Haters and worse. But not……

Bush & Co. need to rip a page out of hezbollah’s playbook – they have the “hearts and minds” thingy down pat.

pullingmyhairout on September 30, 2006 at 9:50 AM

Exactly. And it’s especially key when the enemy shares the culture of the population and we don’t. And especially difficult. Monumentally difficult as we are learning.

Honora: You still do not comprehend that Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Johnson are not Howard Dean/McGovern-type liberals, the kind that are whining about Iraq right now. The Democrat party is different today in case you haven’t noticed.

And you think that WWII was a success (how convenient in hindsight) when single battles lost thousands of American lives–while Iraq in your view is such a failure that Rumsfeld must be fired because we have lost a little over 3000 troops in the War on Terror.

I love it when libs get upset that we took over Iraq with hardly any casualties at all and then whine that we have lost 3000 troops since. I guess a successful war to them would have been thousands of troops dying to take over the country and few troops in guerrila warfare.

But this is all irrelevant because today’s liberals would never go to war under any scenerio.

januarius on September 29, 2006 at 5:06 PM

Your premise that liberals would never go to war is just that: a premise. Look up the difference between that and a fact. (And RINOs are not real Republicans…it’s so hard to keep this all straight….)

Let’s see: you want to claim that Wilson/FDR/Truman/Johnson are not liberals like today’s liberals? And this is because you assume they would agree with you, not today’s liberals. Well gee, it’s hard to argue with that buttoned up logic.

Interesting that you are calling on the memory of the country’s most emblamatic liberals to bolster your point of view. Honey I hate to break this to you, but this is a real, real serious sign that the wheels are coming off your argument. I get a headache just thinking about the mental acrobatics required to maintain it.

I’ll give you WWII as a successful war and commend FDR’s stewardship thereof … but are you serious about the other three?? If so, you are even farther gone than I already thought.

thirteen28 on September 29, 2006 at 5:10 PM

Pay attention–I was responding to the statement that liberal never want to wage war.

Do you old guys remember the Peace Dividend?
After the

winning

of the Cold War (hahaha), everyone was anxious to ease up on defense spending. Better things to do at home, don’t you know? Let’s close most of our military bases and pour the money into more social programs. A fellow named Clinton was Commander in Chief for 8 very long years. His first Sec of Defense, a political hack by the name of Les Aspen(?), didn’t want to ship heavy armored vehicles to Somalia so we got Black Hawk Down. Aspen fell on his sword and another career politician was given the job of enforcing the Peace Dividend. I had an idea for a post-911 poster that would have shown the twin towers smoking and burning with just the caption The Peace Dividend. I think I would have made some nice money selling it.
The fact is that we should an active military force at least twice its present size. Donald Rumsfeld has worked magic with what he had been giving. He went into the Pentagon with the intent of cracking heads. Leslie Clark wasn’t the sole inhabitant of that building that was more hat than cattle. Rumsfeld’s mission was set before he as sworn in. 911 made it a helluva lot harder to effect. He was honest enough to remind us that

you fight with the army you have”

. Can anybody seriously think that he had all the pieces he wanted in place?
The fact is that we did know Saddam had WMD, and alert readers have come across reports of their finding from time to time. But the progressive democrats (read: communists) & the progressive MSM keep their baying at such a high level that these things go largely unnoticed. Forget the large convoys going out of Iraq into Syria during the buildup to the war. I remember a report of Hussein’s wife & family leaving in a convoy of at least a dozen large moving trucks. Was it all shoes & burqas? Thgese things were reported. Remember the jets being dug out of the desert and caches of hundreds of millions of American dollars being found here & there?
Is this the first war where we’ve had Rules of Engagement drawn up by lawyers for specific engagements? I don’t think that was Rumsfeld’s idea but it emblematic of what a candyass political class we have leading us. (Visions of Patsy Schroeder crying on the floor of the House.
Iraq has been a great success because it has afforded us the glorious opportunity of dispatching tens of thousands of animals made up to look human. Let them meet the devil in the hundreds of thousands or even millions. I know I’ll sure feel good about it.
What kind of silly person wants to about the way this or that done when we’re in the middle of a war? That’s for the history book to write about years hence. We’re in an armed conflict– the only way to look is forward.
We won’t lose the war in Iraq in Iraq, we’ll lose it at home not with the cliched hearts & minds crapola but back home in our communities. Educational systems that want to make your kids pansies, urban & suburban communities who heed to the NIMBY credo, people who because they are being taxed to death leave it to MTV to raise their kids.
I could go on & on but the bile is choking me.
You want to win a war, then wage a war. Iraq is only the first stop.
One American life is worth n number of any other.

“Hearts and minds” is not a concrete military strategy.

Bush & Co. need to rip a page out of hezbollah’s playbook – they have the “hearts and minds” thingy down pat.

War is funny like that. It doesn’t go your way 100% of the time. The enemy is clever and resourceful and they don’t quit because you show up in big tanks and helicopters and uniforms with your name sewn own them. They keep fighting and looking for new and different ways to kill you.

So far, they’ve gotten 2500 or so, in three years of war.

How many have we gotten of them? How much territory do they hold? What have they won, and what have we lost to them?

And then there’s the most important question that we need to be looking at as we consider going forward: What are the Iraqis doing to control their own security/destiny and are they taking the opportunity we’ve given them seriously?

I submit to you that they are.

“…but score-settling and face-saving motives aside, there’s surely some truth to it.”

And then he wrote: “If I get even one comment in this thread — from someone other than honora or GregH, I mean — that addresses the substance of the allegations, I’ll consider it a moral victory.”

How can you tell what the substance really is, the book isn’t published yet!

Given that the NY Times cherry picks from documents with the intent to smear Bush every chance they get, they do not have much credibility. In other words, the book probably does NOT say what the Times says it does.

Point 2:

Were mistakes made in the war and afterward? Yep. Did Stimson, Marshall, MacArthur, Eisenhower, Nimitz, Halsey, Patton, Bradley make mistakes during WWII? Yep. And these mistakes cost THOUSANDS of American lives.

Ever hear of Clausewitz?

“Everything in war is very simple, but the simplest thing is difficult. The difficulties accumulate and end by producing a kind of friction. . . . This tremendous friction . . . is everywhere in contact with chance, and brings about effects that cannot be measured, just because they are largely due to chance. . . . Moreover, every war is rich in unique episodes.”

Iraq is just like every other war in this sense. It is a given that wrong decisions were made once we invaded Iraq.

It is a given that the enemy out-thought and out-maneuvered us on more than one occasion. It is to be expected. How we react to the unexpected is what counts. Have we changed tactics in the face of changes in the enemy’s tactics? Has the US military reacted with flexibility to the enemy’s new tactics? YOU BET!

We’ve got the most lethal, most flexible, most capable military in the world. And contrary to what the 5th Columnists in the leftstream media are telling us, we are not being “picked off” one by one while we are twisting slowly in the wind in the “quagmire.” We are NOT being told what or where the battles are by the media, what the effect of our operations are on the people, or how badly the enemy is hurting as a result. If they told us what the context is, they would be unable to sabotage the war by the incessent death count.

Furthermore, we are given FAKE stories, and fake pictures, planted by Al Qaeda operatives in the Associated Press and Reuters, embellished by “reporters” reporting from outside their hotel bar in the Green Zone, and then the whole lot of hooey is pontificated on by flaming morons like David Gregory, Brian Ross, Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson, and that ignorant twit, Katy Couric.

The video tape — from a year ago — this week on ABC news and nighline was a PRIME EXAMPLE.

What the hell! Is Rumsfeld or Bush, or Franks, or Bremer, or [fill in the blank] expected to be INFALLABLE by the asshole left?

Point 3:

Woodward, according to the summaries — I have NOT read the book — says that some statistics were kept from the public, implying that the administration did not level with the press. SO WHAT!!!

This is supposed to be some kind of election killing revelation? Do these morons in the media really think that the public is STUPID?

Here’s what FDR said during WWII.

“Your Government has unmistakable confidence in your ability to hear the worst, without flinching or losing heart. You must, in turn, have complete confidence that your Government is keeping nothing from you except information that will help the enemy in his attempt to destroy us. In a democracy there is always a solemn pact of truth between government and the people, but there must also always be a full use of discretion, and that word ” discretion” applies to the critics of government as well.

This is war. The American people want to know, and will be told, the general trend of how the war is going. But they do not wish to help the enemy any more than our fighting forces do, and they will pay little attention to the rumor-mongers and the poison peddlers in our midst. ”

[Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Fireside Chat 20 (February 23, 1942), On the Progress of the War,” http://millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/diglibrary/prezspeeches/roosevelt/fdr_1942_0223.html

The above speach (or one very much like it) should be given by Bush at least once a week.

I am convinced — by the reaction after the NSA and financial transaction leaks — that the American people fully understand the need for some secrets, including ones that would give the enemy heart.

I remain convinced that the public understands that there WILL be reverses just as there will be victories and that the public does NOT NEED to know them if disclosure will aid and abet the enemy.

I remain convinced that the public’s dissatification with the war is identical with that shown in 1864, 1918, 1944, and 1952 and every other long war. And, let add, in 1781 as well. Everybody wants the war to be over — not the least, me, as my son is a US Marine and an Iraq war veteran — and I and my wife dred any phone call with the callerid of “US GOVT” telling son he has orders, again, to the middle east.

But I (and 61% of the American public — according to Michael Barone) think that we need to stay in Iraq until the new government can stand on its own.

I agree with the ACTUAL NIE (not the crap peddled by WashPO and the Times) that if the jihadists LOSE in Iraq, the jihadi movement if finished.

Isn’t that the prize, here?

Do you have information, Subsunk, indicating that the Abrams is substantially stronger than the Merkava?

*UPDATE (within original post) – I actually began this post earlier, when news of this tape first broke, but took off for a bit before I could finish it, so I’m sure this is probably old news around the blogosphere……

The webmaster’s blog-within-a-blog. Continuously updated, newest items at the top. Please click here to learn more about The Phoenix Project, then click here to see a selection of Old War Dogs merchandise. All sales proceeds go to support The Phoenix…

“Oh yes, tanks! For the Americans, the Abrams, and for the Israelis, the Merkava. Yes, these tanks with all that reactive armor that were supposed to be practically invicible in the face of anything short of a massive explosion? The ones that have fallen prey readily to shaped charges?”

“We need an entirely new generation of armor for tanks. The current generation of armor has been dramatically overhyped by contractors and their buddies in the Pentagon.”

“More science and proven results and less hype on the armor front, please.”

tommy1 on September 29, 2006 at 4:42 PM

Overhyped? This one is so ludicrous as to be unbelievably retarded. Rumsfeld cancelled the follow on to the Paladin self propelled artillery, the Crusader. He had no intention of cancelling the M1A1, nor M1A2, which is coincidentally the MOST successful tank in the world. M1s have been hit by dozens, I say again DOZENS, of RPGs in Iraq and continue to work and protect the Men inside who then kill dozens, I say again, DOZENS of insurgents in return fire. They have vulnerabilities. But the ragheads (I said ragheads, by God) need to get behind them and hit them in just the correct spot to disable them.

The crew survival rate under enemy fire of all types in the M1A1 is more than a bit better than the survival rate for the crew inside a Russian made T-72 or T-80 Main Battle Tank (MBT) when under fire from the M1A1, Javelins, TOWs, or RPGs.

To claim that the armor used by American forces in this war has been unsuccessful and needs to be replaced because shaped charges are killing our Men by blowing up underneath our tanks is pretty dumb, if you ask me. All tanks are built and designed with this vulnerability. Speed is more important in a tank battle. Weight is a hindrance.

The results speak for themselves. In the initial invasion and drive to Baghdad NO, I repeat, NONE, of the handful of M1A1s destroyed or disabled were as a result of direct or indirect enemy fire. Most of the disabled tanks were disabled by mechanical failure or enemy fire which damaged required combat ready systems. The sole destroyed tank was destroyed by US Maverick missiles to keep the tank from falling into Iraqi hands. No personnel were lost due to enemy fire in an M1A1 tank in this period. During the occupation over 80 M1s have been damaged and a fraction of them destroyed. No further unclassified information is available, but you can bet that the US Main Battle Tanks are NOT as vulnerable as you surmise.

If you read the exploits of CPT Neal Prakash (winner of the Silver Star for action in Baquba, and later decorated for action in Fallujah), and any number of other tankers in this war, you would find that M1A1s are nearly indestructible and are far better at surviving any blast than any other vehicle we have, except maybe the Strikers. These are the follow units to M1A1s and M1A2s for the Army and they are already outstripping the M1s performance in some areas.

Technology will always find a way to defeat armor. What it can’t defeat is Men who are tougher than insurgents who hide in fear every time our soldiers walk by, and only come out to fight when they can hide behind little girls to shoot at Americans.

More science and less hype? Look in the mirror Tommy1.

Subsunk out.

1. The biggest problem that no one really wants to talk about is that a people who have only ever known oppression cannot learn what a democracy is and put it into practice in a few years. We sat on the Japanese for 2 decades before we left them to govern themselves. It took the education of an entire generation in the values of a democracy for that democracy to come into being and flourish. No one wants to say it, but that is how you truly change things in the Middle East; an entire generation has to be raised with democratic values about individual freedom and responsibility before it will really work. That is why so many Eastern European nations have struggled since gaining their freedom. This stuff doesn’t happen overnight, but Americans have lost the ability to do anything over the long-haul. As a culture we want instant gratification.

2. Another issue is money. I work for the government and what seems to be happening with the money is that Congress has put money that would normally go into home station operations and put it towards the war. This makes sens. However, if you want more soldiers and want to be prepared for the long haul, then you have to keep the home station money at roughly the same level so you have the number of troops needed and trained properly. Instead, the government has dramatically cut the money for home station operations, which is leading to massive cuts in personnel and other necessary activities in order to ensure that training remains for those who remain in the military. Over the long haul, this won’t work because folks will not re-enlist because they are too worn out from the stress of deployments and not having enough resources at home station. Meanwhile, the government continues to spend billions of dollars on unnecessary government programs. Again, in order to win a long war, spending on the military should increase to some extent while programs that are nice to have on the civilian side need to decrease. It’s called sacrifice and our country used to know how to do it.

3. If you ask a lot of the folks coming home from overseas, we are not doing nearly as bad as the doom-sayers would like. In fact, some think we are winning the war. You will just never hear about that from any MSM or the likes of Bob Woodward.

Please. The Abrams tank itself is about the best in the world. But even the best tanks in the world are losing their edge quickly. I highly doubt that the tanks haven’t been modified in 30 years either. I’m sure they’ve been refitted plenty of times. But the problem isn’t so much the tank: it is hype surrounding the tank. I look at the hype surrounding the Merkava and then how vulnerable those Merkavas proved against Hezbollah and have to wonder if anyone is paying attention to the fact that today’s tanks are losing serious ground to anti-tank weaponry. Again, we need major advancements in armor design. I also think we need to fund much more missle defense research. Especially against very short range missles, like the ones Hezbollah used against Israel, and very long-range missles, like the ones that North Korea may eventually come to possess.

Yeah, POLITICALLY, President Bush would be well served to fire Rummy. The problem is, is that President Bush is concerned that America be able to properly defend itself after he is gone.

Thank goodness that the President is more concerned with the survival of the USA than he is political expedency and being loved by the left.

Now, I’m outta here for a couple of hours.

I wrote a treatise on why I believe this some time ago (don’t have time to re-write it or find it now).

Rummy critics either have no real clue of what the military is supposed to do, or the ones who have/do themselves serve, are seeing their own ‘ox gored’ by Rummy’s changing the military structure and mission capability to fight the fights we have to fight now and will likely have to fight in the future.

He is not an expert on war.
tommy1 on September 29, 2006 at 4:30 PM

You say this about Rumsfeld, but do you really have any idea what you’re talking about? Might be you should look up some of his credentials!
Woodard is an expert on nothing but “what other people are thinking”. We do have experts on war in this country not named Norman Schwarzkopf, and I believe Rumsfeld is qualified.

I was hopeful myself… I thought, based on prior experience, that the Iraqis (the only one of all the nations in that region) WOULD be able to embrace democracy and overcome the negative teachings of their predominate religion.

I still harbor a faint hope that it may happen. Despite his unfortunbate last name, their President Talebani seems to be a fairly wise, rational and decent man.

If we can help them destroy the Iranian (plus Syrian, Egyptian and ‘palestinian’) jihadis invading their country to cause trouble and kill their civilians, it still might eventually work out OK.

The only major mistake that President Bush made is thinking that rationality would conquer hate, given the chance.

I agree that Bush was naive when he thought that with democracy that everyone would suddenly get along. Even with the mistakes the war has been remarkably successful in terms of casualties and the fact that Al Qaeda is wasting its resources fighting us there instead of here.

I support waterboarding terrorists, I think Bush made a tremendous boo-boo in not killing al-Sadr a few years earlier, and I agree with you that our country has become way to too soft when it comes to waging war. However, talking about getting tougher means very little if we don’t know where we are going with that tough approach. “Hearts and minds” is not a concrete military strategy. If you think otherwise, then I suggest you don’t know what a successful war is.

I totally agree with you here. I also agree we are too nice to people that hate us and should have crushed Al-Sadr. (I doubt Rumsfeld made that call.) But I still disagree that Rumsfeld must go and that this war has not been successful, even with politically correct mishaps like refusing to wipe out Al-Sadr and his militia. We are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan and we have only lost just over 3000 troops in over four years–and they have not been able to strike American civilians since.

Why then should this war be considered unsuccessful and why should Rumsfeld resign for a successful strategy against Al Qaeda?

But this is all irrelevant because today’s liberals would never go to war under any scenerio.

Wrong about one thing there januarius: Many of them WOULD be happy to go to war against Conservatives within their own nation. (It’s just that they would have to hire mercenaries to do it; lacking the courage and skills to engage in anything more than a war of words.)

And since they are only willing to spend other people’s money to do things, I guess we are fortunate that we don’t have to face their hired guns.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

.