Well, the ISG’s report is out (officially to Bush, and leaked to the AP):

That includes the blunt conclusion that “the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating,” and could trigger “the collapse of Iraq’s government and a humanitarian……

One of the laziest ways for journalists to insert their opinions into stories is to pretend that they’re quoting other sources. The LA Times’s Eric Werner did this a couple days ago with some Bush blundered badly snark, and there……

Previous: al-NYT Leaks Baker Panel Recommendations Early W declines to gracefully exit “Uncle Jimbo” Hanson I think there ought to be a requirement that all communications from W be read by some one else. I often tell progressives who have no clue w…

He also, and here’s a novel idea, knew why we were going to war. This whole movable feast of rationales highlights how ill advised this whole adventure has been.

honora on November 30, 2006 at 4:26 PM

I knew why we were going to war. The 13 UN resolutions knew why we were going to war. There was no fog about the situation, Saddam posed as clear and present threat to the nation.

He did not perpetrate 9/11. He did have ties to terrorists, we did find WMDs. Our initial mission succeeded, the removal of Saddam and the formation of an Iraqi government of the people, for the people.

“Mission(s) Accomplished”

Our last mission/goal is to be able to leave the country in a position to be able defend itself.

There is nothing unclear about this. There never was. Just because you deluded mind can’t remember the past five years doesn’t mean you can just change history to your liking.

Wrong. He knew we would defeat the Axis or they would defeat us. We are at the point that we no longer know whow “they” are–the Sunnis? the Shiites? the Iranians? — honora

…the short answer to the above question is: yes.

All of ‘em. That is because there are Sunnis, Shiites and Iranians there, on the ground (and, yes, Iranians are there, as they are in Lebanon) with weapons pointed at us.

It’s hard to keep track of the players in this one. A large part of the difficulty stems from the fact that the media — lazy, naive, nearly ideologically blinded — aren’t informing us. They’re too busy “changing the world” to do any of that “reportage” stuff.

“WE” may not have a clear idea of who the enemy is, but I’d bet dollars to donuts that the guys on the ground right now could tell you, down to a 10-digit grid coordinate.

Reread my earlier post about the administration being progressively hamstrung by an ambitious opposition. Then, read it again.

Yes, Mr. Roosevelt knew the criticality of his undertaking. This president does, as well. The problem is that at least half of Congress, most of the media, and so-called intellectuals abroad today don’t.

Like it, or not. U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-ma…

I don’t think that Roosevelt *KNEW* how his war would go when he stood before congress on 8 December 1941. He and his government — and the rest of the nation — focused their efforts to do all they could to ensure that the outcome they though best would come about. There was no talk in 1944 — which were pretty dark days, actually — of “ending” that war.

Wrong. He knew we would defeat the Axis or they would defeat us. We are at the point that we no longer know whow “they” are–the Sunnis? the Shiites? the Iranians?

He also, and here’s a novel idea, knew why we were going to war. This whole movable feast of rationales highlights how ill advised this whole adventure has been.

“Wars aren’t “ended”. They’re either won or they’re lost, and there are consequences either way.”

Excellent point.

Can you say: North Korea???

But of course, his advice being “a betrayal of national defense” is your opinion.

…well, this *IS* the blogosphere. It’s *ALL* opinion.

Until it comes to pass, and we can pick through it after the fact, it’s all opinion of greater or lesser value. We can assess value once we can review things afterwards and find out how close those opinions were.

My opinion is that taking us into a war that had a very distinct possibility of ending as it is ending, and refusing against all evidence to acknowledge this, well it isn’t traitorous. It is stupid and wasteful and sorrowful. — honora

…one semantic point, but a *VERY* important one: there’s a lot of talk today about “ENDING” the war. Wars aren’t “ended”. They’re either won or they’re lost, and there are consequences either way. Wars aren’t arguments. They have an actual, physical presence in the world.

Nobody predicted the way this war would proceed with any accuracy. There were a lot of SWAGs (scientific wild-ass guess) prior, the ones on the edges of *BOTH* points of view — bomb ‘em back to the Stone Age and it’s twin America is exporting terrorism — being more wishful thinking than prediction.

I don’t think that Roosevelt *KNEW* how his war would go when he stood before congress on 8 December 1941. He and his government — and the rest of the nation — focused their efforts to do all they could to ensure that the outcome they though best would come about. There was no talk in 1944 — which were pretty dark days, actually — of “ending” that war.

The war today is a bit more complicated than Mr. Roosevelt’s war inasmuch as the enemy today is a lot more unpredictable and very much more numerous, and the war’s being waged in the second level of a house of cards…the ummah of Islam, so called. Throw too wide a punch and you have to deal with tens of millions of pissed of Indonesians, or you lose bases in Pakistan, or the double-dealing Saudis feel safe to come out of the closet and spend money like drunken sailors trying to kill you.

This war was *ALWAYS* a risk. The UN — charged with just this sort of international diplomacy between competing interests, especially regional ones — was brought in, and we now know that the UN was as dirty as a chimneysweep with money from our opponents, as were 2/3rds of the Security Council.

It looks as if it was rushed into, especially when you look at the whole “can’t transit through Turkey” thing and its effect on opperations, but the guys on the ground — the lieutenant colonels and gunnery sergeants/sergeants first class, the company and platoon and troop and wing commanders and their subordinate leaders — moved and grooved and adapted, and I can’t see how, even with the screw-ups which accompany war, this could’ve gone any better or have cost any less.

That said, somebody — you, Honie? — is going to pipe up with the boilerplate about not seeing the insurgency coming, the tribalism and its effects, and that sort of rot. These factors were key in keeping the military under Schwarzkopf and Powell — turning out to be a black hat in this business — and the Elder Mr. Bush from going “on to Baghdad” in ’91. This wasn’t a surprise, and it’s been handled about as well as this sort of thing can be, especially considering that these murderous bastards are operating in a fluid social environment peopled with tribal folks of slippery allegiances.

Finally, the options were clear in 2003. We could’ve left Saddam in charge, feeding, transiting and giving aid and comfort to guys like Abu Nidal and Ansar al-Islam. We were serious about stemming the tide of terrorism, so the decision was made to go in. Once engaged, things went amazingly well, despite the apparent chaos which is war.

Attendant on all of this has been a *LARGE* and vocal and increasingly organized faction in our nation who would’ve opposed Mr. Bush going into Hitler’s Berlin to rescue prisoners from Auschwitz with the promise of a cure for cancer as a bonus. That group — MoveON, Soros, Moore, a great many folks in Congress including Pelosi, Murtha, Reid, Kerry, Kennedy and other unindicted co-conspirators, 90% of Hollywood, 99% of the popular music industry, most of establishment academia, and almost all of the establishment press — has been outing secrets, misrepresenting almost every action of our military, publishing enemy propaganda as fact, and in general been doing the work of our enemies.

So, when a major portion of the nation’s national life is opposed to *THIS* administration at an almost visceral level, the nation is already fighting with one hand behind its back…and we’re fighting an enemy that takes both hands, both eyes, both feet and most of our teeth to fight.

Roosevelt *NEVER* had to fight against his own nation when fighting the Nazis or the Japanese.

Finally (and, there actually are some “finallys” in my posts), anything that works towards “ending” this war — which I’ll join you in saying is “stupid and wasteful and sorrowful”, as *ALL* wars are — is treasonable. History, particularly of that region, teaches us that you either win the war or you’re only postponing your own ruin.

Your next post will probably say something like “define ‘winning’”, to which I’d say (as I’ve written here on HotAir several times): the enemy is too terrified to even *CONSIDER* using terror as a weapon. Their relatives, tribes and neighbors are all digging out, and are looking toward a less confrontational future, and the “fighters” themselves are reconsidering the promise of an eternal orgy in Paradise when death is the only thing guarenteed them.

I wish we weren’t in this war. In case I haven’t said it enough times before, my wife and I have four kids. The two eldest are boys. One is in the Army as a medic, the other is in the Marines as a rifleman. My wife is still serving, as well. “Stupid and wasteful and sorrowful” hits very close to home in this house.

I don’t want this war “ended” and my boys to have to face, in six months or a year’s time, a rested, reenergized, reequipped enemy with new recruits, freshly trained and infused with the notion that, if they only hold out long enough, they’ll win. They don’t want the war to end. They want to win…and the Left and many so-called political pragmatists (Powell? I’d say so.) on the Right will encourage them in that regard. You don’t even have to make it too costly for America to keep fighting for them to start talking about “ending the war”…you only have to fight long enough for them to lose interest.

It will be a *LOT* less “stupid and wasteful and sorrowful” in the short and long runs if this war is fought to win, not to end. That is because a war which concludes with clear advantage on one side puts back the start of the *NEXT* war until a generation is born which hasn’t had direct experience in such a war. Look back to the example I’ve been using: how eager are the Germans and Japanese of today to come out swinging?

“Stupid and wasteful and sorrowful” though this war may be, it has to be won…or those who will have “ended” it will have betrayed us. Betrayal = treason.

Early indications are that the Iraq Survey Group’s consensus is so lukewarm in its recommendations that it was a waste of taxpayer dollars.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 29 — The bipartisan Iraq Study Group reached a consensus on Wednesday on a final repor…

The “deal” they want to broker is the ulitmate defeat of the United States in the GWOT. That’s the treason here.

He took the job. He’s accepting a position which puts him in line to oversee the production of a document of recommendations which will end up being used as cover either by this president, this congress, or both, to justify a betrayal of national defense and of national defenders in the face of a mis-reported and politicized war.

But of course, his advice being “a betrayal of national defense” is your opinion. My opinion is that taking us into a war that had a very distinct possibility of ending as it is ending, and refusing against all evidence to acknowledge this, well it isn’t traitorous. It is stupid and wasteful and sorrowful.

Now there’s a plan with a future.

(The same kind that appeared ahead of 1938.)

A speedwalking retreat -instead of a headlong panicked flight- is still a retreat.

The only ‘talk’ needed between us an Iran is:

-cut the terrorist support for the chaos in Iraq or face an evisceration of your nuke program.

Syria should be struck with several near-miss IED’s as Assad and his upper cabinet travel their favorite roads. As a hint of how easy it would be to trigger the devices properly next time.

All these dictatorial weasels care about is their own skin and power. Threaten that, and the rest will become easier to manage.

(Withdrawing troops from Iraq -as well as some from Afghanistan-…and moving them into the border regions of Iran, however, might make sense… once their nuclear infrastructure has been gutted. But I doubt Baker has that even as a sub-sub-option anywhere in his impending report.)

Bush and Maliki were side-by-side today, after a leaked memo from NSA and a rescheduled meeting between the two had folks talking up tensions:

President Bush delivered a staunch endorsement of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki Thursday morning……

Cool. So why is Baker a traitor in your opinion? — honora

…because, as I said earlier:

Baker and his collection of stiffs accept the second-hand mandate

(…oooo…I love to quote myself as a source….)

He took the job. He’s accepting a position which puts him in line to oversee the production of a document of recommendations which will end up being used as cover either by this president, this congress, or both, to justify a betrayal of national defense and of national defenders in the face of a mis-reported and politicized war.

As it seems to be unfolding, the recommendations of this commission will be tweaked, thrown around, but ultimately accepted. It will be doing what this president *SHOULD* be doing: providing a way forward.

He should have offered his advice, and left it at that.

Dissent isn’t treason. Dissent is looking at the question from a different angle, suggesting other options, *BEING WILLING TO BE WRONG*. Dissent is patriotic when it proceeds from the impulse to serve the wider national good. Betrayal is treason. Betrayal proceeds from the impulse to win the argument and humble ones opponent. Betrayal permits no question of infallibility. No fine line there.

Puritan1648 on November 30, 2006 at 11:35 AM

Cool. So why is Baker a traitor in your opinion?