You have answered my question, thank you. We have made a bad situation worse, meaning it was better under Saddam. Apparently you have ignored the gassing of his people, the graves of mass murder, the raping of women by his dastardly sons, the throwing of children into pits of dogs, to have their parents watch as they are ripped apart, the people around him scared by his torture, the mothers with dead husbands, and children stolen in the night. How sad that you think you have only one chance in life to get it right, and you choose that of an evil dictator. The generals can win this war, the polititions can lose it. And with your backing and others of your weak spirit, and lack of moral courage it is theirs to lose. The souls of a generation of people will be lost to evil dictators, facists, and socialists, and perhaps a free nation of Jews. You will stand proud to support tose destroyers of life, just like the others before you that haunt the halls of disaster and death. God have mercy on you.

right2bright on December 21, 2006 at 8:06 PM

You make such a simple error in logic.

First you assume I want immediate withdrawal, which I never said, but let’s go with that. You then counter that this would cause this other bad, bad stuff. Ok. What you say is possible. But you never address the alternative, which is what is going on now. The logical is comparison is the doom you predict with what we have now–which is not a prediction, but a reality that grows worse daily.

I find your statement that the generals can win this war odd–the generals contradict that statement, saying over and over that the war is not winnable (or losable) by the military but will require a three pronged approach.

By the way, as I recall, we did not invade Iraq to rid the people there of the horror of Saddam. You don’t get to change rationales with something as serious as war. We went there to rid Saddam of WMDs. We don’t find any and people like you are fine with glibbly changing the whole underpinning of the invasion: “Oh fiddle de de, I guess we’ll try this rationale….” Great.

honora on December 21, 2006 at 3:30 PM

You have answered my question, thank you. We have made a bad situation worse, meaning it was better under Saddam. Apparently you have ignored the gassing of his people, the graves of mass murder, the raping of women by his dastardly sons, the throwing of children into pits of dogs, to have their parents watch as they are ripped apart, the people around him scared by his torture, the mothers with dead husbands, and children stolen in the night. How sad that you think you have only one chance in life to get it right, and you choose that of an evil dictator. The generals can win this war, the polititions can lose it. And with your backing and others of your weak spirit, and lack of moral courage it is theirs to lose. The souls of a generation of people will be lost to evil dictators, facists, and socialists, and perhaps a free nation of Jews. You will stand proud to support tose destroyers of life, just like the others before you that haunt the halls of disaster and death. God have mercy on you.

Now, that doesn’t mean be stupid or irresponsible about it, or go off slaughtering whole villages just for the fun of it. It does mean, however, especially against an enemy as ruthless as this one, taking the gloves off and using all of our enormous advantages to win.A lot less politically correct, and a lot more turning the troops loose.A lot more kicking ass, and a lot less kissing ass.

And that’s where ROE- the good old rules of engagement –plays a big part. Bohica 22,you make good points about the distinctions between rules of engagement and policy. Honora, you seemed to make an attempt to pick up on 22 ‘s comments and make — well, I don’t know what point you are trying to make.

Honora and Bohica22; don’t take this personally, but frankly I find your commentary that restrictive rules of engagement are a sad excuse to be well,sad.Because much of what I am seeing and hearing from Iraq and Afghanistan, point to much more of the same over insensitive insanity that has been plaguing our military efforts since before the end of World War II. Let’s take a little quiz, shall we?

Denying a request to fire upon over 100 Taliban leaders because they are in a cemetery is A)a sad excuse, or B) endangering the war effort and the lives of US servicemen in a stupid to the point of insanity way.

Not being permitted to fire on a mosque. Even though that mosque is being used by the enemy to fire on US troops, store ammo for the enemy, and to use as a sanctuary for the enemy,would be A) a sad excuse, or B) overly restricted to the point of insanity rule of engagement.

In my own personal experience,perhaps my most ridiculous encounter over restrictive rules of engagement was my first experience with them in Beirut in the days before the barracks bombing. Don’t fire unless fired upon first, returned fire, only with the same fire thats being directed at you, no magazines in your rifle while on patrol, and on and on.In corresponding and talking with Marines that I served with and who stayed in the Corps, and who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan,and many of the “new breed” that I have had the pleasure of meeting and corresponding with, over restrictive rules of engagement is right up there with pointless patrolling on the “shit that I hate most list.”

And whatever plan is decided on , it is doomed to failure, unless the plan is clear, with clear objectives, and rules of engagement that do not range from the imbecilic to the insane.And that will require violence and killing on a level that many people will be uncomfortable with.

Oh, and Honora? In reading a lot of your comments, you strike me as being highly intelligent. Do yourself a favor and don’t use people like Jon Stewart to make a point. Not only is it not a good way to make a point, it’s beneath you.

Sorry to keep linking HotAir, but I’m behind today, and Allah Pundit is good. This post links five takes on the likely coming surge, some for, others against. Jeb Babbin is against it, at least until his questions can be……

and so you want to pull out and what? watch the bloodbath? how may tens of thousands more tortures are you willing to sacrifice so you can say you want peace? how many more rapes before you can say you want peace? pull out and watch Israel get torn apart (a good way to get rid of those pesky jews)? at least you will be at peace. you won’t have to sacrifice your peace, it is protected for you. typical of someone who gets their news and arguments from jon stewart and billy crystal.
and when things get tough on you, you will vote for a Winston Churchill to bail you out, and when you are safe again, back to the “peace while others sacrifice”.

right2bright on December 21, 2006 at 1:17 PM

Sorry bubby. You only get one grab at the old brass ring. You guys have been dicking around with this for over 3 years and you have made a bad situation worse. You don’t get to ask the questions anymore. But here’s a hint: there are no good answers. Have you listened at all to what our generals are saying? Of course not.

Bill Kristol, not Crystal.

Surgemania: Four takes on sending more troops to IraqAllahpundit Abizaid and Casey say no. A group of troops who met with Gates earlier today in Baghdad say yes. Take advantage of the slow Christmas season news day that’s shaping up…

honora on December 21, 2006 at 11:26 AM

and so you want to pull out and what? watch the bloodbath? how may tens of thousands more tortures are you willing to sacrifice so you can say you want peace? how many more rapes before you can say you want peace? pull out and watch Israel get torn apart (a good way to get rid of those pesky jews)? at least you will be at peace. you won’t have to sacrifice your peace, it is protected for you. typical of someone who gets their news and arguments from jon stewart and billy crystal.
and when things get tough on you, you will vote for a Winston Churchill to bail you out, and when you are safe again, back to the “peace while others sacrifice”.

Honora, I agree with you that saying the Rules of Engagement (ROE) are too restrictive is a sad excuse. Everything else you said was crap, but I digress.

..one small step for bohica22…

yeah, I know. Bad joke.

Key here is cutting off the Iran/Syrai pipelines of money, arms, and supply. Without them the “Militias” would dry up and blow away as they have NO large internal support mechanisim.

Just like Hez, who is spending outside money to rearm, and “help” the people, thus gaining political control of areas, these militias MUST be put down.

The Borders are long, but could be controled by creating border crossings, and then enforcing a free fire zone on anything crossing the border at any other spot. Helicopter and Fast Movers, after a few GRAPHIC incidents, could put a real dent in these porous borders.

Just as we are finding out in America, you can’t have rule of law without effective border security.

Romeo13 on December 21, 2006 at 11:33 AM

Good idea. Though I am not as sanguine as you are re the militias will dry up minus the Iran/Syria support. I think they have lots of internal support, that’s kinda the point of a civil war.

Nonetheless, this is a sensible idea.

Just like Hez, who is spending outside money to rearm, and “help” the people, thus gaining political control of areas, these militias MUST be put down.

The Borders are long, but could be controled by creating border crossings, and then enforcing a free fire zone on anything crossing the border at any other spot. Helicopter and Fast Movers, after a few GRAPHIC incidents, could put a real dent in these porous borders.

Just as we are finding out in America, you can’t have rule of law without effective border security.

I’m going to Vent for a minute. Rules of Engagement is a tactical level decision matrix for deciding when someone is a threat and when that threat can be neutralized. Attacking Al-Sadr and his militia is NOT question of Rules of Engagment, it is a strategic/political decision based on trying to stabilize Iraq. Its not like we have troops being shot at by Mahadi militiamen and they can’t shoot back. I have not heard of a single incident where a US soldier came up on a Shiite death squad, drilling holes in Sunnis, and he couldn’t do anything about it. ROE dictactes how we fight, not who.

BohicaTwentyTwo on December 21, 2006 at 11:11 AM

Rules of engagement is the latest in a long, sad line of excuses. It’s not that going into Iraq was ill-conceived, no, no, no…it’s rules of engagement, it’s not a civil war, it’s just plays one on TV. Yada, yada, yada.

Jon Stewart w Bill Crystal the other night (paraphrasing): “So Bush thought Iraq had WMDs, turns out that was wrong; thought there would be no insurgency, turns out that was wrong; thought elections would solve everything, turns out that was wrong; thought we were in the last throes, turns out that was wrong. So you’re backing him now sending in more troops based on what, the idea that he’s due?”

the Saudis must really be worried about Shiite influence

These are the people we should be talking with not the Iranians, who, as any moron not named James Baker, would have realized long ago are not helping us in Afghanistan. Who hates al Qaeda and Iran as much as we do and has at least as much to lose?

Enemy of my enemy and all that.

First, build a couple three Mosques scattered throughout the regions… then, evict ALL imbedded journalists speed bumps and…finally, level EVERY SINGLE MOSQUE in sight that we did not build and do not control until the final handover.

Dust of our hands, lay claim to some land for a permanent Base Ops in country and come the hell home.

We need to rethink whether we are there simply to fight the war, or if we are there to eventually win the war.

What say you, Gates? Now that you are ‘in charge’ are you willing to pay the price for victory, or is the cost of defeat more attractive?

Abizaid and Casey say no. A group of troops who met with Gates earlier today in Baghdad say yes.

So.. we are comparing the professional opinions of unnamed “troops” on the ground, with the professional evaluations of two of our best trained and experience generals.

{sigh}

Why is this news?

This isn’t news… this is nonsense.