Iraq: Heading for the exit; Update: Does Bush think Iraq = Vietnam?

posted at 11:57 am on January 29, 2007 by Bryan

I hope I’m wrong about this.

Col Austin Bay links to Strategypage’s Top Ten Myths About the Iraq War, and highlights #10:

10- The War in Iraq is Lost. By what measure? Saddam and his Baath party are out of power. There is a democratically elected government. Part of the Sunni Arab minority continues to support terror attacks, in an attempt to restore the Sunni Arab dictatorship. In response, extremist Shia Arabs formed vigilante death squads to expel all Sunni Arabs. Given the history of democracy in the Middle East, Iraq is working through its problems. Otherwise, one is to believe that the Arabs are incapable of democracy and only a tyrant like Saddam can make Iraqi “work.” If democracy were easy, the Arab states would all have it. There are problems, and solutions have to be found and implemented. That takes time, but Americans have, since the 18th century, grown weary of wars after three years. If the war goes on longer, the politicians have to scramble to survive the bad press and opinion polls. Opposition politicians take advantage of the situation, but this has nothing to do with Iraq, and everything to do with local politics in the United States.

I agree with that and all of the Strategypage myths. By any objective measure the Iraq war is not lost, at least not in the field, and not yet. It’s what Col Bay says next that I’ll take issue with.

In twenty years its common sense assessment will be the conventional wisdom.

This is where I reveal my abject, prophet Jeremiah-style pessimism on the war.

Given the right mission and the right tools, our troops will win any war. Even given a mission that morphed over time and having equipped them with too few of the tools they needed, they’re still winning in Iraq. But what’s going on in Iraq is only one part of the war in Iraq. Most of the war is actually going on here, it’s political and hinges on morale, and it’s here that we stand a very good chance of losing the war.

Posting from Kuwait and seeing what I took at the time to be the first troops involved in the surge getting ready to board a plane to Baghdad, here’s what I wrote that I expected to come:

Unless I miss my guess, he’ll announce a surge. I don’t know how big, but it’ll be big enough to satisfy McCain and Lieberman and the few hawks that remain inside the beltway. It’ll begin right away. No waiting around for this surge.

It also won’t be long-term. He has Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Reid suggesting that he bug out of Iraq no matter what condition it’s in, and he has Pelosi and Levin threatening to cut off funding for the war even over his objection. Rather than fight them and humiliate them for the weaklings that they are and would make the US if they are heeded, Bush will try to satisfy them. So he has them on one side and the pro-surge forces on the other, with the generals either noncommittal or even opposed to a surge. He’ll surge to satisfy the hawks and then, once some benchmark has been met (maybe some number of militia and Qaeda fighters killed, or Sadr taken out along with a couple of provinces handed over to Iraqi Army control), he’ll declare the war won and begin the withdrawal. Iraq still won’t be perfectly pacified, but that’ll take decades anyway. We may even be leaving it in the throes of a simmering civil war. But we will have met the surge objective (an objective the president will lay out on Wednesday) and we’ll have a rationale for getting out with some dignity before the Democrat Congress starts defunding the effort and thereby humiliating the US further.

I turned out to be right about the surge. It helps to see things with your own eyes once in a while, and I saw the surge two days before it was announced. I missed the prediction that the president would lay out benchmarks. But he’s being helped on that front by Sen. John McCain, who is promoting establishing a set of benchmarks for the surge even while most of the Senate is running away from the war entirely. Republicans are joining Democrats in what amounts to a no-confidence vote on the surge and the way the president is handling the war in general. McCain is splitting the difference, giving hawks the benchmarks to signal that he wants to win the war (and he really does–that’s not an act) while also siding with the Democrats and Republicans against the president’s handling of the war. There’s no political price for doing that to a president who’s at 30 or thereabouts in the polls. McCain’s running for president and will benefit from distancing himself from President Bush.

So we’ll get a benchmarks bill of some kind. It won’t be binding, but the White House is likely to seize on it if it’s anywhere near palatable. If not, the administration will probably set its own benchmarks–killing off X number of insurgents, seizing X number of weapon caches, turning over X number of Iraqi provinces to Iraqi Army control (which would be a good benchmark, provided the IA units given control are actually ready for it) or something like that. Americans are all about metrics these days, and setting benchmarks will play to that. The troops will probably meet the benchmarks, whatever they are, by summer’s end. Then the withdrawal will begin. We’re out for the most part by the end of this year or spring ’08 at the latest, because at this point the politicians have all calculated that they don’t want this issue around for another election cycle. Hillary! said as much yesterday. And these crazy people actually have influence with the Democrats, who now control Capitol Hill. Speaker Pelosi says “run, don’t walk” out of Iraq.

The good people who are helping us in Iraq now will probably end up dead, and the dark forces swirling around that country now will probably take over. Thirty-five years of Saddam followed by four years of insurgency and sectarian strife followed by who knows how many years of God knows what–that’s the Iraq we’ll leave behind when we pull out too early, as I now expect. The Iranians and Saudis will probably end up settling their Shia/Sunni differences over a million Iraqi corpses. But we’ll be out of there, and that’s all most politicians and indeed most Americans now care about. We’re all tired of a war that most of us haven’t actually directly sacrificed for, meaning we’re tired of reading negative headlines and we’re tired of arguing with our neighbors about it all. We’re tired of not seeing flag raisings and we’re tired of the grind of counterinsurgency and we’re tired of what looks like a war fought on politically correct rules of engagement, so we’ll quit. Over 3,000 good Americans will have died in vain. Even though we won the war in 2003–it’s the post-war that has been such a mess.

(The troops aren’t tired of it, by the way. In what may be the strangest aspect of this strange war, visiting the troops is a good way for civilians to get themselves cheered up about the war. In past wars, it was the troops who needed cheering up so the USO sent Bob Hope and other entertainers to the front lines to do it.)

This current desire for hassle free war is our Achilles heel as a nation. Our impatience with post modern war means we’re more and more likely to lose wars that last longer than a few weeks. War in this age will mostly be grinds against insurgencies, connecting the gaps to the core as Thom Barnett might call it. Our enemies will use our impatience against us, as they are in Iraq. Some of the violence we’re seeing now is probably the result of insurgents and their backers seeing our headlines, reading our polls, and concluding that ratcheting up the violence against schoolgirls and the like is a swell way to get us to leave. If that’s their aim, it stands a good chance of working.

The Democrats may even flex their Congressional muscle and defund the war. As in 1974, since they have the majority on their side in the polls now they won’t pay a political price if they do it. But whether it’s by benchmarks or defunding, unless there is some drastic change in the country’s mood on the war in the short term, the logic of the moment is at work now and we’ll start withdrawing from Iraq soon.

Conventional wisdom will not interpret any of this as a victory. If I’m right conventional wisdom in 20 years will dub Iraq a stupid war based on lies and George Bush’s debacle. The history of Saddam’s perfidy and crimes throughout the 1990s won’t figure in much. In fact, it’s already ancient history to most Americans. Iraq will be seen as a victory for the insurgents and terrorists over the US, and a victory of the Democrats over President Bush, but not a battlefield victory for the US military. As a Democrat moment dawns, the American moment ends.

We’re all tired of Vietnam Syndrome. Get ready for Iraq Syndrome. And get ready to lose some wars in the coming century.

Update (AP): An excellent post from Ace, even by his high standards. Is Bush defining victory down?

One of the most provocative statements Tony Snow made [at this weekend's conservative summit] was that President Bush, looking at the bustling capitalism and emulation of America in Saigon (I won’t call it by its other name), stated: “We didn’t lose in Vietnam. We won.”…

I was struck by this, because it seemed to me — and I hope I’m not playing the role of clumsy Kremlinologist here — to suggest that the Bush administration has reduced its definition of “victory” in Iraq to an almost comically-low level. (It would be comical, but for the tragedy.) And that perhaps the Administration now believes that a helicopters-leaving-from-the-embassy-rooftop defeat is all but inevitable, and that their hopes are now pinned on the long view of history — sure, just like in Vietnam, we’ll have “lost,” but in the fullness of time, we’ll actually win…

It goes without saying, incidentally, that this argument is self-defeating as spin. If it is true that we cannot really shape the evolution of a country’s politics, and that such growth will be largely organic and resist outside efforts at cultivation, then we could have saved 2600 American lives and departed from Iraq a few months after the invasion.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

This current desire for hassle free war is our Achilles heel as a nation. Our impatience with post modern war means we’re more and more likely to lose wars that last longer than a few weeks.

Bullseye.

I would add that our unwillingness to use the harsh means necessary to truly pacify our enemies is also part of the Achilles heel, but perhaps that fits comfortably under the “hassle free” umbrella.

Regardless, it’s pretty easy to understand why we have not achieved victory in any war since WWII.

thirteen28 on January 29, 2007 at 12:15 PM

Very sad.

Griz on January 29, 2007 at 12:18 PM

“When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men’s weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped.” – Sun Tzu

That’s us, as a nation on the homefront.

thirteen28 on January 29, 2007 at 12:31 PM

I would add that our unwillingness to use the harsh means necessary to truly pacify our enemies is also part of the Achilles heel, but perhaps that fits comfortably under the “hassle free” umbrella. Regardless, it’s pretty easy to understand why we have not achieved victory in any war since WWII.

thirteen28 on January 29, 2007 at 12:15 PM

Cold War?
Grenada?
Panama?
Desert Storm?
Gulf 2? (war won stability not achieved yet)

You insult those who have worn the uniform with statements such as that. By harsh means don’t you mean indiscriminate killing with no regard for non-combatants?

Bradky on January 29, 2007 at 12:33 PM

Here we are 30 years after the Vietnam war and the liberals are trying to relive the heady days of the anti-war furvor in order to get elected, and the conservatives are trying to prevent the consequences of leaving the Iraqi’s to be slaughtered.

Obviously both idealologies learned lessons from the Vietnam war. The conservatives learned to be compassionate and the liberals learned how to grab power with the help of the lying MSM.

csdeven on January 29, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Absolutely there were victories, and if we had to do it over again I’d support it knowing all I know now.

I would also have begun the exit one year ago. There is no amount of “surge” that will stop Iraqis from killing each other until they lose the taste for it themselves, or another totalitarian regime takes over. I thought they would jump at the chance for democracy, even parliamentary democracy.

BOY was I wrong!

I am not interested in having the US prop up another Sadaam. Frankly I will be less concerned with Iran if they get bogged down in the fighting in Iraq after we exit. I don’t deny there are huge benefits to many Iraqi people from the US military that go unreported by the MSM thanks again Ms. M for your reporting). But the MSM is not making up the bloodthirsty pronouncements by Iraqi Muslim leaders and Muslim pressure groups calling for “death” to anyone not thinking the way they do today.

I urge people to review the MEMRI web site. Too many people in that part of the world and in that faith view democracy as blasphemy against God! How many would we need to kill to change that view point? Don’t forget, it took two atomic bombs to get Japan’s leadership to reconsider its fight-to-the-death mantra!

I think the longer we stay in Iraq, the greater the risk that we will see a US political movement similar to the post Vietnam movement. The most damaging aspect of that (in my mind) was the deliberate deconstruction of our military. The socialist political action groups in the US want our offensive military ability eliminated, and Iraq is playing into their hands.

I can’t see a different side to this coin for Iraq’s future. What further significant victories can we ensure at this point? Iraqis are rejecting democracy every day with their actions.

I disagree with Bryan on the likelihood of withdrawal soon. George Bush (like most second-term presidents) lost his better political instincts after his re-election. No one in the executive branch has taken ownership of Iraq policy with both hands in the public forum since Rummy left (can you blame anyone). That leaves Bush to keep steaming for the iceberg. Frankly, he didn’t have the smarts to begin making withdrawal noises before the election when it might have saved the Senate. What makes anyone believe he’s going to start thinking ahead now?

doufree on January 29, 2007 at 12:40 PM

You insult those who have worn the uniform with statements such as that. By harsh means don’t you mean indiscriminate killing with no regard for non-combatants?

Bradky on January 29, 2007 at 12:33 PM

The Cold War wasn’t a hot war. Yes, we achieved victory.

Grenada and Panama were really nothing more than police actions, not full-fledged wars.

And if we had won the first Gulf War, there would not have been a second. If we had truly won the second Gulf War, we would not still be in the position we are.

You are a perfect example of what Bryan was talking about, because you don’t recognize what victory is. With regard to your last statement, you do whatever it takes – even if there is a lot of colateral damage.

Victory is the only consideration, all others are subordinate to that. The instant you start putting conditions on victory is the same instant you’ve made it a lower priority – and created a situation that causes a protracted war and more killing.

And as far as “insulting those who wore the uniform”, well, go f— yourself, as I am one who has worn it myself.

thirteen28 on January 29, 2007 at 12:42 PM

The Cold War wasn’t a hot war. Yes, we achieved victory.

Grenada and Panama were really nothing more than police actions, not full-fledged wars.

And if we had won the first Gulf War, there would not have been a second. If we had truly won the second Gulf War, we would not still be in the position we are.

You are a perfect example of what Bryan was talking about, because you don’t recognize what victory is. With regard to your last statement, you do whatever it takes – even if there is a lot of colateral damage.

Victory is the only consideration, all others are subordinate to that. The instant you start putting conditions on victory is the same instant you’ve made it a lower priority – and created a situation that causes a protracted war and more killing.

And as far as “insulting those who wore the uniform”, well, go f— yourself, as I am one who has worn it myself.

thirteen28 on January 29, 2007 at 12:42 PM

Cold or hot war it was a significant win because of the men and women who served during a 40+ year period and by maintaining strength ensured peace.

I guess the 37 US troops lost in those two police actions really don’t count then. Read the history on them and you will see they were part of a bigger strategic outlook.
As for the first Gulf war the objective was not the fall of Iraq. We met the objective, hence won.

Our country stands for a lot more than totally destroying a civilian population. Not sure why you get such a hard on about mass killing but you do. In my book our country doesn’t stand for that kind of approach and never has. Force applied judiciously, not indiscriminately.

As for f%$% myself, wouldn’t that be encouraging “gay” acts and be counter to your opinion?

Bradky on January 29, 2007 at 12:57 PM

The domestic enemy of America is America’s left. It has been thus since the 1950′s.

And they *ARE* allied with our foreign enemy, Al Qaeda. They were on 9/11 and they are still so today. Not by ideology (though both are anti-Semitic), but by sharing a common enemy — America’s liberty and democratic ideals.

The leadership of the Democratic Party is fully engaged with them, and has been since 1971. Nancy Pelosi is also the leader of the Democratic Socialists of America (now known as the “Progressive Caucus”). Before they (the DSA) took their website down, ever liberal in Congress was listed as a member.

America’s media is part of it. Thanks to them and their active sabotage of the war, America has placed the socialists in charge of the government. Until we can wrest their propaganda arm away from them; until we can STOP the media from sabotaging America’s wars, this will continue. America’s hope is that the new media leads to the destruction of the old.

Us conservatives are relying on people like YOU Bryan, and AP and Michelle, and Laura and Tammy, and Rush, to win America back.

georgej on January 29, 2007 at 12:59 PM

We’re all tired of Vietnam Syndrome. Get ready for Iraq Syndrome. And get ready to lose some wars in the coming century.

I can’t say that I agree, Bryan. If we turn tail out of Iraq and go home, there is going to be one HUGE difference, viz. after Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh’s followers DID NOT bring the war back to us here on American soil. The worst that we received was a helicopter evacuation of Saigon and subsequent boat-lifts of refugees. And yet that is precisely what the Jihadists will do. They will bring the war to us. I think that we MUST prepare ourselves. It is inevitable that they will (eventually) set-off a nuclear device (or some other weapon of mass destruction) either in Israel or the U.S. (or both). When that happens, it will change EVERYTHING. I guarantee you that the reponse to THAT will not even remotely resemble the post-Vietnam era.

CyberCipher on January 29, 2007 at 1:07 PM

Off topic but it looks like the AP is “walking back” the whole Jamil Hussein is real. As I said from the beginning there is no “Jamil Hussein” and when people like Allah here go and apologize when no one has ever seen this Hussein fellow just shows how spineless we on the right can be.

Capitalist Infidel on January 29, 2007 at 1:09 PM

One war is still going on and we think it ended many years ago, and another war has ended and we don’t realize it.

If the Cold War is over, then why is Iran allowed to build a nuke? If the Cold War were over, Russia and the US would be working together on , umm… anything.

When WWII “ended” in 1945, then we began the long process of rebuilding Japan and Germany. Didn’t the Iraq “War” end no later than the day of the purple fingers?

Since we have not already declared Victory in Iraq, I am having trouble visualizing when/how we do that. Help me.

faraway on January 29, 2007 at 1:10 PM

Bush uses the most accurate description of what we are dealing with in Iraq.

It is the defining idealogical battle of our time.

We defeated one in WWII, but the communist threat arose from it’s ashes. We defeated the Soviet Union threat and kosovo rose from those ashes. The appeasers of terrorists thought they defeated the terrorists desire to kill us. They were wrong, and from the wake of those appeasements, rose a bigger more powerful enemy.

We will have to continue to battle these idealogical issues until the end of time. We can fight them now, or we can delay them so our children can fight them, but one way or another, we will have to fight them or be consumed by them.

csdeven on January 29, 2007 at 1:14 PM

csdeven on January 29, 2007 at 1:14 PM

Nice description of the current state and a good reminder that worked for one conflict is not necessarily the answer for subsequent conflicts. Unfortunately, too many people want to discount that “win the hearts and minds” part of Bush’s speech outlining the need for a victory.

And even if we do everything right in the current struggle there will be continued struggles till the end of time.

Bradky on January 29, 2007 at 1:18 PM

faraway on January 29, 2007 at 1:10 PM

Iran had almost nothing to do with the Soviet Union during the cold war. Since our bomber and missile crews haven’t been pulling nuclear alert due to the Soviet threat for the last 15 years or so I’d say it is a good indicator the cold war is indeed over.

It took seven years to get governments reestablished in Japan and Germany and many more years of support to help them get back on track. We should expect that Iraq will be no different and possibly more difficult.

Bradky on January 29, 2007 at 1:22 PM

I disagree Bryan, history will view this as a major victory. Iraq will be a free nation and it’s army will fight against islamopignazis alongside us, Canada, Britain and Australia. The rest of the world will submit to islam.

As for pulling out, yeah pull out some, however, we need to have some forces in Iraq, say in Kurdistan, close to the Iranian border. Send some there, send some to Afghanistan, also close to the Iranian border (and Paki border) and some back to the U.S. and Europe … NEW Europe, closer to the hot spots. But don’t do it until ALL of Iraq is under Iraqi control, THEN we’ll have a true victory.

History will view this as a win for freedom and a severe blow to the caliphate.

Tony737 on January 29, 2007 at 1:26 PM

Cold or hot war it was a significant win because of the men and women who served during a 40+ year period and by maintaining strength ensured peace.

Agreed – but it’s a straw man in this context. The subject is hot wars, not cold ones. There is a difference.

I guess the 37 US troops lost in those two police actions really don’t count then. Read the history on them and you will see they were part of a bigger strategic outlook.

Were those long, hard slogs – or were they won in a matter of weeks (if even that long). See Bryan’s point about “Achilles heel” again, since you obviously didn’t get it the first time.

As for the first Gulf war the objective was not the fall of Iraq. We met the objective, hence won.

Keep telling yourself that – which continues to prove Bryan’s point right.

Our country stands for a lot more than totally destroying a civilian population. Not sure why you get such a hard on about mass killing but you do. In my book our country doesn’t stand for that kind of approach and never has. Force applied judiciously, not indiscriminately.

Where did I ever say that force has to be applied indiscriminately? Show me where, in ANY post on HotAir that I’ve said such a thing.

What I object to in the present conflict in Iraq is the fact that our forces, as in Vietnam and to some degree in Korea, have been forced to fight with their hands tied behind their backs with overly restrictive rules of engagement that prioritized the prevention of colateral damage over achieving victory (among other considerations that have been given priority). Our April 2004 pullback in Fallujah was prime example; the failure to kill al-Sadr and wipe out his militia is another example; the ability of insurgents to use mosques as effective safe houses at various times of the present conflict by placing them off limits is another example.

Reacting differently – the way we should have – to any of those situations would have almost certainly resulted in more civilian casualties and colateral damage at that time. Over the long haul though, it would have resulted in less, just as two atom bombs dropped on Japan resulted in far less casualties than an invasion would have. And what we’ve needed to do in Iraq fell orders of magnitue short of that, yet our leaders and many civilians can’t even allow our forces to do even that much.

As for f%$% myself, wouldn’t that be encouraging “gay” acts and be counter to your opinion?

Bradky on January 29, 2007 at 12:57 PM

I couldn’t care less about another person’s boinkery, as long as it’s between consenting adults. But I would say to anyone who accuses me of insulting our men and women in uniform the same thing I said to you for doing the same.

thirteen28 on January 29, 2007 at 1:29 PM

As a Democrat moment dawns, the American moment ends.

We’re all tired of Vietnam Syndrome. Get ready for Iraq Syndrome. And get ready to lose some wars in the coming century.

That has to be one of the most powerful quotes I’ve read in a long time. Well said.

One Angry Christian on January 29, 2007 at 1:41 PM

Where did I ever say that force has to be applied indiscriminately? Show me where, in ANY post on HotAir that I’ve said such a thing. thirteen28 on January 29, 2007 at 1:29 PM

Be careful what you ask for

We could have nuked Fallujah and we’d still have the moral high ground over the sick monsters who are destabilizing Iraq. Our biggest problem is that they aren’t afraid of us.
sandberg on January 8, 2007 at 5:56 PM
I love when someone gets it and can cut through the muck right to the core of the problem – as sandberg just did. Simple, yet brilliant, and absolutely true in every respect.
thirteen28 on January 8, 2007 at 6:46 PM

Bradky on January 29, 2007 at 1:47 PM

Touche’ – although the real point was posession of the moral high ground. I don’t actively advocate nuking Fallujah, but as I said there, we’d still have the moral high ground over the insurgents if we did.

thirteen28 on January 29, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Conventional wisdom will not interpret any of this as a victory. If I’m right conventional wisdom in 20 years will dub Iraq a stupid war based on lies and George Bush’s debacle. The history of Saddam’s perfidy and crimes throughout the 1990s won’t figure in much. In fact, it’s already ancient history to most Americans. Iraq will be seen as a victory for the insurgents and terrorists over the US, and a victory of the Democrats over President Bush, but not a battlefield victory for the US military. As a Democrat moment dawns, the American moment ends.
We’re all tired of Vietnam Syndrome. Get ready for Iraq Syndrome. And get ready to lose some wars in the coming century.

I agree with absolutely all of that. Which is why I’m in favor of immediate withdrawal. We could win the war if it was only the red states fighting it, but you go to war with the public you have, not the public you would like to have.

Enrique on January 29, 2007 at 1:53 PM

Fallujah’s population is around 200,000. Your own words undercut your claims — kill 200,000 people to get a couple of thousand terrorists?

Guess you subscribe to the Clinton philosophy of “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”

Bradky on January 29, 2007 at 1:55 PM

I agree with absolutely all of that. Which is why I’m in favor of immediate withdrawal. We could win the war if it was only the red states fighting it, but you go to war with the public you have, not the public you would like to have.

Enrique on January 29, 2007 at 1:53 PM

How silly! We fight with armies, air forces, navy, marines and coast guard not individual states. They defend all fifty states not just a select few.

Bradky on January 29, 2007 at 1:58 PM

Given the right mission and the right tools, our troops will win any war. Even given a mission that morphed over time and having equipped them with too few of the tools they needed, they’re still winning in Iraq. But what’s going on in Iraq is only one part of the war in Iraq. Most of the war is actually going on here, it’s political and hinges on morale, and it’s here that we stand a very good chance of losing the war.

Very interesting analysis. One problem is that we are fighting a war, and the media and a large segment of the population don’t even know what core beliefs we are fighting for, and don’t even consider ourselves or our values better than the enemy.

A great example of this disconnect is given in the Examiner article on Drudge right now about Obama, who states that we are not a “Christian” nation and actually calls us a “Muslim nation.”

http://www.examiner.com/a-534540~Can_a_past_of_Islam_change_the_path_to__president_.html

If we don’t know who we are, what our history is, and that we even have core Christian, Western values, how can we be expected to win a war?

januarius on January 29, 2007 at 2:00 PM

Fallujah’s population is around 200,000. Your own words undercut your claims — kill 200,000 people to get a couple of thousand terrorists?

Guess you subscribe to the Clinton philosophy of “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”

Bradky on January 29, 2007 at 1:55 PM

How many people have been killed in Iraq since then? And how many more will be killed if we pull out short of totally pacifying Iraq?

The number of the former is already in the tens of thousands with no end in sight. The number of the latter would exceed 200,000 in very short order.

So my question to you is this – would you rather

1) kill up to 200,000 in one swift stroke if it brought the violence to a halt (for fear of continued harsh reprisals from us),

or would you rather

2) the killing continue on indefinitely, with the ensuing loss of support on the U.S. homefront (which has occurred) and the sectarian violence that will occur in greater magnitude then anything we’ve seen up to this point if we pull out before Iraq is pacified (which is more likely now given the loss of support on the homefront)?

Don’t try to puss out by saying “neither” because those are the two choices you get – bad and worse.

thirteen28 on January 29, 2007 at 2:04 PM

First off I won’t be cowed into making a choice of your opinions just because you call me a name.

Second, you think I want a complete withdrawal. I don’t. We cannot afford to pull out at this point. It is a long term commitment. You are assuming all troops are going to be pulled out.

Third, your first option (not surprisingly) will inflame the region and ensure that we will never be successful and may as well pull out and prepare for the Iranian-Iraqi alliance as well as almost guaranteeing the detonation of a nuclear device, not a dirty bomb, in one or more of our major cities in short order.

Japan and Germany were our sworn enemies in WW2. Our actions in the post war years cemented new alliances and friendships that still persist today. These alliances were critical in dealing with the Chinese and Russians.
This is a precedent we should be striving for not some quick fix of nuclear destruction.

Bradky on January 29, 2007 at 2:13 PM

First off I won’t be cowed into making a choice of your opinions just because you call me a name.

As I thought, you’d puss out.

Second, you think I want a complete withdrawal. I don’t. We cannot afford to pull out at this point. It is a long term commitment. You are assuming all troops are going to be pulled out.

No, I assumed you are more of the business as usual type, let’s continue our presence over their with the same retarded kid gloves rules of engagement that have allowed the mess to develop this way in the first place. Nothing you’ve said would have made me think any differently.

Third, your first option (not surprisingly) will inflame the region and ensure that we will never be successful and may as well pull out and prepare for the Iranian-Iraqi alliance as well as almost guaranteeing the detonation of a nuclear device, not a dirty bomb, in one or more of our major cities in short order.

Your premise is based on the wussy idea of “if we hit them hard, they’ll just get more mad at us”, when the opposite is true. Yet our failure to hit them hard has bought us absolutely nothing – just more violence against both our own troops and against civilians.

Your point about a dirty bomb is wrong too. We pulled back from our initial assault on Fallujah in April 2004. By your logic, islamofascists would be less likely to hit us with a nuke or dirty bomb based on that pullback, since we obviously avoided “inflaming” them. If you believe that show of weakness made us less likely to get hit with a nuke or dirty bomb then you’re crazy.

Machiavelli’s observation that it is better to be feared than loved was not an accident, nor was it a moral judgement. You obviously don’t understand this.

And you’re worried about Iraq-Iran alliances? You obviously haven’t been paying much attention, because Malliki has already been hedging his bets on that one while al-Sadr is practically Iran’s advocate in Iraq. Yeah, a lot of good your more restrained approach did in preventing a potential Iraq-Iran alliance.

Japan and Germany were our sworn enemies in WW2. Our actions in the post war years cemented new alliances and friendships that still persist today. These alliances were critical in dealing with the Chinese and Russians.

We could not have cemented alliances with those countries had we not completely and utterly defeated them and destroyed their will to continue fighting first. But back then we had leaders that were willing to do what was necessary – even if it was ugly and inhumane. They knew that letting the conflict drag out was even more inhumane, so we pulverized both countries and broke their will to fight.

As far as Iraq goes, the insurgents and those that give them support, either moral, political, or materiel are our sworn enemies as well.

This is a precedent we should be striving for not some quick fix of nuclear destruction.

The precedent we should be striving for is victory – by whatever means are necessary to achieve it.

thirteen28 on January 29, 2007 at 2:33 PM

Problem with the update analysis…

If you bother to read a bit of history, and not the revisionist history written by the antiwar movement, Press, and Congress… we did win Viet Nam.

Peace treaty in place? check..
POWs back… yep…
Large Scale combat??? not for the 2 years AFTER the treaty..

North Viet Nam has released a lot of their documents from that time, and THEY say they would not have attacked if the promise of support from American Airpower was still a threat. They only attacked AFTER CONGRESS Surrendered.

We were never defeated in Viet Nam, it was given away by our own internal politics… by the SAME people who are about to give IRAQ away…

Those who don’t know history, are doomed to repeat it…

Romeo13 on January 29, 2007 at 2:48 PM

North Viet Nam has released a lot of their documents from that time, and THEY say they would not have attacked if the promise of support from American Airpower was still a threat. They only attacked AFTER CONGRESS Surrendered.

Absolutely. As long as they had reason to FEAR us, they would not attack. Once our congress removed any reason for them to fear, the attack was on.

Fear works. Thus …

Those who don’t know history, are doomed to repeat it…

Romeo13 on January 29, 2007 at 2:48 PM

Bingo.

thirteen28 on January 29, 2007 at 2:58 PM

grrr … meant to blockquote the first paragraph in addition to the highlights.

thirteen28 on January 29, 2007 at 2:59 PM

Cold War?

Bradky

Wishful thinking. Seems to me Russia just changed its tactics and is still at war with us, they are trying to enable others to do us in so that they might keep their hair unmussed.

Didn’t they announce a couple of years ago that they developed a way to penetrate our missile defenses? Sounds to me like something a cold war enemy might claim.

Sure, they tore down the wall, but communism isn’t dead. We have communists like Chavez threatening us on our own land mass now and it’s likely to spread right along with democracy. The parasites eventually win in a democracy and the Pinochets are no longer supported to keep them at bay.

Then we have our own Democrats who are indistinguishable from communists except for their incrementalist methods and their unwillingness to defend their own nation.

Perchant on January 29, 2007 at 3:25 PM

The unfortunate (inconvenient?) truth of all this is pretty simple:

– There are people, a lot of them, who don’t really want peace. Always have been. Currently, the Middle East has more than its fair share. Until the vast majority want peace (or are at least willing to destroy the minority that doesn’t), the violence will continue. Or – until one side obliterates the other. It’s the human condition, and it has always been thus. The only thing that makes Islamofascists special is that they’ve fused their zealotry with a mainstream religion (or at least convinced themselves they have).

- In the United States, there is a small (but loud, annoying, well-funded, and media savvy) part of the population that absolutely LIVES for it’s own self hatred. The truth is that most liberals *LOVE* the Iraq war because it gives their lives meaning. It isn’t exaggeration to say that the far left looks back at Vietnam with fondness … and they are loving the current conflict. When the war is over, when George Bush is gone, they’ll be aimless and lost. And they know it. The damage they do to all of us doesn’t concern them at all … as long as they can lie to themselves about the importance of Jane Fonda’s latest crusade.

The irony, of course, is that both groups are opposite sides of the same coin. The fanatics in the Middle East need the conflict to spread their hate – and liberals in the West need the conflict so they have something to hate.

Just ask the question: what exactly would liberals (and the Islamofascists) do and say and feel if tomorrow Iraq became a peaceful, stable democracy?

If you think liberals – who claim to want peace – would be pleased with that result, then you just aren’t paying attention.

Professor Blather on January 29, 2007 at 3:30 PM

The precedent we should be striving for is victory – by whatever means are necessary to achieve it.

thirteen28 on January 29, 2007 at 2:33 PM

Like the liberals you profess to despise you can only resort to name calling and singing silly mantras such as the one above or like the liberals “why can’t we all just get along?”. Unlike the liberals you despise you will only be satisfied when the nukes are unleashed – as long as it is not on people other than brown or yellow ones.

I am comforted by the fact that there are few people with your outlook in charge of our nation’s military.

And aligned with people like Penchant who classify those who disagree with their opinion as communists worthy of destruction you sign onto the agenda to change the greatest democracy in history into the fourth Reich – equally as distasteful as those who advocate giving away everything to multicultural leanings and losing our identity in a slow process.

Bradky on January 29, 2007 at 3:45 PM

Professor Blather, you are a delight!

How silly! We fight with armies, air forces, navy, marines and coast guard not individual states. They defend all fifty states not just a select few.

Bradky on January 29, 2007 at 1:58 PM

Bradky, I wouldn’t have expected this from you but this comment was profound and uncontestable. Great!

Entelechy on January 29, 2007 at 3:46 PM

Like the liberals you profess to despise you can only resort to name calling and singing silly mantras such as the one above or like the liberals “why can’t we all just get along?”.

I’ve done plenty of substantive argument on the topic at hand in this very thread. You would rather take the easy way out instead of addressing said arguments. Hence, one of the points I’ve been making all along, and one of the points of this thread. You want a hassle-free argument instead of choosing amongst several ugly choices, like so many in this country today. But in doing so, you and those like you are not preventing that which you seek to avoid – you are just ignoring it, while creating conditions for more dire consequences in the future.

Murphy was right – the hard way is always easier. Too bad most people don’t realize that.

thirteen28 on January 29, 2007 at 3:56 PM

Let’s face it, this is no longer our world. This is no longer the world we want. this is the world the islamofascists want – a world of filthy, bletting sheep to herd, and tio screw when nobody’s looking. our own president, the congenital retard we put into office and kept there because he swore todefend us, IS NO LONGER DEFENDING US. He can’t see past his own God-damned nose long enough to realize wht he’s capableof an what has to be done to ensure our success. And now he’re retreating from that success and taking us all with it, down into that black pit that is our iunev;itable future – the future tha our enemies withou & our fith column within are LONGING ofr.

You wonder why I’m nevker having any kids. Mark Steyn has yet ot see the truth aboutdeclining demograpics in Wwestern society- we’re not havinng kids anay longer because we know what kind iof HELL ON EARTH we’re brigning them,into.

And yeah I called in sick & stay ed home today so I cold get drunk. So f***ing what? IN another five years it won’t make a lick of diffrence what I did today, or whatany of us did.

mikeomatic on January 29, 2007 at 4:02 PM

The irony is, like most of history, good does prevail. In Vietnam, a loss I wish could have been prevented and should have, the death and destruction with us pulling out was devastating. But know we see, slowly emerging a new Vietnam, and in years capitalism will begin to supplant the existing doctrine. Japan, attacking and losing so many of its men, would have more than likely been involved in a more devastating war with China. One they would have lost, and they would have lost their civilization, instead we helped build them to become a world economic power. USSR, going through terrible withdrawls from its decades of socialist rule, it will eventually straigten out. Germany after…you get the picture. Human desire for freedom does prevail, maybe not in our timetable (or even lifetime), but it will prevail—even in the middle east also. They have tasted freedom, after 1,400 years of slavery mentality. And even though the shortsightness of a Kerry or Pelosi, or Biden, our planting the seed of freedom will grow. The U.S. is a shining example, put here (and I believe divinely) to plant that seed to other nations to shine the light of freedom into the homes and lives of everyday people. And from that will come a leader that will lead them to freedom. The cost of freedom is heavy, and the ones paying the cost rarely see the benefit–but the future generations will thank us for the sacrifice we have made. I am thankful for the unnamed thousands who gave their lives for my freedom here (hundreds of years ago, and decades ago), so it will be in every country our soldiers are engaged in a battle for freedom.

right2bright on January 29, 2007 at 4:50 PM

Ah.. right2bright…

You have a good point… BUT…

That is exactly why the Moslem religion, which can NOT function with Free Speech, Equal rights, and Freedom of Religion see us as a threat. They know that eventualy, as long as we exist, we are an example that their children WILL emulate.

We have to continue the good fight!!!

Romeo13 on January 29, 2007 at 5:09 PM

Romeo13 on January 29, 2007 at 5:09 PM

Always, that is our American heritage and destiny. Despite the efforts of the liberals to dilute that drive. There are always the ones on the sidelines whining and complaining. Always with a better idea after the fact, always second guessing, and never…never…with the endurance to finish the hard race, or fight the good fight.

“On the Plains of Hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions, who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait, and waiting–died! George W. Cecil

right2bright on January 29, 2007 at 6:01 PM

mikeomatic on January 29, 2007 at 4:02 PM

This was never your world, and it definately isn’t the world the terrorists “want.” I can guarantee you things would be quite a bit bleaker if it was the world they “wanted.”

If anyone wanted to “win” this war in Iraq as best as we could we’d have people petetioning for 500,000 more troops to be deployed and get it over with. No one in Congress or the White House wants that for purely personal political reasons, and because our military is incapable in it’s current state. It’s almost impossible to win a guerilla war with only 200k- troops.

Nonfactor on January 29, 2007 at 6:11 PM

“None are so hopelessly enslaved as those that falsely believe they are free, truth has been kept from the depths of their minds, by masters who fool them with lies, they feed them with falsehoods till wrong seems like right in their minds…”

Griz on January 29, 2007 at 6:20 PM

I agree it is here at home, where we are losing the war. So lets just sit here online and make jokes and watch our country come tumbling down. Let’s not ever form a united front and exercise OUR RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE to make a showing of solidaridy. Use it or loose it. We can If this thing is gonna bust out here in the states, are the Dems gonna order the hands off policy to the military like they did to the Capitol Police over the week end? Central Florida is experiencing multiple home invasion robberies and killings. Last night a roving band of six (6) gunnman went of a hold up spree! Last night an armed bandit pistol whipped a family robbed and raped two family mambers, in their home. Just yesterday there were at least four major heinous crimes reported on the local news in one day! These guys are totally null and void of respect for any authority. This sh#t is gettin played out on the streets just not by the Islamists, but by emboldened gang bangers. All the terrorist video is having an impact on the criminal element here in Central Fl. The Islamic brotherhood has infultrated out prisons and are recruting guys in this country. I wonder if this is the first fruits of their efforts. I think it is also partly influenced by the total disrespect our polititians are showing for this administration. Last year there were a record number of homicides in and around Orlando. After the Mexican invasion I don’t trust any statistics. I trust what I see in the world around me. I am questioning the cencus numbers too .

sonnyspats1 on January 29, 2007 at 7:02 PM

Somebody do something! Rally ! Local Rally. State Rally. National Rally. Good people for a good cause!

sonnyspats1 on January 29, 2007 at 7:06 PM

BEFORE ITS TOO LATE !

sonnyspats1 on January 29, 2007 at 7:06 PM

SONNY:
You mean we can excercise our ri9gh t to assemble and NOT get picke don by the cops as a result? somehow I think the cops wouldn’t care about our righ tof peaceabl eassembly if a bunhc of REpublicans scribbled “WE WON DAMMIT” graffiti on the Vietnam Memorial or some other moneument that the Dems hold dear -if they do hold ANY MONUMEnt dear. Meanwhile the war protesters can get away with murder practically and the cops dont lift a fukcing finger. The political piggys in DC arent on our side and I’m starting to suspect the cops arent eithe.r

mikeomatic on January 29, 2007 at 7:08 PM

How much time elapsed between the signing of the Declaration of Independence and final withdrawal of the British from Colonial North America? Call that the duration of the American Revolution. How much time elapsed between that British withdrawal and the ratification of the United States Constitution?

How much time elapsed between the unconditional surrender of Japan in WWII and the restoration of a sovereign Japanese government? I won’t ask the trick question of how much time elapsed between winning that war and the U.S. leaving Japan.

How much time elapsed between the surrender of Nazi Germany and the restoration of a sovereign German government to that nation? Ditto trick question about when we left Germany.

Bradky is correct. (Yes, I said that) We have won the WAR in Iraq, and now we face the responsibility of defeating an internal/external insurgency while helping the occupied nation, not in the RESTORATION, but in the creation of, a sovereign government.

Both Germany and Japan had republics. Yes, both were imperialistic, one under a monarchy and the other under a dictator, but the governmental structure for a free society pre-dated the war. None of that is true for Iraq. We must accept the completion of this task as the only proper thing to do post-invasion, as the victors over Sadaam’s regime.

Nonfactor, I don’t believe we need much more in the way of personnel on the ground in Iraq. We need proper ROEs, and until the provisional government can trust their own forces to provide regional stability, we need more freedom under martial laws to make and keep peace, instead of the ridiculously restrictive rules our forces currently operate under, in the name of PC.

Freelancer on January 29, 2007 at 7:21 PM

SONNY:
You mean we can excercise our ri9gh t to assemble and NOT get picke don by the cops as a result? somehow I think the cops wouldn’t care about our righ tof peaceabl eassembly if a bunhc of REpublicans scribbled “WE WON DAMMIT” graffiti on the Vietnam Memorial or some other moneument that the Dems hold dear -if they do hold ANY MONUMEnt dear. Meanwhile the war protesters can get away with murder practically and the cops dont lift a fukcing finger. The political piggys in DC arent on our side and I’m starting to suspect the cops arent eithe.r

mikeomatic on January 29, 2007 at 7:08 PM

I demand to be judged by the content of my post not the color of my spelling! I get it Mike. I promise to make a concerted effort with the help of Danial Webster! LOL

sonnyspats1 on January 29, 2007 at 7:28 PM

Daniel whoops lol

sonnyspats1 on January 29, 2007 at 7:30 PM

Our troops are amazing. If there is any deficiency to be claimed for Vietnam or Iraq wars, it is in the Washington leadership. Americans are not sold on the ability of the Iraqis to run a western-style democracy. The military objective, as I understand it, is security. Security is attainable with many more troops, but will not necessarily lead to Bush’s vision.

Valiant on January 29, 2007 at 7:35 PM

SONNY:

Not your fault. I appear to be ra;hter drunk at hte moment. Sorry everyone I’m sorry.

mikeomatic on January 29, 2007 at 8:45 PM

If Americans can’t handle an average (gasp!) three war casualties a day, then we’re heading for a goddamned hurtful wake up call of tens -or hundreds- of thousands of casualties at home to brutally remind our sleepwalking populace of how successful the current Iraqi battlefront in the global War against resurgent Islamic Imperialism really was.

The hysterical press and the crapulous Congress have distorted this fight into a de facto ‘loss’ long before it has even been properly understood or seriously engaged.

Without a leader who can articulate the actual mortal stakes involved in this War in a way that penetrates the p.c. (Religion of Peace) veil laid over this fateful enterprise to remain free and to defeat an intolerant theocratic tyranny, we will have to let a 9/11 squared level of pain eventually speak.

A house divided against itself… is the joy if the jihadists.

In the words of the pedophile prophet:

Fight against those who do not …embrace the true Faith… until they are utterly subdued.” ‘Repentence’ Sura 9:29-30.

There’s nothing in the Old or New Testament like it.

And there’s the bloody rub.

profitsbeard on January 29, 2007 at 10:18 PM

“…joy of the jihadists.”

(Which sounds like the name of a deodorant for suicide bombers, somehow.)

profitsbeard on January 29, 2007 at 10:23 PM

There’s nothing in the Old or New Testament like it.

Not entirely so. The Old Testament jews were ordered to utterly destroy the inhabitants of Canaan. They failed, first by presuming that they didn’t need God’s help at Ai after His victory at Jericho, and then by accepting a fraudulent peace deal with locals pretending to be from a distant land. Basically, whenever they forgot to follow God’s plan they screwed up. Just like we do today.

Outside of bringing His people into the promised land, no, God doesn’t command His own to initiate war against unbelievers. That’s because the God of creation places far less importance on the temporal in favor of the eternal, and would rather that unbelievers live long enough to choose for Him.

That doesn’t mean that given a noble cause you fight half-heartedly. If you choose to fight, there’s only one way. Fight so that your foe will never wish to fight again.

Freelancer on January 30, 2007 at 1:36 AM

Take yourself back to Sept 12, 2001. You are told that the administration is going to engage in, and win, the war on terror. What does that mean, you eagerly ask. Well, as per purposes of this discussion you are going to be allowed to peer into the future, it means: in 5 years:

-bin Laden remains at large
-Saddam and his henchmen will be ousted (you’ll assume Saddam was behind 9/11. No matter…)
-Iran will be actively pursuing a nuclear weapon
-Iran will be functional control of southern Iraq
-the good will and outrage 9/11 generated? The US is now considered the main threat to peace around the world
-going into the fifth year of a war of choice, according to our military leaders, we are not winning and the situation is dire
-the most powerful man in Iraq is a radical Shiite and enemy of the US
-our borders remain as porous as ever

Your response would have been what? Good job?

If I’m right conventional wisdom in 20 years will dub Iraq a stupid war based on lies and George Bush’s debacle.

20 years? Hardly.

honora on January 30, 2007 at 10:25 AM

Sigh… the mantra…

-Bin Laden has not been heard from for quite some time, even though his second in command is sitting in a TV studio somewhere???
-Saddam, who murdered many of his own people, had ties to terrorism (not Al Q, but other groups) and destabilized the region has been hung… and thats a BAD thing?
-Iran has been activley pursueing Nukes for years… didn’t just start.
-Iran is NOT in functional control of southern Iraq, and won’t be unless we surrender… leftist defeatist rhetoric. Talk to the soldiers, you get a different perspective than the one from the press.
-The world supported us after 9/11 not out of good will, but out of fear. They were afraid the 900 lb gorrilla was about to take the gloves off… we didn’t… we wimped.
-War is WAR… sometimes the enemy does smart things, but our leaders do NOT say we are loosing this war… at least not on the battlefeild… we are loosing an average of 3 soldiers a day, and have a KILL ratio that is astounding. The Press, and our politicians are giving the enemy hope. There is a DIRECT statistical correlation between Political Rhetoric here, and violence there.
-I take it you are talking Sadr? whose leaders are fleeing to Iran? who has had 100′s of his fighters arrested in the last couple of weeks?
-Borders? different subject.

Things are NOT as bad in Iraq as some with them to be.

Romeo13 on January 30, 2007 at 12:55 PM

There is a DIRECT statistical correlation between Political Rhetoric here, and violence there.
–Borders? different subject.

Things are NOT as bad in Iraq as some with them to be.

Romeo13 on January 30, 2007 at 12:55 PM

Really? Could you share this info–what is the exact correlation? The specific mathematical equation? I await with great anticipation this breakthrough.

And here I thought this was just the neo-con mis-direction knee jerk response–the reason that they weren’t really wrong after all.

And border security has nothing to do with the WOT? Interesting notion.

honora on January 30, 2007 at 1:58 PM

Saddam, who murdered many of his own people, had ties to terrorism (not Al Q, but other groups) and destabilized the region has been hung

He was hanged. Pictures are hung. (The other is known only to the several Mrs Husseins….Tacky, I know).

honora on January 30, 2007 at 2:00 PM

Really? Could you share this info–what is the exact correlation? The specific mathematical equation? I await with great anticipation this breakthrough.

And here I thought this was just the neo-con mis-direction knee jerk response–the reason that they weren’t really wrong after all.

The stories and “scandals” around Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, various alleged “massacres” and “rapes” of civilians by our soldiers, etc. have directly resulted in inflaming anger among jihadi Muslims and have also directly resulted in our troops having their hands tied more and more and the ROE being restricted to babysitting with flexicuffs.
If political rhetoric didn’t have any correlation to the war’s violence, then why the hell do OBL, Zarqarwi and Zawahiri address the Democrats and the political situation in their takfiri tapes and usually at election time?
You’re such a stitch, honora; you come here everyday trying to pretend that your Party of the Democrats (not Democrat-ics) isn’t on the side of the Enemy.

Jen the Neocon on January 30, 2007 at 2:12 PM

You’re such a stitch, honora; you come here everyday trying to pretend that your Party of the Democrats (not Democrat-ics) isn’t on the side of the Enemy.

Jen the Neocon on January 30, 2007 at 2:12 PM

Now you listen to me you stupid, stupid woman. You can blather on making no sense, but do not assume that my patriotism is less than it should be. Got it? I would be willing to bet I have contributed more to my country than you will ever

honora on January 30, 2007 at 2:18 PM

Honora… I’ll take your bet.

And go ahead and try to dismiss FACT because of a spelling error! Sorry, while you were probably in College learning rhetoric, I was off defending your rights…

Hanged, hung, executed… he’s gone.

And as to my assertion of violence and our own internal politics… do you for one second actualy believe that the bad guys don’t READ???? Don’t you get the FACT the Bin L and Zarq and the rest have stated that we CAN be beat because of our internal politics??? That it GIVES THEM HOPE and adds to the belief that an insurgency CAN win?

Gen Giap, head General of N. VietNam in his memoirs stated that they were ready to give up, but were given hope by the actions of the anti war movement… they figured out that if they could just hold on long enough, America would take itself out of the War…

Lebanon (was there), Mogadishu, Vietnam and even Desert Storm 1 (where our own internal politics would not allow us to finish the job… and by the way, there too…) all showed that we consider our own internal politics to be more important than VICTORY.

Can I show you a statistical formula? don’t have the numbers.. BUT as violence has escalated, so has the political divisiveness. The rhetoric of defeat… or… redeployment out of the combat zone… gives HOPE to our enemies. If they rachet up the violence, more Pols here shoot their mouths off, more PRESS prints their crap, and MORE Islamists believe we can be beat… JUST LIKE BIN L SAID WE COULD!!!!

There are ONLY 2 ways to win a war. You either have to take away the ability of your enemy to fight…. or the will.

In VietNam Op Linebacker II pummeled NVN until they could not sustain the ability to support its troops… which led to the peace table…

But we’d already lost the will to fight so Congress GAVE them the victory they could NOT get on the battlefield.

But thats the view from the MILITARY, not the Press and Congress who were guilty of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Romeo13 on January 30, 2007 at 2:36 PM

Romeo13 on January 30, 2007 at 12:55 PM

Good answer, of course that women answered with an insult and attacked someones language use (hanged, hung) as if she never makes a grammatical error. But she managed to change the subject, and tried to make you look dumb. A typical liberal. That women never posts when Reid’s hand is caught in the cookie jar, or that anti-semite Carter demands for fewer Jews, or when her friends defile the nations capitol. When caught in a lie, she runs and hides. Then when she thinks she has an advantage that women comes out and casts stones., and when that advantage disappears with facts she resorts to names calling. A supporter of Biden’s, who wants to divide a country into three as if it were a pie, what a foolish concept.
And a note to Jen (not that you need and wone to carry your water), or as that women calls you, you stupid, stupid womah (women? hung, hanged…oops). She can’t argue your points, so you became stupid. She can’t see that the evil factors of the middle east embrace her party, they must be the smart ones…you are the stupid one. You hate murderous dictators, that women and her party counts and seeks their support. You, Jen, are stupid for not accepting the support of Zarqarwi and Zawahiri. You may be stupid in her eyes, but you are the patriot. And being called stupid by that women, just means she has lost the debate. That women was hung out to dry.

right2bright on January 30, 2007 at 2:43 PM

And go ahead and try to dismiss FACT because of a spelling error! Sorry, while you were probably in College learning rhetoric, I was off defending your rights…

God I hate a self congratulatory military man. You are what my late husband (himself a career man) called a “professional veteran”. A little hint: wait for people to congratulate you on your service, it’s much more satisfying.

You make a statement like

There is a DIRECT statistical correlation between Political Rhetoric here, and violence there.

you need to be able to back it up. You don’t have the numbers? Then don’t make this very specific assertion.

honora on January 30, 2007 at 3:16 PM

Hey, now! Careful – you questioned her patriotism. You know that makes the anti-American left get all testy.

Be nice. Sure, you can go ahead and giggle at her suddenly hysterical protests. I am. Of course she lacks patriotism – duh! – but telling her that is just too easy. You know it always sets them off. Find a more interesting button to push.

Next thing you know, you’ll be “questioning the timing,” and then everything’ll go straight to Hell.

:)

Quick – Honora – tell us again about Johnson’s defeat in the 1968 presidential election. I still laugh at that one every time I see your name, you adorable nitwit.

Professor Blather on January 30, 2007 at 3:47 PM

you need to be able to back it up. You don’t have the numbers? Then don’t make this very specific assertion.

honora on January 30, 2007 at 3:16 PM

Coming from someone who when caught in the same act decided that the argument was not worth pursuing, and rather than admitting wrong, ran and hid.

Two instances: One when you called it the Reagan Amnesty bill, and two, when you said that Churchill was not elected because the Brits did not have forced air heating (although it did give me a great laugh).
Don’t call people out for what you are not capable of yourself.

right2bright on January 30, 2007 at 3:53 PM

Professor Blather on January 30, 2007 at 3:47 PM

I missed that one on Johnson, someday you must repeat it. Nothing like a liberals take on history for a good laugh.

right2bright on January 30, 2007 at 3:57 PM

Excuse me Honora, YOU were the one who brought up who had done what for this country…

Yes, and I see YOUR “support” for the troops here. Do I see a bit of personal animus towards military men??? Caused perhaps by your EX??? You know the self congragulatory miltary man?

As to being a “professional veteran”… uh… lets see… we’re talking WAR here… don’t you think the FACT that I’m a Vet, and been to WAR, just might give me a bit of a different perspective on it??? Tell me, besides being married to a vet, just what are your credentials to be talking about this subject? When I’m in my IT chats, I happen to talk about my IT Certs… here we’re talking WAR, so why shouldn’t I bring up what I learned from that time in my life.

As to your assertion that there has NOT been an increase in violence in Iraq in concert with the increased Partisan politics here in America??? Do you bother to read the paper?
Has violence gone DOWN? Has our own political infighting gone down? If you bother to READ our own enemies writings, don’t they talk about this VERY SUBJECT? You can argue which is cause, and which affect, but the facts ARE there.

I would also add, that by your own arguement, GLOBAL WARMING cannot exist, because there is NOT any study that prooves it is manmande. They look at statistical corelations… they have theories… but no PROOF. So, therefore, by your own standards of proof, it must not be true…

Romeo13 on January 30, 2007 at 4:04 PM

Coming from someone who when caught in the same act decided that the argument was not worth pursuing, and rather than admitting wrong, ran and hid.

Two instances: One when you called it the Reagan Amnesty bill, and two, when you said that Churchill was not elected because the Brits did not have forced air heating (although it did give me a great laugh).
Don’t call people out for what you are not capable of yourself.

right2bright on January 30, 2007 at 3:53 PM

Wait a minute, aren’t you the clown who advised me to read The Last Lion to inform myself about Churchill’s election loss after the war? Sadly unaware that that book covered Churchill’s life only until 1941? (A fact perhaps abridged from the Cliffs Notes?)

And, one more time, here is a link to an interview with Tancredo

http://www.cfr.org/publication/11141/tancredo.html

Note the passage:

We now have something to look at, historically speaking. The Simpson-Mazzoli Act in 1986 was almost exactly the same sort of situation, where we had massive illegal immigration—not quite as massive as what we’ve got [now], but relatively speaking as massive—we had the calls for amnesty, with the promise that if we provided that amnesty—essentially guest workers, creating a huge legalized work force, a cheap labor work force—if we were to do that, we were promised that there would be worksite enforcement, that Mexico would work with us to try to stem the flow of illegal aliens, and our problems would be solved.

That was twenty years ago. Of course we know that we did not just give amnesty to one million people—at the time that was the number given—we gave it to three million and we ended up with between fifteen and twenty million illegal aliens twenty years later. The reason you have to have the enforcement part first is because I don’t trust the administration to ever do the enforcement part if you give them any sort of guest worker opportunity.

This discussion started when I stated that RR’s bill in the 80′s gave amnesty in the same way the current McCain/Kennedy bill will. I seem to recall you then tried to go with the idea that the word amnesty did not appear in the 1986 bill; I countered that it doesn’t appear in the current bill either.

You never replied to that. Had time to think of another way out?

honora on January 30, 2007 at 4:15 PM

As to being a “professional veteran”… uh… lets see… we’re talking WAR here… don’t you think the FACT that I’m a Vet, and been to WAR, just might give me a bit of a different perspective on it??? Tell me, besides being married to a vet, just what are your credentials to be talking about this subject? Romeo13 on January 30, 2007 at 4:04 PM

So you are in disagreement with Ann Coulter on the idea that someone has a right to speak on a subject even if they have not been directly impacted by it?

I know plenty of military people and their spouses and let me say that the spouse makes a lot more sacrifices to support the country and their military husband or wife than almost anyone you can point to. You are a vet and you know this is true. Almost every military person to a fault readily acknowledges this.

Don’t be petty.

Bradky on January 30, 2007 at 4:27 PM

Excuse me Honora, YOU were the one who brought up who had done what for this country…

Yes, and I see YOUR “support” for the troops here. Do I see a bit of personal animus towards military men??? Caused perhaps by your EX??? You know the self congragulatory miltary man?

As to being a “professional veteran”… uh… lets see… we’re talking WAR here… don’t you think the FACT that I’m a Vet, and been to WAR, just might give me a bit of a different perspective on it??? Tell me, besides being married to a vet, just what are your credentials to be talking about this subject? When I’m in my IT chats, I happen to talk about my IT Certs… here we’re talking WAR, so why shouldn’t I bring up what I learned from that time in my life.

As to your assertion that there has NOT been an increase in violence in Iraq in concert with the increased Partisan politics here in America??? Do you bother to read the paper?
Has violence gone DOWN? Has our own political infighting gone down? If you bother to READ our own enemies writings, don’t they talk about this VERY SUBJECT? You can argue which is cause, and which affect, but the facts ARE there.

I would also add, that by your own arguement, GLOBAL WARMING cannot exist, because there is NOT any study that prooves it is manmande. They look at statistical corelations… they have theories… but no PROOF. So, therefore, by your own standards of proof, it must not be true…

Romeo13 on January 30, 2007 at 4:04 PM

He is my late husband. Meaning he’s dead. And being married to him gave me ample experience with military men (and women), enough to know that there are saints and sinners, geniuses and morons, all the usual combo, in the ranks of the military.

I really am not following your argument. Correlations are not causal relationships. The violence in Iraq has gotten worse while the stock market has gone up–is one the cause of the other? It’s a convenient excuse for a poor choice and more poor choices–it’s all the media, the anti-war movement, whine, whine, whine.

honora on January 30, 2007 at 4:32 PM

In the Citizens Report on Iraq, readers will learn that progress is being made in Iraq; there are large areas of Iraq that are safe and prospering; that the enemy is being killed and wounded in astounding proportion to American casualties; that the reporting on Iraq by the dominant media is universally despised as inaccurate and misleading by those fighting for Free Iraq — Americans and Iraqis alike; that the so-called antiwar movement, including the organizers of this past weekend’s protest in Washington, is led by terrorist supporting Marxists as part of a global alliance seeking America’s defeat in the Global War on Terror and that a prominent White House correspondent has allied herself with one of these groups.
The report includes frank interviews with dozens of Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans, their families and several Gold Star parents. Those who think their support for President Bush and victory in Iraq has waned will be sorely disappointed…
from Michelle Malkin today

Oops,

The violence in Iraq has gotten worse…honora on January 30, 2007 at 4:32 PM

You wish, and hope, that the violence is getting worse. You know, as all liberals know, that if things get better you will not regain the White House, and lose your majority in Congress. What a pathetic doctrine to hold onto. Hoping for the death and destruction of a country to gain power.

The violence isn’t getting worse, I think that is great news. Let’s all of us support our efforts for a free Iraq. While others will denounce it as not accurate because MSM and the DNC has not announced it.

You can hear the silence to good news…hello?

right2bright on January 30, 2007 at 4:47 PM

The violence isn’t getting worse, I think that is great news. Let’s all of us support our efforts for a free Iraq. While others will denounce it as not accurate because MSM and the DNC has not announced it.

You can hear the silence to good news…hello?

right2bright on January 30, 2007 at 4:47 PM

I see. So the media and the anti-war people aren’t having an effect. Well you’re making some progress.

I am still waiting for your reply to my above post. Hello??

honora on January 30, 2007 at 5:00 PM

The media and the anti-war people (actually, they’re pro-war, too, but as I said above, they’re just on the Other Side–How many Paleostinian kafiyehs were spotted at Sunday’s rally? I’d say quite a few.) are having an effect–they’re the cheerleaders for the IslamoNazis.
But thank God our American military, along with our Allied and Iraqi friends, can overcome even this now with a show of overwhelming force because President Bush and President Maliki (and even Tony Blair, I think) have allowed our guys to take off the gloves and fight like warriors.
Once our guys take off the gloves, all bets are off.
And no, missy, the violence isn’t getting worse–it’s getting a lot better.
300 bad guys killed the other day, 100 taken prisoner today…Bryan said he could see the surge happening last week and that means results and progress.
Maybe you listen to Rush who said today that the Democrats won’t allow the USA to win this war and will do everything in their power to see that America is defeated in Iraq..and the first weapon in that war is Propaganda, Josephina Goebbels!
This is a 2 front war–the war Over There in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war here at home, which is political and propagandistic.
The Left, which includes the Dhimmicrats, has joined common cause with the Islamofascists and any argument to the contrary that American Dems aren’t helping their jihadi “brothers” is just BS and at this point in the WO(IF)T is frankly pathetic and feeble.

Jen the Neocon on January 30, 2007 at 5:17 PM

So you are in disagreement with Ann Coulter on the idea that someone has a right to speak on a subject even if they have not been directly impacted by it?

I know plenty of military people and their spouses and let me say that the spouse makes a lot more sacrifices to support the country and their military husband or wife than almost anyone you can point to. You are a vet and you know this is true. Almost every military person to a fault readily acknowledges this.

Don’t be petty.

Bradky on January 30, 2007 at 4:27 PM

Not being petty here…

Tell me, you have two people talking about.. oh… physics.

One has studied it for most of his life, worked in the field, and is well educated on the subject…

One knew a physicist once.

They are proposing conflicting opinions on physics.

Don’t you think it would be important to KNOW their backgrounds?

I’ll never say that someone should not speak their opinion, but I WILL point out that their opinion is uninformed and why.

And this….

And being married to him gave me ample experience with military men (and women),

Hmmm… lets see… yep… wifeys experience therefore is clearly equal to my entire military career as a Navy retiree… guess I lost that one…

Romeo13 on January 30, 2007 at 5:44 PM

honora on January 30, 2007 at 4:15 PM

W

ait a minute, aren’t you the clown

always the snide comment. If you would have followed the links I gave you, you would have discovered the 250 or so pages (which I explained to you) of the next book. It had been circulating for awhile. You missed a great opportunity for a history lesson. I also pasted a name in there, that if followed would have confirmed this one you would have had to know and not just google).

Read the RR bill, it does not give amnesty. Get it? it provides a path, after a deliberate time and steps, for someone to be here legally. Just like know, if someone wants to enter legally they can. Reagans bill has nothing to do with the bills that are being proposed now, RR was a bill…never mind you won’t read it or understand it. You only want to argue.

You are the one who said it was an amnesty bill, I corrected you and challenged you to find the words amnesty in the bill. You couldn’t so you said because it wasn’t in this new bill it wasn’t in the old bill, I don’t know it didn’t make sense then or now. It is not an argument that something wasn’t there 20 years ago because it is not in some other different bill now. It was just to strange to respond to, I am a little embarrassed for you just bring it up. And now you are changing the argument again.
Tancredo can say what he wants, millions did earn the right to belong in this country. They were not given amnesty, let alone blanket amnesty. Look up Reagans bill and you will see that it was greatly different than what has been proposed. His was a path, just like probably your ancestors were given a path, to become a legal worker, legal resident, and hopefully a citizen. If they learned english, learned basic civics, did not violate the law, had proper jobs (proper being not paid in cash, but paid with all witholding and taxes taken out), being regestered, and other criteria.

I see. So the media and the anti-war people aren’t having an effect. Well you’re making some progress.
I am still waiting for your reply to my above post. Hello??
honora on January 30, 2007 at 5:00 PM

You just got through stating that Iraq is more violent. So now you are saying the media and anti-war are causing peace. You just said it was getting more violent, and then when pointed out that you are wrong and the violence is diminishing you are trying to take credit? Is this how you view history? When it turns to good you run and take credit, and when you perceive it as bad you blame others?

right2bright on January 30, 2007 at 5:57 PM

…the media and the anti-war people….

It just hit me how revealing and utterly damning the direct linking of these 2 groups actually is.
Oops, no-honor-a, you gave yourself away, except you forgot the 3rd group: Dhimmicrats.
And then there’s the 4th group–teachers and professors on all levels, from grade school up to and including graduate school.
The Left has been pretty busy infiltrating just about everything.
I’m surprised the Republic has survived this long and hasn’t turned into the USSR already, but I’m sure Hillary! will fix that.

Jen the Neocon on January 30, 2007 at 5:58 PM

Hmmm… lets see… yep… wifeys experience therefore is clearly equal to my entire military career as a Navy retiree… guess I lost that one…

Romeo13 on January 30, 2007 at 5:44 PM

You are dancing like the 9-11 widows in response to Coulter’s remarks.

Bradky on January 30, 2007 at 6:14 PM

Rush stated the obvious Jen, the left cannot afford to have us win the war. We all knew it, the liberals are publicly confirming it. It is failure at all costs. If we win, or have the perception of winning in 2008, the liberals will lose everything they hope to gain and have given. They will sell the country and the lives of our soldiers to gain a few seats in congress. They have to stop victory. Think that is an over-reaction? Look, you liberals, at the people who you align yourself with, they were on TV in DC over the weekend. This is who Honora, Shackler, and Jahere and other liberal posters have hopped into bed with. This is your party, you have choosen. A liberal posted the other day that it was strange how we conservatives move a Liberal to Communist to Marxist? Well look at DC over the weekend, and tell me that is not the progression. Those are the people and actions, who will be part of the DNC platform. I hope at the DNC convention that have a spit on the veteran booth, they could earn tons of money.

All of those brave liberals, funny how I can’t find one person that said they voted for Kerry.

right2bright on January 30, 2007 at 6:22 PM

right2bright, Amen.

Not only won’t these traitors admit to voting for Kerry, but I can’t find one person who said they voted Democrat in November…Who are these people?!?

Jen the Neocon on January 30, 2007 at 6:41 PM

Hmmm… lets see… yep… wifeys experience therefore is clearly equal to my entire military career as a Navy retiree… guess I lost that one…

Romeo13 on January 30, 2007 at 5:44 PM
You are dancing like the 9-11 widows in response to Coulter’s remarks.

Bradky on January 30, 2007
Question; Is it proper netiquete to butt in a conversation as personal as this? I believe Romeos remarks are directed to Honora from a previous post.

sonnyspats1 on January 30, 2007 at 6:52 PM

You are dancing like the 9-11 widows in response to Coulter’s remarks.

Bradky on January 30, 2007 at 6:14 PM

Sigh… false analogy.

From my perspective I’m neither a loud mouthed “celebrity”, nor someone who wasn’t there, but married to someone who was…

I’m more like the First Responder who survived…

But go ahead and be offended if you wish, but one of the drawbacks, and strengths, of the internet is anyone can give an opinion… no matter how educated, or boneheaded, it is.

Romeo13 on January 30, 2007 at 7:28 PM

Sigh… false analogy.

From my perspective I’m neither a loud mouthed “celebrity”, nor someone who wasn’t there, but married to someone who was…

I’m more like the First Responder who survived…

But go ahead and be offended if you wish, but one of the drawbacks, and strengths, of the internet is anyone can give an opinion… no matter how educated, or boneheaded, it is.

Romeo13 on January 30, 2007 at 7:28 PM

Offended? No just pointing out correctly that you wrapped yourself in the “moral authority” of having worn the uniform and belittled a spouse’s role in diminishing the value of their opinion.

Definitely not behavior consistent with one of Queen Coulter’s pet peeves.

Now put those shoes on and dance…..

Bradky on January 30, 2007 at 10:23 PM

Bradky, way to go hijacking the thread over an argument that is one-step dumber than the “chicken-hawk” argument of the Left!
Look, NOhonora completely dissed my contribution to my country and the only moral authority I can claim is that my father, uncles, great uncles, great-grandfather, etc.,etc. going back to the Revolutionary War have all fought in America’s wars and one in the battle for the Republic of Texas.
I do have one qualification to have my opinion on the war–I pay taxes (lots!) and I vote, which last time I looked was all you needed to participate in American governance.
Oh, and I care about what happens to my country and the world.
So does Romeo13 and so does Ann Coulter.
At least in our cases, our opinions are informed and we believe in American exceptionalism, which is something Miss “military widow” can’t claim.
Now you put on your dancing shoes because you are insulting to almost all of us.
We’re not pulling out of Iraq anytime soon, just like our troops are still in Kosovo, Bosnia, Japan, Korea and until lately, Germany and have been there for decades.
Iraq is a long-term committment and the sooner the Leftist Democrats get used to it, the better and our soldiers (note: not vets and not widows or spouses of our vets) all say they want to stay and accomplish the mission!

Jen the Neocon on January 31, 2007 at 5:59 AM

Jen the Neocon on January 31, 2007 at 5:59 AM

NOhonara is interesting, when we talked about war she is a “vet widow”, when the thread turned to anti-semite, her husband is Jewish, when we talked about beauty pagents (the brouhaha over Trump) her daughter went to school with one of contestants or was her best friend or something, when we talked about medical, her daughter is in med. school, when we talked about Churchill, she had studied Churchill extensivly. Get the picture?
You and I, you are a “stupid, stupid, stupid woman”, and I am that “clown” who gave her a key to one of the most sought after history books (Manchester’s last book which is not in print and about half written by him before he died), and the great history buff didn’t take advantage.

right2bright on January 31, 2007 at 8:00 AM

Jen,
1. I didn’t hijack an argument
2. Which war did YOU serve in?
3. Just where in the constitution does it say the amount of taxes you pay defines who gets to express their opinion or vote.
4. Democrats and I (my party is not the issue) support America
5. I support a long term commitment as well and have stated so.
6. The Ann Coulter reference is relevant because she was very outraged that some people claim the moral high ground to voice their opinion and trump other’s rights to do so (the 9-11 widows specifically). This is exactly what you and Romeo did by claiming that paying taxes or wearing the uniform gave you more authority to speak out and others less authority.
7. Because you say your opinion is informed doesn’t make it so anymore than saying that those with whom you disagree are automatically uninformed.
8. Romeo seems to be looking for a dance partner so go on out there and dance…….

Bradky on January 31, 2007 at 8:06 AM

Bradky on January 31, 2007 at 8:06 AM

She can handle all of your other stupid statements and accusations. However number 7 needs to be answered by someone other than her. She can say her opinion is informed because of the hundreds of posts she has made and the paper trail of logic and insight she has provided us. You have not provided anything of real reason for us to learn from, just anger–never discussion. We read what she writes, than we look at what you write, then we compare. Well let’s just say you fall a little short of her intellect and ability to communicate an idea, and leave it at that.
The shame, is after taking you apart (if she wants to waste the time on your other 6 issues) you will not get it. You are in for the fight, not the knowledge you could gain from someone like her.

right2bright on January 31, 2007 at 8:29 AM

ou are in for the fight, not the knowledge you could gain from someone like her.

right2bright on January 31, 2007 at 8:29 AM

Ahh right2bright taking on the Knight in Shining armor role for the fair Jen. LOL LOL.

Yes….. I could gain the inflexible moral superiority that she claims, I could gain the intolerance toward anyone that thinks differently,I could call people stupid because that is the best counterargument I am capable of, right……

Not interested but go ahead and drink of that koolaid.

Angry? Are you capable of channeling Freud?

Bradky on January 31, 2007 at 9:02 AM

Not interested but go ahead and drink of that koolaid.

Angry? Are you capable of channeling Freud?

Bradky on January 31, 2007 at 9:02 AM

Thank you for proving my point.

right2bright on January 31, 2007 at 9:14 AM

Thank you for proving my point.

right2bright on January 31, 2007 at 9:14 AM

That you are a hopeless lemming? Sure, no problem. Now go back to your moonie fascination with the extreme right.

Bradky on January 31, 2007 at 9:50 AM

NOhonara is interesting, when we talked about war she is a “vet widow”, when the thread turned to anti-semite, her husband is Jewish, when we talked about beauty pagents (the brouhaha over Trump) her daughter went to school with one of contestants or was her best friend or something, when we talked about medical, her daughter is in med. school, when we talked about Churchill, she had studied Churchill extensivly. Get the picture?
You and I, you are a “stupid, stupid, stupid woman”, and I am that “clown” who gave her a key to one of the most sought after history books (Manchester’s last book which is not in print and about half written by him before he died), and the great history buff didn’t take advantage.

right2bright on January 31, 2007 at 8:00 AM

Are you aware of how stalker-like you are? Do you save all my posts?

I have been married twice, and yes, my second husband is Jewish. My daughter attends med school where a past Miss America is enrolled. I never said I studied Churchill extensively, rather that I had read quite a bit about him and therefore was surprised that someone hinting at some level of knowledge was unaware that Churchill’s loss was due to the Brits rejecting the status quo and demanding a more equitable distribution of income post-war–the cental heating comment being a well known bit of short hand for that.

I have to ask you to stop stalking me, it’s creepy.

honora on January 31, 2007 at 12:24 PM