McCain: Retreat and re-invasion a dangerous and costly strategy
posted at 8:32 am on April 7, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
John McCain will directly target Barack Obama in a speech this morning at the VFW at its national headquarters in Kansas City, Missouri. McCain will highlight Obama’s suggestion that we can pull our troops out of Iraq, but then reinsert them if terrorists show up and start causing trouble. Even apart from the stupidity of not recognizing that al-Qaeda is already in Iraq now and causing trouble, McCain outlines exactly what that policy would mean — a costly and dangerous re-invasion that would kill a lot more civilians and Americans:
Today these goals are within reach. “Never despair,” Winston Churchill once said. And we did not despair. We were tested, and we rose to the challenge. Some political leaders close their eyes to the progress that the surge has made possible, and want only to argue about the past. We can have that debate. I profoundly disagree with those who say we would all be better off if we had left Saddam Hussein in power. Americans should be proud that they led the way in removing a vicious dictator and opening the door to freedom, stability, and prosperity in Iraq and across the Middle East.
But the question for the next President is not about the past, but about the future and how to secure it. Our most vital security interests are at stake in Iraq. The stability of the entire Middle East, that volatile and critically important region, is at stake. The United States’ credibility as a moral and political leader is at stake. How to safeguard those interests is what we should be debating.
There are those who today argue for a hasty withdrawal from Iraq. Some would withdraw regardless of the consequences. Others say that we can withdraw now and then return if trouble starts again. What they are really proposing, if they mean what they say, is a policy of withdraw and re-invade. For if we withdraw hastily and irresponsibly, we will guarantee the trouble will come immediately. Our allies, Arab countries, the UN, and the Iraqis themselves will not step up to their responsibilities if we recklessly retreat. I can hardly imagine a more imprudent and dangerous course.
Over the past year, the counterinsurgency strategy of General Petraeus has been based on the premise that establishing greater security in Iraq is indispensable to advancing political reconciliation and economic reconstruction; to making diplomatic progress in the region; and to preparing the Iraqi military to assume its responsibilities to defend the sovereignty of Iraq and the authority of its elected government. Should the United States withdraw from Iraq before that level of security is established those goals will be infinitely harder if not impossible to attain. Al Qaeda in Iraq will proclaim victory and increase its efforts to provoke sectarian tensions in Iraq into a full scale civil war that could descend into genocide and destabilize the Middle East. Iraq would be a failed state that could become a haven for terrorists to train and plan their operations. Irans influence in Iraq – especially southern Iraq – and throughout the region would increase substantially and encourage other countries to seek accommodation with Tehran at the expense of our interests. These likely consequences of America’s failure in Iraq would, almost certainly, require us to return to Iraq or draw us into a wider and far costlier war.
Basically, Obama makes the same argument as the John Murtha “redeploy over an event horizon” strategy did in 2005. It envisions a months-long withdrawal from Iraq and the stationing of the entire force somewhere where it can be redeployed back into Iraq if needed. That strategy misses a couple of key points, the first being where exactly the forces will go. Who will take 150,000 American troops retreating in the face of terrorist action? What country will volunteer to have the terrorists enter their nation, as they certainly would to keep America on the retreat from the region?
Murtha suggested Okinawa, about 7,000 miles from Iraq — which leads us to the second stupidity of this strategy. Once we pull out of Iraq, we would have to stage a re-invasion to enter it again when terrorists renew their efforts to destroy the elected Iraqi government. If we’re doing it from Qatar and Kuwait, it will be costly enough to move 150,000 American troops across a country the size of Iraq. If we’re doing it from Okinawa or the US, it will dwarf the current cost structure of the Iraqi engagement. It will result in hundreds of dead soldies and tens of thousands of Iraqi casualties, and that’s before we start re-enacting the Second Battle of Fallujah all across Iraq.
And all of that assumes that we will have the political will to re-invade Iraq to fight terrorists. Barack Obama doesn’t want to fight the terrorists already in Iraq now. Why should we trust that he will want to fight them at some later date? Why would the governments in the region have any confidence in our determination to do so if we retreat now? If we leave Iraq, the Iraqis know we won’t come back under an Obama administration — and Iraq will have to start cutting deals with militias and al-Qaeda , allowing radicalism to flourish and to have a steady oil income.
Expect McCain to hit this hard over the coming months. An American withdrawal now makes it almost impossible to rescue Iraq or anyone else in the region later. A leader with experience and vision understands this — and Obama has neither.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Funny, as soon as I heard Sen. Obama say he would withdraw and return if needed I said this.
And I said the SAME THING in 1991 when I was getting on a helicopter with my buds in the 101st.
“We’ll be back, and it’s going to HURT next time.”
I think I need to be in charge for a while.
Mortis on April 7, 2008 at 8:38 AM
Last year, I suggested to redeploy our troops from Iraq to Siberia but the Pentagon objected, I don’t know why.
I thought the farther, the better.
Indy Conservative on April 7, 2008 at 8:39 AM
Squash the oxygen out of Obama’s subterfuge.
maverick muse on April 7, 2008 at 8:47 AM
Obama wants to pullout,and then send in a STRIKE TEAM!
Ummm,before Obama gets the codes to the Nuclear football,
can someone sit him down for a video game,like Call of Duty
4,Ummm he scored 37 in bowling,just sayin!
canopfor on April 7, 2008 at 8:49 AM
The immediate gratification crowd really doesn’t think down the road any further than the first week of November — They want to be able to defeat Bush in some aspect of foreign policy, and that’s all that really counts. The consequences of getting to feel good about themselves over doing it is of no current concern, so McCain’s speech won’t make them change their minds
It might force Obama to actually have to address the situation, but whenever one of his advisers makes the mistake of coming close to the truth about the Middle East situation, they’re all but locked in an attic to keep from angering Barak’s core supporters. And the candidate’s voting record on controversial issues where people are paying attention shows that, facing a tough decision, Obama will kick the can down the road as long as possible in hopes the problem will simply go away.
jon1979 on April 7, 2008 at 8:53 AM
Excellent – go on the OFFENSE for once. So tired of the Republicans playing defense. Bring the sledgehammer down onto the donkey’s skull for once.
Push Obama further into the arms of his lunatic left base and provoke them into making the sort of statements that will kill his candidacy.
The more details Obama is forced to supply, the phonier he will become.
NoDonkey on April 7, 2008 at 8:55 AM
This is what I’ve been pointing out to people for a few years now. The question of whether we should have invaded Iraq in the first place is a fair question (I happen to think it was the right decision), but should not factor into the equation of what to do now.
These idiots advocating immediate withdrawal for
the sake of Iraqpolitical expediency are unbelievable.flipflop on April 7, 2008 at 8:57 AM
I am still baffled by how the left is oblivious to the lessons learned from Somolia (and the aftermath of their pullout).
And you people (liberals) want them elected and then have the audacity to ignore that turmoil but cry about human rights elsewhere hoping no one will notice the oppression and suffering that we could have prevented if we (you liberals and Clintonistas) hadn’t pulled out?
Yep. Makes sense. I’m converted now. Go Obama! *sarcasm off*
El Guapo on April 7, 2008 at 8:59 AM
And that’s the rub for Dhimocrats.
davidk on April 7, 2008 at 9:03 AM
Exactly!!! There is naivete that is so sweet, but it is dangerous. People honestly think that once Pres. Bush is out of office, the threat from terrorism will suddenly disappear. Everyone will join hands on a hill and sing “Imagine” ala the Coke commercial. There will be dancing and hugging and laughing. And peace, there will be peace at all costs.
Obama appeals to that. He has no strategy for anything – just “withdraw from Iraq” and seek understand of terrorists or insurgents or whatever the heck they call themselves now. The 25 million Iraqis – well, who cares? What Ahmadinejad, Assad and the other despots in the region think, well, who cares as long as FRANCE likes America again. Obama is the candidate for lazy, uninformed voters who just want simple, childish answers that do not work in a world that sucks.
And finally, remember how well appeasement worked with ol’ Adolf? Yeah, I predict a larger, much more devastating war will occur if Obama gets in.
mjk on April 7, 2008 at 9:03 AM
Worth repeating.
davidk on April 7, 2008 at 9:05 AM
Can someone please remind Barrack that when you are President, you can’t simply vote “present” on important matters… or claim later that you really meant to vote one way but “accidentally” voted another.
Would an Obama presidency be one long series of catastrophic decisions, followed by “speeches” telling us why we should really blame ourselves for the mess he’s gotten us into?
Sugar Land on April 7, 2008 at 9:06 AM
Further to that…does anyone care to ponder what Obama might do to military spending if he gets elected?
flipflop on April 7, 2008 at 9:06 AM
If Mr. Obama doesn’t think they will follow us to our shores, he is indeed a fool. Even if this is only campaign rhetoric, perceptions count as President Kennedy found out in Cuba and President Ford found out in Vietnam. Do we need to go through this again, but this time with an irrational and suicidal enemy who desires a world caliphate?
amr on April 7, 2008 at 9:07 AM
NORMAN!!!!…the Loons!…THE LOONS!!!
HunnyWaggin on April 7, 2008 at 9:08 AM
I am not surprised at all to hear a democrat make such idiotic statements on how to handle Iraq.
This is the same party that spent most of the 90’s putting
the likes of Al-gore,Bill Clinton,John Kerry and many others
in the spot light to tell how dangerous Saddam’s Nuclear/WMD
program,ties to terrorist groups like Al-qaeda and capacity to start wars in the region was a danger to the middle east and the US.
This is the same party that looked at all the same intelligence that President Bush looked at and voted with Republicans to take Saddam out with force.
Then when some of the intelligence was found to be wrong(as in most wars),and the going started to get tough,the democrats jumped ship and said that the “dumbest”President of all time tricked them into war.(He also is supposed to have stolen two Presidential elections,orchestrated 9/11,blown up the levee’s in New Orleans,and stretched his
imperialistic testicles all over the world according to the
“intelligent liberals.)”
The party that did the most to make the case against Iraq
is now the anti-war party that is supposed to show us the
way to eternal peace with “hope” and “change”.
No I am not surprised to hear this idiocy coming from a
democratic candidate at all.
Baxter Greene on April 7, 2008 at 9:14 AM
Ewwww.
flipflop on April 7, 2008 at 9:16 AM
Real clangers.
a capella on April 7, 2008 at 9:25 AM
Obama:
Just another Affirmative Action Moron.
If you want to read a disjusting column by one of his “enablers”, just read the Joe Klein piece referenced above.
In it, that little dwarf (a former Clinton buttkisser and now Obama groupie) says that he is “not attacking conservative’s patriotiusm”. A leftist attacking American conservatives patriotism…
You have to shake your head at that statement.
TexasJew on April 7, 2008 at 9:33 AM
John McCain – The Obamahammah!
Frozen Tex on April 7, 2008 at 9:42 AM
Kill more than 4,000 plus Americans?
That is a stool without legs.
MB4 on April 7, 2008 at 9:52 AM
The real question is what military will Obama use? Most I know would “hang up” the old combat boots and say to hell with this.
Claimsratt on April 7, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Would = will
Claimsratt on April 7, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Yeah, I predict a larger, much more devastating war will occur if Obama gets in.
mjk on April 7, 2008 at 9:03 AM
Hey flipflop, you just have to watch Obama’s video to get the answer to that question. Here’s the link:
http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE
Who are the Caucus4priorities? Their only issue is slashing military spending to use the money on domestic leftist causes. Here’s their website:
http://www.caucus4priorities.org/
funky chicken on April 7, 2008 at 10:04 AM
yep. If within a year or two of retirement, they will stay (and probably have the lovely Obama DOD rif (reduction in force) right before they can retire anyway…it happened under BillyJeff Clinton) but if they aren’t that close, most military will bail as soon as their committment is up.
funky chicken on April 7, 2008 at 10:07 AM
This is just common knowledge among the military. My husband and I were at a friend’s house Sat. night, a MAJ who has been to Iraq many, many times and travels the world briefing the Army about aspects of the war. He’s a great patriot.
Listening to he and my husband talk about the war over dinner is something I wish every American could eavesdrop on. The bottom line of their discussions is that 1) American politicians are challenging the American military in steering this war, which is completely inappropriate. 2) If we don’t complete the mission in Iraq now, we will late and it’ll be more expensive to take on that role again, particularly since at that point we will have completely alienated the Shia population and lost all credibility with the Iraq people. Remember, we screwed them over in the first Gulf War with promises of help in overthrowing Saddam only to retreat and let Saddam murder a reported 100,000+ Shiites (HERE’s some amazing video of Shiites huddled in mosques as Saddam’s Fedayeen Army come to massacre them). 3) Iraqis cooperate with the U.S. military IF they know we’re staying. MG Lynch in Baghdad reiterated that point last week at a briefing. Anbar Awakens: The Tipping Point, a Combined Arms Center report co-authored by one of my husband’s colleagues. The Message that Helped Win Anbar Province: We’ll Stay As Long as it Takes.
In other words, pulling out will not only cost MORE than it costs now because we will have to return (there is no doubt about this in the military community)(and the war in Iraq currently absorbs less than 1% of the Gross Domestic Product), but we’ll be screwing our own interests around the world because once again our word will mean nothing to those who need us most.
Amy Proctor on April 7, 2008 at 10:17 AM
“Kill more than 4,000 plus Americans?”
We’ve lost more than 4,000 troops in single battles, many times throughout history.
A haphazard, humiliating retreat out of Iraq, of the sort that the Democrats would like, would expose our troops to the possibility of far more than 4,000 deaths.
We need to be given time to finish the job and to leave in triumph and not in another “last helicopter out of Saigon” that the Democrat base so desperately wants to see.
Finishing the job is the only way to guarantee a safe withdrawal.
NoDonkey on April 7, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Wow, I bet our NATO allies are happy that Clinton and Obama are here to tell them how stupid they are. LOL
funky chicken on April 7, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Obama’s already told us he’ll gut it. Who needs a national defense anyway? If we just sit down and talk nice to terrorists and their nation-state sponsors, we won’t have any nasty conflicts. Besides, we’ll need to cut all that “unnecessary” defense spending in order to pay for universal health care and other benefits for all those tens of millions of new citizens from south of the border that we’re going to be adding to the public payroll under an Obama administration.
AZCoyote on April 7, 2008 at 10:19 AM
A haphazard, humiliating retreat out of Iraq, of the sort that the Democrats would like, would expose our troops to the possibility of far more than 4,000 deaths.
NoDonkey on April 7, 2008 at 10:17 AM
MB4 on April 7, 2008 at 10:25 AM
First we had a stool without legs.
Now we have a whole damn dinning room set without legs.
Maybe all those legs went the same place as the preview function?
MB4 on April 7, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Man, I really think McCain is making a huge mistake by saying the the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do. It makes him seem out to lunch. I believe most Americans, knowing what we know now about how the war has gone, would rather have left Saddam Hussein in power. I, for one, would prefer to have left Saddam in power, knowing that he didn’t have stockpiles of WMD.
I think it’s extremely dangerous for McCain to play this card when Iraq could go to hell at any moment.
Enrique on April 7, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Deal with the Devil
Sacrificed to the Surge
Tribal fighters have cut down Iraq’s violence. But they’re subjecting women to often-medieval mores.
America’s efforts to disengage from Iraq have led to some messy compromises. After years of trying without success to wrest Sunni areas from Qaeda control, U.S. ground commanders appear to have done it at last—but only by granting sweeping powers to sheiks and local leaders who can keep the peace. Now Iraq’s Sunni areas have been chopped into fragments, each one run by a different tribal ruler with different views on law and society. In some parts of Baghdad the situation changes visibly from block to block. No one can say how many of these leaders abuse their powers, or if their little sectors can ever be put back under the purview of a centrally controlled government. “We are becoming like Afghanistan was in the ’80s,” says Zainab Salbi, the Iraq-born founder and CEO of the activist group Women for Women International.
.
.
.
.
But at present, U.S. forces are too pleased by the sharp drop in jihadist attacks to lose sleep over things like gender issues. “They’re going to find their own level about what is acceptable,” says Col. Martin Stanton, one of the Sahwa program’s U.S. coordinators. “In terms of what they’re doing within their own culture [Very "liberal" definition of "culture" to include midevil Islam, but then I am being redundant I'm sure.], I don’t think we’d intervene in that.” The Coalition has let Shiite groups impose their values across much of the south for years for the sake of stability; women there mostly go veiled now, and some have quit their jobs under pressure from Shiite militia members.
,
,
,
,
Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor, went to Iraq in 2003 as a senior constitutional adviser with the fledgling Coalition Provisional Authority. He recalls how tribal sheiks approached U.S. envoy Paul Bremer that spring, offering to help calm their angry followers. “We told them, ‘No, we’re not going to take Iraq back to the Middle Ages’,” says Feldman. U.S. commanders spent the next four years trying to fight the insurgents without help from the sheiks. “We tried other ways, and it didn’t work,” says Coleman. “Tribal leaders are cleaning things up. [So you have made a deal with the Devil. Bet the morgage money on black and spin the wheel. Great.]
The question is, where does it cross the line? And we don’t know.” No one does. But some Iraqi women worry that the Sahwa has already won too much power—and that now there’s no turning back.
MB4 on April 7, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Well, Monday morning quarterbacking is always more correct (most of us would have chosen to attack Japan first knowing what we know now)…I do not believe most people would not want to have taken out Saddam, war could have been handled better, but then most everything could be handled better when looking back.
We are there, now we finish the job, the job left unfinished is the worst scenario.
right2bright on April 7, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Does anyone ever remember the disgusting psychotic who was an ally during World War 2? That would be Stalin. Stalin who killed millions of his own people, persecuted Christians and political opponents, and subjected people to appalling poverty. That’s right, him.
Should the war have been fought without making alliances with him? Perhaps, but it wasn’t ideal.
Sometimes you have to make alliances with people who disgust you to get rid of the worser threat.
mjk on April 7, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Newsweek a source?
What, Al Jazeera doesn’t have a magazine as of yet to “get to the truth”?
Please. Newsweek.
NoDonkey on April 7, 2008 at 10:47 AM
What job is that?
This one?
Americans arriving in 2003 hoped to make the new Iraq a showcase for gender equality.
Sure doesn’t look that way. Maybe this job then?
But tribal values are more medieval than those enshrined in the Iraqi Constitution—and this time the gunmen have the backing of the U.S. military.
MB4 on April 7, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Leave it some poster to find this “academic” to quote…What a surprise that Noah “picks and chooses” the quotes.
Don’t forget the quote…”nearly every Iraqi is praying that John McCain is elected as president”, they know the alternative to what we are accomplishing, do you?
right2bright on April 7, 2008 at 10:53 AM
If void of all else, give the following response. It’s desperate, but if you are too, try it, it just might work. What have you got to lose?
“(fill in the blank) a source?
What, Al Jazeera doesn’t have a magazine as of yet to “get to the truth”?
Please. (fill in the blank).”
MB4 on April 7, 2008 at 10:59 AM
I’ve often said that a prerequisite to being a liberal Democrat or “Progressive” is a lack of any knowledge of even basic economics.
Make that “economics and geopolitics.”
irishspy on April 7, 2008 at 10:59 AM
If EXTRA void of all else, give the following response. It’s VERY desperate, but if you are too, try it, it just might work. What have you got to lose?
“Leave it some poster to find this “(fill in the blank) to quote…”
Folks, some of you must really make the effort to do better now.
Don’t let Jorge and Juan down now.
MB4 on April 7, 2008 at 11:05 AM
I must really say that seeing Juan in that hat does not exactly inspire confidence in him.
Juan needs to select Fred as his VP running mate if for no other reason than to tell him when not to put a hat on that makes him look like a dufus.
Maybe Juan got break with convention and choose both Fred and Joe as running mates.
Fred to advise him on hats an Joe to advise him about Sunnis and Shiites.
MB4 on April 7, 2008 at 11:12 AM
I think that you point is stupid. 6000 teenage americans are killed every YEAR here at home. Statistically speaking, its safer to be in Iraq then to drive on the US highways.
opusrex on April 7, 2008 at 11:22 AM
“select Fred as his VP running mate”
Would be great, but I don’t think he has the drive for the job. He didn’t even want to make the effort to be President, why would he be a good VP?
NoDonkey on April 7, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Barry Oh’s mind-numbed robots on college campuses cannot be appealed to with logic. Their position is that McCain is Bush III. Their responses are all emotional. (Are the crowds still fainting in his midst?)
Does Obama realize that a withdrawal on the scale that he proposes jeopardizes our troops with a potential bloodbath that would make our deaths and casualties to this point miniscule? Nobody seriously vying for the mantle of CiC would demonstrate such an appalling of warfare logistics. We would be considered the weak horse that could not be counted on, as this withdrawal would (rightfully) be perceived as an admission of failure.
onlineanalyst on April 7, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Well you can think that my point is stupid all you want and that does not change one tiny bit how stupid your attempt at a point actually is.
It doesn’t seem like you even understood my point anyway.
You must try to do better.
MB4 on April 7, 2008 at 12:14 PM
MB4 – Yours is a statement without a point. We have two alternatives that are under discussion. We can stay or we can leave and come back if things don’t work out well. The argument for the former alternative is that it will cost fewer lives than the latter. The contrary argument is the opposite. Note that the 4,000 already lost do not enter into either argument, anywhere. Nor can they, logically, as they do not change in either case. You see, relevant factors are only those that change between alternatives.
I suspect that, to your ears the reference to the 4,000 is a devastating put-down. To me, it just sounds ignorant–at best. For future reference, I might call it your stool sample…
jl on April 7, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Like I told you, at least Fred knows hats.
MB4 on April 7, 2008 at 12:16 PM
I am still baffled by how the left is oblivious to the lessons learned from Somolia (and the aftermath of their pullout).
What is that lesson? Somalia was a hellhole before we got there, it is a hellhole now that we’re gone, I’m fine with the various factions in Somalia killing each other, and I don’t think it’s worth a single US life to stop them killing each other.
Their position is that McCain is Bush III.
Well… that is actually just about right.
Concur.
Lehuster on April 7, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Well, MB4, I guess your snark settles the issue: Obama has better fashion sense. In your planet, veneer trumps reality.
onlineanalyst on April 7, 2008 at 12:36 PM
To quote Albert Einstein – “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.” Guess we know where liberals and Democrats stand…and to ANYONE who wants to bring up the number of fatalities during the war I give you the following: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810791.PDF and http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0214.pdf If you want to argue, it’s far more dangerous to go to drive to and work based on the number of US citizens who die every year then those lost in Iraq. The difference is we are there to help them in their struggle for self determination, something which has been lost on liberals.
PatriotPete on April 7, 2008 at 12:36 PM
it’s far more dangerous to go to drive to and work based on the number of US citizens who die every year then those lost in Iraq.
Driving to work is not optional. Fighting in Iraq is optional.
Lehuster on April 7, 2008 at 12:39 PM
You see but you do not observe.
There are far more than two alternatives.
If there would be any “move” back into Iraq it would be only (well unless Juan were CIC, then who knows what might happen.) to strike any AQI strongholds (Reports from a few months ago were that there were somewhere between a few hundred and a thousand or two of them. Should be less now) at America’s discretion, hardly something that would require a full blown invasion like the first one which cost a hundred some American lives if memory serves.
Right now Iraq is costing hundreds of American troop lives a year, thousands of severally wounded American troops a year and 150 billion dollars a year and with no end in sight.
Never guess. It’s a shocking habit, destructive to the logical faculty.
Well try to do better then.
Potty humor? And so early in the morning too. You really must try to do better.
MB4 on April 7, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Plus there are 150,000 (the number fighting much less) or so American troops in Iraq and how many Americans who drive to work? About 150,000,000 ? A thousand times as many +/-.
MB4 on April 7, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Perhaps you have forgotten another couple of Einstein’s quotes?
We can’t solve a mess by using the same kind of thinking we used when we got into the mess.
- Albert Einstein
- and -
Two things are infinite – the universe and human stupidity – and I’m not sure about the the universe.
- Albert Einstein
MB4 on April 7, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Yes we have lost over 4000 men and women fighting in Iraq. But from the http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/castop.htm website, the http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/582_u_s_active_duty_military_deaths.html website or http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf website, quite a few times since 1980, during peace time, we lost more than that in the same time frame from accidents and other causes; in fairness with a larger and a less safety conscience military. But if the absolute number of deaths is the concern, why didn’t all of those very same people, who think so much of those in the military, have something to say about the peacetime deaths. As a veteran with children in the military during these times, I don’t remember a hue and cry for our military men and women’s lives then, do you?
It makes one wonder what their motives are now, doesn’t it. I have absolutely no respect for those who pick and choose the time and place most convenient to their ideology to demonstrate their concern for our men and women in uniform. I would say that the man Mr. Obama’s people called a warmonger has more concern for our uniformed citizens than any of those anti-war Democrats.
amr on April 7, 2008 at 12:53 PM
And you have to ask that question…no one would be able to answer that for you, you have closed the door. If you think Saddam and his ilk treated “gender” equally, then you will never understand.
Like I said, you find a leftist academic to quote, and think that is just great…
right2bright on April 7, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Cut that out, we have not lost 4,000 men and women fighting in Iraq. We have lost 4,000 men and women in the military during the Iraqi war.
Not too far of a number from many “peaceful” years. A decade ago, during no war, we lost almost as many.
right2bright on April 7, 2008 at 1:21 PM
Hence your question…What job is that?
right2bright on April 7, 2008 at 1:21 PM
The emphasized portion is excellent. If St. Obama is so full of HOPE, why is he so full of despair about the situation in Iraq?
its vintage duh on April 7, 2008 at 1:24 PM
I think you may wish to rephrase that.
MB4 on April 7, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Do you also consider George Will to be a “leftist”?
How about Thomas Sowell? Diana West? Hugh Fitzgerald? William Buckley?
MB4 on April 7, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Cut that out, we have not lost 4,000 men and women fighting in Iraq. We have lost 4,000 men and women in the military during the Iraqi war. Not too far of a number from many “peaceful” years. A decade ago, during no war, we lost almost as many.
All military deaths are not the same. Dying in peacetime while defending Fulda Gap or the Korean DMZ is far more easily justified than dying in Iraq as we flail around for years with no strategy and no end in sight.
Lehuster on April 7, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Trolls on parade…
PatriotPete on April 7, 2008 at 1:49 PM
I don’t understand what you are saying, are you now arguing to stay in the war like Sowell does? I think you just throw out names…
right2bright on April 7, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Take any 5 year period in the past 20 years and find a lower number then 4,000 killed.
Even in peace time, more then 4,000 men died (in any 5 year period) then during this conflict.
Here try this, although I suspect you know it but are afraid of facts.
How about say, 1980 to 1990, a decade of no conflicts, about 2,000 men died in the military each year…2.5 times more then the Iraqi war.
right2bright on April 7, 2008 at 2:14 PM
We may be making some progress here. Since you found a quote of Sowell’s that you like I can only take it that now I can do some quoting from him and you won’t accuse me of quoting some “leftist”.
MB4 on April 7, 2008 at 2:23 PM
You are comparing apples and oranges.
Do you think that military deaths in car accidents, training, etc have stopped because of the Iraq war?
Are you going to claim that going to Iraq is actually healthy for Army Soldiers, that it is saving their lives and limbs?
MB4 on April 7, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Trolls on parade indeed.
Retreat is the better part of valor, I suppose. Let’s make sure all 4000 died in vain, because that’s the way to support our troops.
Obama-MB4 in 2008!
I just don’t see that as a winning platform LOL
funky chicken on April 7, 2008 at 2:28 PM
If nothing else comes out of the Iraq war, it should banish the concept of “nation-building” from our language and our minds. The track record of nation-building and Wilsonian grandiosity ought to give anyone pause, as was said in this column before the Iraq war began.
- Thomas Sowell
We can now add the track record of Iraq to the list of disasters.
- Thomas Sowell
Perhaps he [Bush] should have spent a little time talking with Amy Chua, whose book “World on Fire” points out that democracy — in certain kinds of societies — is a recipe for disaster, despite how valuable it has been in Western nations.
- Thomas Sowell
According to John Agresto, in Iraq “the ‘democratic’ government now entrenched is as sectarian and incompetent as we ever could have feared. He is unwilling to say that the invasion of Iraq “as originally conceived” was a mistake but he fears that it has become “a tragedy.”
- Thomas Sowell
So is Sowell a “leftist” when he says that? Or maybe to you it just all depends on what he says? If he says something that you like (and he has said some of those things, I could even quote a couple of those myself, but you can be in charge of that) then he is a good source, but if he says something that you don’t like, then he is a “leftist”?.
MB4 on April 7, 2008 at 2:39 PM
I remember thinking the same thing, except I was just a busy working mom with no particular expertise in these things. I accepted the Coalition decision, but I remember thinking to myself at the time: “Fine, but someday our guys WILL have to go back and finish the job.”
Like Amy says, each time we have to go back will only be more difficult and costlier then finishing the damn job while we’re there.
juliesa on April 7, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Thank you for reminding me. That “retreat” epitaph is getting very old. Almost as old as Al Gores “deniers”. It seems to be having a usage epidemic. It is even in this articles heading.
When I left RVN they told me that I was being withdraw. They didn’t tell me that I was retreating. Whenever I run into anyone whom I knew in the Army who was in RVn, or even someone I didn’t know, I will have to be sure and tell them that they retreated. They will be so pleased, but just in case one of them might not be, I will have to be sure and duck just in case.
As to your “Let’s make sure all 4000 died in vain, because that’s the way to support our troops.”. That is the very same thing that some said about Vietnam, as thousands upon thousand more of our guys were killed. Oh well, I didn’t know that many of them and none of the killed was me, so no biggie I guess.
Everybody in Iraq is a volunteer anyway. They probably didn’t volunteer for Iraq, let alone multiple 15 month tours, with 12 months back, but hey! they must love it and certainly don’t want anyone to say the “retreated”, so let’s just all go shopping!
How does that quote go now? something like “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”.
MB4 on April 7, 2008 at 3:57 PM
epitaphepithetMB4 on April 7, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Capt’n Ed: don’t forget one other thing concerning this “re-deployment” to Okinawa crap, that was originally proferred by the Clueless John Murtha.
The Japanese Government, the United States Government, and the US Military, in November 2005, MONTHS before Murtha proposed his stupidity, concluded an agreement that took over a DECADE to negotiate, to “redeploy” 7000 US Marines from Okinawa back to US Bases in Guam, Hawaii and possibly Saipan.
As a former Marine it pains me to say, that the “redeployment” of US Marines from Okinawa was in part necessitated by repeated Marine and other US Service Member horrific actions against local women, including rape and murder over the previous 20 years.
However, over-crowding, too many people and too much military equipment on an increasingly smaller and smaller island, populated areas encroaching onto military training areas, unchecked development on Okinawa and an increasing population also necessitated the move.
The Japanese Government also agreed to basically pay for the costs of the relocation, which is expected to cost Several Hundred BILLION Yen, and will be fully implemented by 2012!
Do you think that after taking over a Decade to negotiate this, and having to pay Hundreds of Billions of Yes to pay for it, the Government of Japan is going to be open to receiving THOUSANDS of US Troops out of Iraq, and right into Okinawa?
Do you think Murtha consulted with the Japanese Government, the US State Department, or the Pentagon, before he “volunteered” Okinawa as the recipient of all those US Iraqi Veterans?
Now Murtha sat on may Congressional Defense appropriations committees, and to think the so-called “expert” didn’t know this whole background, when he made his ludicrous suggestion, some six months later, shows that he suffers from stupidity at a minimum!
Unfortunately, no one in the MSM, has seen fit to call Murtha on this very important fact, IF they are even aware of it!
Dale in Atlanta on April 7, 2008 at 4:19 PM
The media says over 4000 US military have died in Iraq from all causes. People demonstrate about those 4000, not about any others killed outside of the front. So the hue and cry is about those that have died in Iraq, period. No one that I remember cried out publicly for the number that died in the military prior to this conflict during peacetime or who have died in Germany or Korea during these past 5 years. And there WERE more killed during some peacetime 5 year periods since 1980 than in the Iraq front over the past 5 years. Apples and oranges; yes, but I didn’t set the rules. Those who oppose the Iraq conflict for those deaths and only those want to keep these rules since they fit their ideology.
Whether your child dies in a car accident when home on leave as one of Jessica Lynch’s rescuers did or dies from a rocket attack in Iraq as my son just missed being a victim of by seconds, the parents suffer a loss. But those who oppose this war only seem to have declared feelings for those that are on the front lines and die. Such hypocrisy is to be expected, it seems.
But since I doubt that few of those who have volunteered to fight over there, want to fight over here and few who have never wanted to fight anywhere want to fight here; better to fight there than here and see many more casualties and destruction than we have seen since the Civil War. But if you don’t believe that those who hate us don’t want to fight here, then there is nothing I or anyone else can say to you that will change your mind; only a knife wielded by some Islamist or an AK firing at the local mall may change your mind, if then.
If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. – Winston Churchill.
amr on April 7, 2008 at 4:26 PM
There are only two questions when it comes to war. The first is “should we do it”? That question isn’t applicable when you’re being attacked, but Iraq didn’t attack us, so it’s a fair question. It was answer–by the people of America who were in favor of the war at that time; by the legislature; and by our president. Asked, debated and answered with a resounding “YES”.
The second question is “how do we win”? There is no “how do we exit gracefully” or “who can I surrender to”. The cost of losing a war is always greater than the cost of sustaining it. The next time you or anyone else wants to be tired of war, you’ll have to do that at the beginning.
The very notion of running from a war that we’re winning is more absurd than jumping off a plane before it hits the ground to minimize your falling distance.
Immolate on April 7, 2008 at 4:36 PM
“how do we win”? Give the enemy combatants DUE PROCESS, in American courts, on American soil. I can hardly wait for Juan “Z-Visa” McCain to just hammer away on that, can you?
DfDeportation on April 7, 2008 at 4:41 PM
I knew someone would come out kicking and screaming for defeat..
Juan Hernandez, Juan Hernandez, Juan Hernandez, Juan Hernandez, Juan Hernandez, Juan Hernandez, Juan Hernandez!
Chakra Hammer on April 7, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Kurdistan, Northern Iraq.
aengus on April 7, 2008 at 5:18 PM
MB4 isn’t a troll and calling him one adds nothing to the debate.
aengus on April 7, 2008 at 5:24 PM
MB4
Your posts – this series in particular – are anti-intellectual. I don’t know if this is your normal habit of mind or a costume you put on for the blogs, but it is dishonest. Regardless of the number of alternatives you identify, none will involve changing the number of Americans (or Iraqi, or Coalition) who have already died. So your reference to those 4,000 is simply not germane to the discussion of what to do. Again, the only relevant factors are those that differ between alternatives. No alternative will change the number of Americans who have already died during the Iraq war. Q.E.D.
Regarding your pithy comment,
it is nonsense and, of course, contributes nothing to the discussion. I’m confident that explaining it to you will do no good, but here goes anyway. Do you never engage in inductive reasoning? Do you only deal in absolute, deductive certainty? Of course not, so save your sophomoric quips for people who are impressed by your vocabulary, or typing skills, or Googling experience, or whatever it is that gives you the false confidence to continue to spew this nonsense in public.
You seem to want us to believe that you care deeply about the violence and death in Iraq, but apparently you don’t care enough to actually spend any honest effort reflecting on the things you write, say or believe. Hence you contribute nothing to the debate and serve only to irritate those who actually care enough to pay attention.
jl on April 7, 2008 at 5:31 PM
But no one knew before the war that he didn’t have them. Our intelligence said he did, Spain, Britain, Australia etc, their intelligence also said he had them.
Even Bill Clinton said he had those weapons.
I am sick of people trying to rewrite history, most governments and intelligence agencies thought that Iraq had WMD.
All those that say that Bush lied are liars themselves.
http://armyaunt.johnmccain.com/
ArmyAunt on April 7, 2008 at 7:27 PM
Now you really don’t think that I am going to bother to read the rest of your comment after that extreme anti-intellectual remark by you, do you?
That’s what you resort to when you’re losing the debate — name-calling and ad hominem attacks.
- Michelle Malkin
Someone else, doing it tongue-in-cheek of course, said pretty much the same thing.
This rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion my adversaries are insane.
- Mark Twain.
MB4 on April 7, 2008 at 8:07 PM
So you’re saying that most of the troops in Iraq didn’t “volunteer for Iraq”? Does that mean that more than half of those in Iraq have been in the Marines or Army for at least five years? It seems to me that anyone volunteering for either service after March 2003 would have known exactly where they were bound, or those who reenlisted, or declined to retire after their twenty. What percentage of those in Iraq do you believe have not either joined, re-upped and/or declined to retire in 60 months? Honestly. I’m guessing the percentage is somewhere around truther numbers.
What do you think about those who volunteered specifically with the hopes of going to Iraq? What is your estimate of their mentality?
Immolate on April 7, 2008 at 8:10 PM
OK, jl, I “cheated” and read the rest of your “intellectual” comments and what the lady said applies to them as well. Boy does it ever!!! She had you pegged in advance.
That’s what you resort to when you’re losing the debate — name-calling and ad hominem attacks.
- Michelle Malkin
Please try to make more of an intellectual effort next time.
MB4 on April 7, 2008 at 8:27 PM
I doubt that many thought that they would be going on multiple extended 15 month tours with 12 months “off”. Remember now it was years ago that Dick “Deadeye” Cheney said that “The insurgency is in it’s last throws”.
Probably a minority and most of those who did specifically join wanting to go to Iraq probably wanted to go for one 12 month tour, not beaucoup 15 month tours.
Most of them are probably of the pretty sick-and-tired-of-baby-sitting-muslims mentality by now.
BTW, you should maybe check out some Army Surgeon General reports sometime and read what they say about all those multiple tours.
I’ll give you a snippet.
March 6, 2008 · The Army released its annual mental health survey Thursday and found that one in five soldiers deployed to Iraq suffer from some mental health problem. For those on second and third deployments, about a third suffer from mental health problems. The Army medical command is now recommending well times to match time deployed — an initiative that’s opposed by the Bush administration.
MB4 on April 7, 2008 at 8:40 PM
Of course what does the Army know? They may be just another one of those left wing organizations for all we know.
MB4 on April 7, 2008 at 8:44 PM
So why do they keep asking to go back? One of the two of us is missing something here. I’m betting that it’s you.
Immolate on April 7, 2008 at 8:52 PM
can we end the whole “you’re a troll!…NO! YOU’RE a troll!” thing? you have no idea how childish that all is. i would rather be a troll, than to be so infantile, as to cry “troll” constantly. its actually more childish than to have someone who reaches the inevitable loss of words, and resorts to correcting my spelling and my grammar. so i suggest that everyone that signed on after PatriotPete…is a troll, and you/we all must go. Leave the board to the most professional and mature intellectuals, such as PatriotPete and all who came before him (but not AFTER him) OK? then its all over and we will know by this…date…this Holy moment that PatriotPete signed on and marked the moment of intelligence, professionalism, maturity and class.
HunnyWaggin on April 7, 2008 at 9:19 PM
But now that the surge is working, even he is changing his mind. That’s what intelligent people do, they look at the facts and respond.
As I said (and he said), the war was mis-mangaged, now it is moving in the right direction, and intelligent people recognize that., and adapt their stance.
You sure make a lot of assumptions…and you sure quote people out of context.
I never called Sowell a leftist, never?…
another assumption,well in this case an outright lie.So now we all listen to MB4, when he begins losing an argument, he makes things up.
Find where I ever called Sowell a leftist…I leave you twisting in the wind, while you choke on your lies.
The advantage you have of not facing a man that you lie to…
right2bright on April 7, 2008 at 9:49 PM
MB4..
Been on patrol since 0400…489 miles
Reserve force early…04.08.2008…!
J_Gocht on April 7, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Very good video contrasting the view of our Generals on the
ground to the people who care about the people in Tibet,but
apparently not the people in Iraq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR8p0bro9RM
Baxter Greene on April 8, 2008 at 1:18 AM
Very good video contrasting the Generals on the ground in
Iraq to the people who seem to care about the people in Tibet,
but not the people in Iraq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR8p0bro9RM
Baxter Greene on April 8, 2008 at 1:20 AM
That is absurd on it’s face.
What percent of the troops in Iraq do you think specifically asked to go back to Iraq? Could you give some reference from the U.S. Army on that?
BTW, as to that betting thing, I’m betting you.
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 1:29 AM
The Infantry walks, the Artillery rides.
Shot over, shot out.
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 1:31 AM
This is what I said:
You even block quoted it yourself.
What the he$$ is your problem anyway?
Do you not even know what a question mark is?
Do you not even know the difference between a question and a statement?
Are you almost blind (In which case I will have to excuse you, but then you really should get some kind of glasses.) or just profoundly unintelligent or do you just like playing the victim?
Oh and your infantile “The advantage you have of not facing a man that you lie to…” was really rich. Grow up.
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 1:57 AM
BTW, “right2bright”, losing an argument to you?
lol.
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 2:10 AM
Good point on how childish calling troll is, but I think that something like “The advantage you have of not facing a man that you lie to…” has got that beat by a country mile on the childish scale, even from someone who appears to not know what a question mark is.
MB4 on April 8, 2008 at 2:16 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »