Captain's Quarters -

They will of course, continue to try and discredit
Gen Peteraus. Witness Chuckie Schumers diatrabe of the day before yesterday claiming that the Surge was impeding the peace efforts in the provinces and thatour troops wre incapable of fighting Al Queda.

Schumer is morally repugnent and factually delusional

At the risk of sounding repetitive,

Why does anyone have an expectation of success, when Petraeus' own estimates call for a far, far greater deployment of troops and a far longer active presence in the country then we currently expect?

I have yet to get a cogent answer from anyone who is a supporter of this war, as to how we are supposed to win with a 5th of the troops which are necessary for the job, according to the guy who is in charge of the whole thing, whose judgment war supporters continually refer and defer to. If you believe the man has credibility, why ignore the fact that his recommendations for what is necessary to win a conflict such as this are not being followed?

Steven Biddle, a member of General Petraeus' advisory council, is now saying that success in the new "bottom-up" strategy in Iraq would require the presence of about 100,000 American troops for a minimum of 20 years, and even then would be "a long-shot gamble."

http://www.slate.com/id/2173355/pagenum/all/

I can see the leftist narrative is taking shape right here in the comments:

"It's just not worth the hassle, man."

Jeff,

You're essentially correct, though I would replace the word 'hassle' with 'lives and money.'

Cycloptichorn,

In war, you make do with the forces you have, not with the forces you wish you had. Petraeus is making full use of the forces he has.

The opposite position would be the one taken by George B. McClellan, who wouldn't move unless he thought he outnumbered the enemy by the semi-Clausewitzian ratio of 2 to 1. Lincoln had to retire McClellan (and his tired and sore-tongued horse) in order to defeat the south.

My comments on Petraeus' letter:

Interesting. In both the first and last paragraphs of the report Gen. Patraeus takes full responsibility for the content of his portion of "the Bush report". He makes no comment on what Ambassador Crocker, the other duumvir, has to say.

He's in for a tough grilling before Congress, since the tone of his letter runs counter to the Democratic talking points:

I will go before Congress conscious of the strain on our forces, the sacrifices you and your families are making, the gains we have made in Iraq, the challenges that remain, and the importance of building on what we and our Iraqi counterparts have fought so hard to achieve.

Uncle, thanks for the response.

"In war, you make do with the forces you have, not with the forces you wish you had. Petraeus is making full use of the forces he has. "

Hmm, this phrase is a little too Rumsfeld-slogany. It doesn't represent the reality of the situation, in that we could have/had more forces if we had planned ahead to do so, and still could if people would call for a massive increase in the size of the army in order to win this thing. Neither of these tasks have been done. I can't figure out why Bush hasn't called for an increase in the size of the army, or asked people to enlist.

Petraeus will do the best he can with what he has; but given the fact that what he has isn't enough, in his own estimation, why is there an expectation of success?

Cyclo precisely sums up my frustration with all this.

We're told constantly that this war is essential to our security as a nation, and the results of losing would be "absolutely devastating" not just for us but for the entire world.

And yet we did not, and never will, commit enough resources to actually win.

If it's really that vital we should be moving heaven and earth. Institute a draft, sell war bonds, bring back rationing, get the whole country on board to save us from the dreadful prospect of defeat.

If it's not THAT important, we shouldn't waste any more lives and money.

So... which is it?

"... or asked people to enlist."

So, how do you feel about the ROTC? A lot of Ivy League Universities have banned them, you know.

Cycloptichorn,

Ok, let's try "The difficult we do immediately, the impossible takes a little bit longer." That ought to be the ultimate in Rumsfeld-slogany statements for the day.

If Petraeus calls for more troops, then Bush and Congress have to decide whether or not to support him in his request. We'll see how much he asks for in his report. Bush has made the "we can do this with what we have" statement, and he may be wrong; if he is, he will hopefully listen to his top commander who, like U.S. Grant, is winning battles. I put a far higher probability number on Bush changing tack than on Congress doing so -- since they've already decided to run away from the rabbit.

Well, I suppose I should pull one more Rumsfeld (thanks again to Gordon R. Dickson):

"But," stammered Gorbash, "wouldn't it be better to go get some help? I mean—"

"Blast it, boy!" boomed Smrgol. "We can't wait for that! Who knows what'll happen if we take time for something like that! Gorbash, lad, you got to fight your foes when you meet them, not the next day, or the day after that."

"Quite right, Smrgol," said Carolinus, dryly. "Gorbash, you don't understand this situation. Every time you retreat from something like this, it gains and you lose. The next time the odds would be even worse against us."

Uncle,

I've always been a fan of Dickson's writing; if only I had a copy of The Dragon and the George on hand for a rebuttal quote...

Barring that; there seems to be a real contradiction in reasoning here. On one hand, Petraeus is held up as an 'expert' in the sort of work we are trying to do; but, his 'expert' recommendations have not been followed. Ergo, why would there be a presumption of success? If anything, when the recommendations aren't followed, there should be a presumption of failure.

It's akin to taking your car to the shop, and having the mechanic tell you that expensive work is needed to actually fix the problem with the engine. If you don't have the money, you do the repairs that you can do; that's understandable. But, along with that, you should understand that the car is still going to break down if you don't do the necessary repair work!!! It's not possible to do expensive things on the cheap, and get the same results, and in this case it's really hampered our efforts to be successful in Iraq.

It is not inaccurate to compare the problems we have in Iraq to a smoldering brush fire. It takes a lot of work to put out the whole thing, and if you don't, it can spring back up again on ya. We aren't doing the work to put the whole fire out. Additionally, there's little doubt that Bush is still stuck in the 'Rumsfeld' mind-set... I won't hold my breath waiting for him to announce an increase in the size of the army.

Cycloptichorn,

I'm afraid I agree with the conservative commentors on this one. It's an expensive bill to be paid, yes, but it'll only get more expensive. The 1930s -- and not just Godwin's country, but also Italy and Japan -- give a clear demonstration what happens when the West signals it will not fight to defend itself.

If we withdraw, we will send the signal loud and clear that the West will flee if you just kill enough of us. And "enough", in the eyes of the rest of the world, is an absurdly low figure. The number of people we've lost in the entire Iraq war is less than the number of people the Iranians lost during a single battle of the Iran-Iraq war.

What does this mean? It means that aggressors and people with ideas will be encouraged to poke us even harder.

To erase that impression -- and we WILL have to erase it at some point -- will require us to do a lot more dying. And a lot more killing.

So to my mind, it's a choice of pay now or pay more later. Better to pay now.

I also share Filistro's frustration. Given the immense disparity in resources, there's no way we can be kicked out of Iraq militarily even if all the factions got together, the only reason we can't win this war is a failure of commitment, a failure of nerve. So why the devil don't we make that commitment?

Alas, it seems the Vietnam syndrome is alive and well. Or perhaps it's the syndrome Jesus warned us about in the Bible, the syndrome of starting towers we don't finish. We keep jumping into these things without counting the cost, and we keep embarrassing ourselves.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I won't hold my breath waiting for him to announce an increase in the size of the army.

It would technically be unconstitutional. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress that power. Granted, he could ask Congress to do it -- and he should have done it -- but I don't see Congress under Democratic leadership rushing to expand the regular Army, Navy, or Marine Corps.

Cycloptichorn, the pretense about respecting our soldiers and being fiscally responsible flies in the face of the actual words and deeds of the once-great democrat party.

Your democrat party leaders' words and deeds say our soldiers are criminals, and that our wealth should be confiscated.

So cut the crap.

Given there now isn't going to be an actual written report on Iraq presented, but only Gen. Petraeus giving a verbal "report" to Congress, it's clear the evidence for progress in Iraq is so slim that the Pentagon is just flacking for President Bush.

Mr. Pendell,

"I also share Filistro's frustration. Given the immense disparity in resources, there's no way we can be kicked out of Iraq militarily even if all the factions got together, the only reason we can't win this war is a failure of commitment, a failure of nerve. So why the devil don't we make that commitment? "

Well, for a few reasons.

First, what you call 'commitment and nerve' really translates to 'lives and money.' It means committing far more American soldiers to death in Iraq. It means committing to years more of rising costs (more troops=more money). These are things that people don't like. They are okay in the abstract, for a certain amount of time, but the vast majority of people in our country don't wish to be personally involved with either deaths or with large expenditures of money - and for what? In order to send an emotional signal to our enemies that we're 'tough?'

Second, it's the responsibility of those who are advocating war (in this case, the administration) to convince the populace that war is necessary. I don't think I need to point out to you that Bush et. al have been pretty unsuccessful in doing so. I think there are a few different reasons for this, but one of the major problems is the fact that the average American is so insulated from the war, that they don't actively see the effort as a part of their day-to-day lives. There's no positive emotional investment; only negative news from the media, coffins coming home, and ever-mounting costs that the taxpayers have to foot the bill for.

Third, there's no clear definition of what victory means, or what losing means, to the average person. What do we gain from a stable Iraq? What do we lose by leaving? When these questions come up, the rhetoric shifts into high gear, but there are no specifics ever given. This isn't like more traditional wars, where we are fighting an aggressor who is actively seeking to take over more land; we aren't able to look at a map and say, 'at the end of the day, we will control xx terroritory and the enemy will be smashed.' This new kind of conflict doesn't easily mesh with the old style of judging these wars.

You say, 'why the devil won't we make that commitment?' I say that the answer is, there's a pretty big gap between claiming to commit to something like this, and actually doing it. As I wrote above, you wouldn't expect half-measures and cheap repairs to fix a car engine which has serious problems. We are attempting to use half-measures and incomplete repairs to fix Iraq, and it simply isn't going to work; the alternative is so spectacularly expensive, that it's unlikely to work either. This has lead more and more people to believe that scrapping the entire enterprise is the better choice, and they have a pretty good argument.

Are the positive reports from Iraq a sign that the surge is working? Or do the numbers tell a grimmer story? Read more and debate at The Coin.

RE: Troop strengths

When Westmoreland was running the show in Vietnam, he NEVER seemed to have enough troops. Ever few months, he'd ask President Johnson for more, and LBJ (afraid of appearing soft on communism) would put 'em on planes and send 'em over.

Oddly enough, no matter how many troops Westy had, it was never quite enough. He and his commanders would run huge search and destroy missions, kill off a few hundred VC or NVA... and damned if the little bastards weren't right back in the AO a couple of weeks later.

Please note: Westy ASKED for more troops. Has Petraeus? If he hasn't, could it possibly be because he doesn't think he needs them?

After '68 and the Tet Offensive (which the MSM turned into a huge victory for the commies, who were otherwise slaughtered in droves by our men and ARVN even while they were totally alienating the South Vietnamese populace through their barbarities), Westy was gone to be replaced by Abrams. Abe, along with Ambassador Bunker and CIA's Colby, had a couple of strange ideas:

1. He had to do the best he could with what he had, and;

2. He wasn't going to win by chasing the VC and NVA all around the hinterlands of South Vietnam as Westy had tried to do.

Abrams realized that the battle would be won in the cities and villages by directly protecting the people from the communists. US troops would provide heavy firepower to clobber any large communist units that showed up, but the focus would be on (dare I say it?) police work: rooting out the VC infrastructure and "shadow government". Abe, Bunker and Colby realized that the communists relied on the villages for supplies and men; if they could be cut off, they'd starve. CIA and the Army initiated the Phoenix Program to find and "neutralize" the VCI, and the results were what Abe thought they'd be. By 1970 / 1971, areas of South Vietnam that had been communist strongholds could be traveled by single Americans in open jeeps. In following this strategy, Abrams was following the advice of CI experts like Bernard Fall, R.K.G. Thompson, John Paul Vann and even the former Chief of Staff Harold K. Johnson.

Not that it did any good in the long run, however. We all know the rest of the story: how the democrats pulled the rug out from under Abe and knifed the South Vietnamese in the back, and how nearly 3 million Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians died in communist "reeducation camps". Looks as though the dems are looking to repeat their shabby performance of 32 years ago.

The point of this history lesson, boys and girls, is that a war like this isn't won by "troop ratios". It's won by using the troops in a smart way. Petraeus looks like he's pretty smart. Let's give him more time to let him demostrate how smart he is.

Now, as for Cycloptichorn's oft-stated belief that Petraeus is somehow violating his own rules, I have two responses:

1. Petreaus' estimate of the number of enemies he faces MAY be rather less than Cycloptichorn (perhaps you should start calling yourself "Little Mac") thinks, and;

2. Griping that Petraeus isn't following his own rules - and therefore is losing - is a lot like watching a football game:

Cycloptichorn - "Coach Petraeus says that passing is the only way to win the game! And he's playing a RUNNING game! He'll lose if he doesn't follow his own playbook!"

docjim505 - "Um, but he's putting points on the board. A lot of points. In fact, he's up 3 halfway through the third quarter after a pretty lousy first half."

Cycloptichorn - "But he's not following his own playbook! He's losing the game!"

docjim505 (rolls eyes) - "Right. Look, why don't you get get an ice cream and... watch the cheerleaders or something. Better still, go sit in the stands with the other team's fans. I think you'll be happier there."

Good answer upthread, Captain Ed.

Looking forward to King David holding court...:)

Doc,

"docjim505 - "Um, but he's putting points on the board. A lot of points. In fact, he's up 3 halfway through the third quarter after a pretty lousy first half.""

It's unbelievable that you would claim that US is 'up three in the third,' based upon actual events. Violence hasn't dropped in Iraq in the slightest and we're no closer to political reform then last year. That's called 'still being down.'

You can create a great argument for whatever you like, but that doesn't make it reality, yaknow?

Actually, more accurate analogy would have us playing football with only 7 players on the field at a time. You can try tricky stuff, and they might be excellent players (in this case they certainly are) but you won't achieve success when you are outnumbered.

Cycloptichorn says Petreaus says we need 5X the men we have. That would be 5 X 160,000 or 800,000 men. Petraeus has said that he would not have advocated the surge if he did not think it would work; yet, I have heard of no request for anything close to an additional 640,000 from him or any of the Army leadership from Shinseki in the beginning (he said 200k)to the present

We do not have to clear and hold all the country at once and we will not be the primary holding forces anywhere in the long run. We use our forces to clear areas when the Iraqi security forces combined with recruited concerned citizen groups can do most of the holding with assitance. Meanwhile, once this is achieved in one area like Anbar we move our major effort to a new location.

Winfield Scott conguered Mexico with 8000 men. Alexander the Great had a relatively small army when he conquered Greece, North Aftrica and Southwest Asia. Hannibal nearly broke the Roman Empire with a 40,000 man army. If you can cultivate support among locals to maintain security, you can leave a small cadre of support forces with them and move the bulk of the army on to the next objective.

Now that our Counterinsurgency efforts have cultivated and supported the Sunnis switching sides, we will with time turn these areas over to local forces and the Iraqi security forces while we go after the Mehdi militia and we will do so after cultivating support from rival Shiite militias that currently fight the Mehdi militia on their own. In the end, these supportive militias will be encouraged to becaome part of and work with the Iraqi national forces.

At that point, we will leave enough force to discourage Iraqs neighbors from interfering and will let the Iraqi people decide whether bottom up reconciliation will force the participants in the national elections of 2009 to particpate in some top level reconciliation.

It is easy to make out that any task is hopeless if you really did not want to accomplish the task in the first place. I doubt if you ever wished Operation Iraqi Freedom to succeed.

So, when is it reasonable to fight a war? When the outcome is guaranteed? In that light, we would still be bowing to a Queen instead of having our own great country!!! Wanna chat about the Civil war?

Let's face it! We are in a war - rightly or wrongly - so let's WIN THE DAMN THING and stop whining!

All things considered, I'd rather believe Gen. Petraeus than a bunch of self-serving, ego-centric, power-grubbing politicians who have a dwindling sense of why they were elected in the first place! (See Korea and Viet Nam!)

I've struggled intermittently myself with the question of why we don't institute the kinds of extreme measures (draft, rations, war bonds, etc) the absence of which leads many opponents of the OIF to conclude that our efforts there are unserious and should be discontinued.

The best answer I've been able to construct is that OIF is not that kind of war. It is not a Total War in itself, but a particular theater within a more distributed, multimodal (cold/hot/proxy/diplomatic/cultural/economic) conflict. One of the main weapons in that larger conflict is the robustness and dynamism and depth of the the American economy, both as a provider of energy and as an index of the comparative viability of cultural models which are in conflict (much as was the case during WW3/Cold War).

To lurch the American economy into a War Footing in the way that is proposed would be the cultural/economic analogue of kicking in the afterburners on an aircraft. Wicked burst of speed and a damned impressive show...but not so much with the stamina. Thus are we in the delicate position of mobilizing the American cultural engine against that of global Salafist Jihadism, but doing so in such a way which preserves its animating access to the free market, both for the replenishment of fiscal capital and for the strategic exportation of cultural capital.

Thus is Gen Petraeus in the unenviable position of recognizing that he is operating under suboptimal conditions, which forces him to be inventive in leveraging other resources (tribal sheiks, ISF, and other assets) to offset the dearth of boots. It sounds flip to say that you go to war with the military you have, yadda-yadda. In truth, the visible fractal-camouflage component of this War is only one tentacle of the beast we are bringing to battle; if we unduly boost it at the expense of others, we lose our balance, which could lose the War.

KW64:

That is a superb abstract of what seems to me to be the prime path for success in Iraq.

Your last paragraph is especially on point!

Starfleet_dude,

Thank you for so eloquently expressing the thoughts of the Democratic party: Petaeus is a flack.

But your new spin, that a verbal report is somehow not as good as a written one, fails to survive the fact that the Democrat-produced enabling legislation requires an oral report.

Both Petraeus and Crocker are required to testify verbally prior to September 15 "in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress". This testimony must be provided before delivery of a (written?) report required of the President ("the Bush report"). This report is a completely separate line item on the bill from "the Bush report".

The President is required by the legislation to deliver his separate report detailing compliance with 18 specific points to Congress; the legislation is silent on whether the report needs to be oral or written. It does say that the President must consult with Petraeus, Crocker, Rice, Gates, and Fallon in determining the facts delivered in the report. In the report, he has only to state that Iraq is making progress on each of the 18 benchmarks specified in the legislation to allow unfettered access to the money bag. "Making progress" is left rather ill-defined; it looks like the Democrats got blindsided on this one.

So, dude, when can we expect the full-court spin-press against Crocker and Fallon?

Regarding the exchange about troops needed: it should be recalled that we actually have about 250,000 boots on the ground when you count the 100,000 or more contractors we have there. While only about a fifth of them (I think) carry a gun, the fill positions that military staff would have to fill. So we've got about 250K there; and it isn't enough, and we cannot sustain it.

As in Vietnam, the U.S. is fighting the wrong war in Iraq. It's a civil war that the U.S. is in no position to settle, not a war against al-Qaeda. All the troops and all the time in the world won't change that fundamental fact on the ground.

Osama bin Laden now taunts the U.S. knowing that Iraq is a no-win situation he's more than happy to see go on and on and on. How better to inflame Arabs than to see a Western power occupy the heart of the region for years to come?

Instead, President Bush seems intent on making things even worse in Iraq by arming the Sunnis, not to battle the pitiful few actual members of al-Qaeda, but to counter Shia power. Of course that will only lead to a worsening of the civil war, but after January 20th, 2009 it won't be Bush's problem. Just America's.

"Third, there's no clear definition of what victory means, or what losing means, to the average person. What do we gain from a stable Iraq? What do we lose by leaving? When these questions come up, the rhetoric shifts into high gear, but there are no specifics ever given."
________________________________________
This is a flat-out lie, just like the lie that the violence hasn't abated at all.

If "progressives" have truth on their side, why do they always resort to outrageous lies?

How many frigging times has the presdient explained that victory means a stable, democratic Iraq that can defend itself from all enemies foreign and domestic?

How many times has the president said specifically that if we leave prematurely, Iraq disintegrates into a massive killing field, al Qaeda and Iran emerge triumphant, and the U.S. loses credibility for the foreseeable future?

"Progressives" aren't frustrated in the least about Iraq. They're gleeful. By their snotty comments, their dishonesty and viciousness, they prove they're not part of the solution. Therefore they can't be taken seriously as fellow concerned citizens.

Just be honest. Admit that you want us to lose so that Bush and the knuckle-dragging, baby-killing U.S. military will be humiliated and we'll never again launch such a terrible, imperialist, illegal, racist war of aggression.

You want us to be a nation of impotent, morally superior, endlessly negotiating eunuchs, like your heroes the Europeans. You admire the Islamists because they're the ultimate rebels and they exhibit the sexy teenage nihilism you secretly wish you could display.

Just admit it. Have the courage to be honest for once in your lives.

unclesmrgol, Gen. Petraeus as I distinctly recall flacked for President Bush right before the 2004 election, so nothing's really changed in terms of all the happy talk substituting for results on the ground in Iraq.

Also, a September report was promised by the White House on progress in Iraq, many months ago now. That there isn't one for Petraeus to also provide Congress is something that ought to concern you if you really care about progress in Iraq more than making excuses for the lack of same.

starfleet_dude,

Then Congress has been doubly-blindsided. They specifically ask in the bill for testimony from both Petraeus and Crocker before Sept 15.

So they ask for testimony from a known Bush flack (or two -- you are still silent on what you think of Crocker) Wow. And these guys are politicians?

I would suggest you read the bill before you hoot off about whether the Administration is or is not meeting its requirements. I gave the Thomas link to it above.

Read, oh arbitor of flackiness, read. Then come back after September 15.

Tom,

"You want us to be a nation of impotent, morally superior, endlessly negotiating eunuchs, like your heroes the Europeans. You admire the Islamists because they're the ultimate rebels and they exhibit the sexy teenage nihilism you secretly wish you could display.

Just admit it. Have the courage to be honest for once in your lives. "

I find it difficult to have a productive conversation when emotional rhetoric is substituted for logical thought. You certainly are not presenting a serious case here.

KW64,

You have managed to ignore the fact that Iraqis in large part don't support the idea of living in the same country with each other, based upon sectarian lines. The 'Iraqi Army' which you purport will hold territory after we've left, will in fact do nothing of the sort - the few units which are actually up to strength exist mainly at the whim of the Shiite-controlled and exquisitely corrupt Interior Ministry.

I still think that many here believe the primary component for victory is, in fact, Will. It is not the primary component for victory.

I will note again - you wouldn't expect half-measures to fix your car engine, yet the lot of you seem to expect half-measures to fix Iraq. There is no logic behind this position whatsoever.

"It is not inaccurate to compare the problems we have in Iraq to a smoldering brush fire. It takes a lot of work to put out the whole thing, and if you don't, it can spring back up again on ya. We aren't doing the work to put the whole fire out."

And therefore...let the whole mountain burn? Because that's your fix.

"Given there now isn't going to be an actual written report on Iraq presented, but only Gen. Petraeus giving a verbal "report" to Congress, it's clear the evidence for progress in Iraq is so slim that the Pentagon is just flacking for President Bush."

What if they wrote down what he said? Would it then become meaningful to you?

I attended a meeting where Patreaus spoke. Impressive man. I'd give three months pay to be there when any one of Capt E's pimple-faced, slack-jawed trolls called the General a liar, shill or flack.

Talk about LOL…I'd wet myself...of course the floor would already be soaking wet from the troll's water breaking. But this is all theoretical. The lame trolls on this site haven't the nerve. Cowardly trolls with big mouths...spewing bile from their mother’s basement while the real men are risking life and limb...But why do the real men risk life and limb?

Because the Democrats and Republicans voted to send them in harms way. Real men have honor.

Also, Tom,

"
This is a flat-out lie, just like the lie that the violence hasn't abated at all."

Please provide the statistics to back this up, as the facts - at least as far as I can tell - don't seem to support your claim that the violence has abated.

I mean, haven't you been reading the 'nets these last few days? Petraeus et al refuse to release the data behind their claims that violence has dropped precipitously, and that's b/c the numbers have been massaged to exclude a lot of the deaths... violence is certainly down if you don't count car bombs, shooting deaths, or intra-sectarian killings.

starfleet_dude said:

"Gen. Petraeus as I distinctly recall flacked for President Bush right before the 2004 election"

LOL! And for this, the General was punished by being unanimously confirmed as surge leader- by Democrats?

You've obviously been drinking Kool-Aid with your good bud Paul Krugman, who whined about the exact same thing at Huff Post the other day. Hint: Krugs has been wrong so many times there's even a couple of websites devoted to exposing his many lies.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODNiMzhkN2Y3MjU5MjIzNjAxNWI1YmJlMjVjNjhhNzE=

http://home.pacbell.net/weidners/jottings2/krugman_index.htm

Patraeus' "crime", according to Krugs, was writing an op-ed for the Washington Post in late September of 2004. The WaPo was under no obligation to print it. They did so anyway.

Here are some of the items the General mentioned in the 2004 op-ed. I will include the link to the entire Petraeus op-ed at the bottom of my post.

"Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up."

How is that "shilling" for Bush?

Next paragraph:

"The institutions that oversee them are being reestablished from the top down. And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously in the face of an enemy that has shown a willingness to do anything to disrupt the establishment of the new Iraq."

How is that campaigning for Bush?

"Although there have been reverses -- not to mention horrific terrorist attacks -- there has been progress in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own security, something they are keen to do. The future undoubtedly will be full of difficulties, especially in places such as Fallujah. We must expect setbacks and recognize that not every soldier or policeman we help train will be equal to the challenges ahead."

Sounds like propaganda to me...

" There will be more tough times, frustration and disappointment along the way. It is likely that insurgent attacks will escalate as Iraq's elections approach. Iraq's security forces are, however, developing steadily and they are in the fight. Momentum has gathered in recent months. With strong Iraqi leaders out front and with continued coalition -- and now NATO -- support, this trend will continue. It will not be easy, but few worthwhile things are."

Yep, the man is an evil hack. No two ways about it!

By the way, it's against the law for Petraeus to engage in partisan political activity as a military officer. Federal Law (Titles 10, 2, and 18, United States Code), Department of Defense (DOD) Directives, and specific military regulations strictly limit a military active duty person's participation in partisan political activities.

Here's the link to his entire op-ed piece.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49283-2004Sep25.html

So swabjockey05, were the "real mean" like Bush, Rove et al risking life and limb in Vietnam? Where were the "real men" when we were fighting "domino effect" in SE Asia?

Well, from here, it's hard to say what a group of men who should be showing up to work wearing prom dresses; are all gonna say. When, if you think about it, some. They're elected to be PUBLIC SERVANTS.

Of course, to politicians this just means being pigs at the pork trough.

They're not invincible, ya know?

When it came to immigration, it seems they discovered, almost en masse, that they weren't deaf. So, somehow, "words" get through to them.

Especially those who hire the pollsters.

Just like the marketeers once hired by Detroit, to "sell anything" ... discovered. Sometimes your ideas just bomb?

If the Bonkeys were ahead, here, I'd be surprised.

But the GOP is also lame with turkeys. As I said, if the guys in congress were honest, they'd show up to work in prom dresses. Diplomatic pants-dancers, ready to party all night.

They sure don't know the differences, yet, between the 1970's, and this Bush. Oh, and Vietnam. And, Irak.

While our president got to meet the smelly dude labeled "south" ... in a country that's not divided. Nor is it at war. But they want Bush to "lift the truce." Whatever. Sometimes, you just can't spell reality out to these folks.

Their heads are in too deep into the pork barrel.

While thank goodness we have a man as good as Patraeus. Oh. And, thank goodness Truman's not in charge. And, thank goodness the GOP learned some lessons back in 1948.

I've learned a rule about mistakes. While they'll always happen; if a mistake really burned ya; it's hardly likely you'll aim to do it twice.

What are we gonna do about congress?

Too many people got lost, debating Roe. When WOE is the name of political special interests at the margins.

Can't wait to see what the MAINSTREAM does.

It seems to be fighting to stop the crap that gave us from the elder Bush, to this Dole, candidates that were 2nd best; but led in Iowa.

The Internet changes things. Not at once.

But changes are in the air.

Whose got the advantages? The People? Or the People's servants?

filistro

You are not really concerned about the lives and money involved, so what exactly is behind your laser-like focus on Iraq?

Cycloptichorn sys:

You have managed to ignore the fact that Iraqis in large part don't support the idea of living in the same country with each other, based upon sectarian lines. The 'Iraqi Army' which you purport will hold territory after we've left, will in fact do nothing of the sort - the few units which are actually up to strength exist mainly at the whim of the Shiite-controlled and exquisitely corrupt Interior Ministry
*******************************************
I suspect that I know as many Iraqis as you do and the ones I know are afraid of partitioning the country rather than seeking it. The Kurds fear it will bring the Turks in, the Sunnis fear they will get no oil and the Shia are concerned that Iran would have too much influence in the Shia areas. The Shia I know do not care for the Iranians nor do they trust them at all. The Shia fought the Iranians for Saddam and they liked Saddam a lot less than Maliki.

You postulate that the Iraqi army will not hold territory and thus you dismiss the outline in my post above about how success can be achieved with less than 800,000 men. This is mere assertion on your part. I guess you can win any argument if you can just assume anything you wnat too. But there is no scenario from anyone that has not assumed that eventually security will be in the hands of an Iraqi army. If you presume the Iraqis will not fight for their country, then no matter how many men you put in, the mission would ultimately fail.

Happily, Iraqis of all faiths are now volunteering to join the army in numbers great enough that after screening, a number are rejected. That does not sound like an unwillingness to fight for Iraq. There is a hatred of Al Queda that binds the majority of Iraqis and also a desire to get the violence behind them. Our counterinsugency efforts take advantage of this.

Is success certain? By no means. But by no means is the situation hopeless because there is no chance the Iraqi army will fight insurgents.

flenser... how do you know what concerns me?

I don't know anything about you at all, except that your screen name is a somewhat archaic, little-known term for the task of indigenous Aleutian women whose job it was to strip the flesh and blubber from whale carcasses brought in by their hunters.

(aka "flensing" the carcass)

I've always admired you for this imaginative, creative choice. It seems to me like the perfect screen name for a genuine fiscal conservative:

"One who strips away fat" :-)

Yes, I am extremely focussed on Iraq. Obsessed, you might say. I have been for the most part of the past decade, and I have my own private reasons for this interest.

Yes, I am extremely focussed on Iraq. Obsessed, you might say.

No! Really?

I have been for the most part of the past decade, and I have my own private reasons for this interest.

Oh, go on. You are an anonymous commenter on an internet blog. You can speak out about your reasons, surely.

I've always admired you for this imaginative, creative choice.

Flattery goes a long way with me.

It seems to me like the perfect screen name for a genuine fiscal conservative

Sadly, we Flenserists are a dying breed.

Sadly, we Flenserists are a dying breed.

No! Really?

I'm late to this thread but I see that our esteemed military experts have weighed in with their assessments.

Rather than debate the issues in the abstract here at Captain's Quarters, you can show your financial support for our military and its efforts in Iraq (and elsewhere) through several fine organizations.

I know it probably doesn't seem as sacrificial as saving aluminimum foil or cutting up drapes for the kids' school dresses, but it would be something...something more than a lot of yee yawing about how we're doomed to fail and we're all just not doing enough to support the war effort. There may only be 160,000 troops in country right now in Iraq when there really should be 300,000 (and let's all forget about the Iraqi military and the sacrifices it's making because, well, it just doesn't fit the paradigm). But one or more of those 160,000 would really appreciate knowing how much you care about them and their success.

http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/americasupportsyou/help.html

I'll handle the sarcasm around here!

So do I take it that your "private reasons" must remain private, even though nobody knows who you are?

Okay flenser, you've wormed it out of me.

I'm writing a book called "How Conservatism Lost Its Way."

Iraq is most of Part III.

You make a cameo appearance in Chapter 16, paragraph 39.

It's remarkable to me that the people who most adamantly desire the US to get out of Iraq ASAP cannot/will not explain the reasoning behind their positions.

It's almost as if they feel that those reasons cannot withstand scrutiny.

Is it that they feel that national health care, gay marriage, and ACLU lawyers on the Supreme Court are worth a million dead Iraqis and Iranian hegemony in the Middle East? Surely not even liberals could be that amoral and cynical. Could they?

If you're still addressing me, you're asking the wrong person. I really don't know much about liberals.

There used to be one in my house, but she went away to college and came home a few years later as a rational conservative (thank God.)

But since you are the one who has knowledge of other's motivations and concerns, you need only ask yourself, and then wait for yourself to provide the answer. Right?

"It's remarkable to me that the people who most adamantly desire the US to get out of Iraq ASAP cannot/will not explain the reasoning behind their positions."

This is an assertion - I certainly can explain my position, and will proceed to do so:

We have no business meddling around in the Middle East, and Bin Laden's attack upon us was not justification for starting aggressive wars. What more, from a pragmatic point of view, the mess we find ourselves in was not only predictable, but predicted, by many including myself. Only those with absolutely zero knowledge of the region would have supported such a foolish plan, and what more, one in which those tasked to carry out the plan have their hands continually hobbled by far, far too few troops to do the job.

I don't believe that Will is the major component to winning wars, especially wars of this type; I believe overwhelming manpower, smart leadership, and intelligent planning for the future are. We currently are enjoying none of these three, and therefore should simply cut our losses.

I think the very idea of 'losing' is worse to most Conservatives/war supporters then any other aspect of the entire scenario. It's your pride you are really worried about.

Posted by Cycloptichorn | September 7, 2007 12:11 PM

"'In war, you make do with the forces you have, not with the forces you wish you had. Petraeus is making full use of the forces he has.'

Hmm, this phrase is a little too Rumsfeld-slogany...."

If that is "Rumsfeldian", how would you describe this?

“Let me ask you, Sir, when is the Time for brave Men to exert themselves in the Cause of Liberty and their Country, if this is not? Should any Difficulties that they may have to encounter, at this important Crisis, deter them? God knows, there is not a Difficulty that you both very justly complain of, that I have not in an eminent Degree experienced, that I am not every Day experiencing; but we must bear up against them, and make the best of Mankind as they are, since we cannot have them as we wish.”

George Washington to Philip J. Schuyler, Dec. 24, 1775.

I would describe that as a completely different quote with little to no relation to the topic at hand.

My original criticism stands: we could have had a much larger force if we wanted to, and still could. But we didn't, and will not. To say that we could only 'wish we had' more troops is a base canard; those in charge actively did not wish for them, but tried to do things on the cheap. Ergo, our current situation.

"It's remarkable to me that the people who most adamantly desire the US to get out of Iraq ASAP cannot/will not explain the reasoning behind their positions."

I think I know some of the (nonpartisan) reasons:

1. Isolationism; a belief that we should avoid foreign adventures.
2. A belief that our national interest is best served by working cooperatively through international organizations, the UN, the Hague, etc., and not by armed intervention especially when taken unilaterally.
3. A belief that no cause can be worth the loss of American military lives, especially when the cause is controversial, may take longer than 3-6 months and doesn't receive overwhelming and sustained support within the American population.

I do think there are sincere people who genuinely abhor the war in Iraq because it is killing our men and women (and the Iraqi people as well). And I believe those people genuinely desire peace at almost any price, not because they are weak or cowardly, but because they are simply unconvinced that this loss of life could possibly be worth it.

Everyone else who's against it? It's politics. It's Bush's war, it's the GOP's mess. For them, it's just a way to play politics.

So both filistro and Cycloptichorn are conservatives, attacking the Iraq war from the right?

Their commentary on other issues, most recently Larry Craig, tends to contradict this claim.

Cycloptichorn

I think the very idea of 'losing' is worse to most Conservatives/war supporters then any other aspect of the entire scenario.

You have just offered a conservative critique of the war. It's odd that you follow it up with a shot at conservatives. Could you make up your mind what you are?

Some war supporters do display a fanaticism in favor of the war similar to the fanaticism of their opponents. Both groups are decidedly odd. Since you are in one of these groups, maybe you can explain your motivation.

We have no business meddling around in the Middle East etc.

Well, we are there now, and our immediate departure would have some obvious consequences. What is your objection to our sticking around for another year or so?

If there are any liberals around who are willing to admit that they are liberals, feel free to jump in here.

"So both filistro and Cycloptichorn are conservatives, attacking the Iraq war from the right?"

No, I am a Liberal Democrat. I've never claimed to be aught else.

"Well, we are there now, and our immediate departure would have some obvious consequences. What is your objection to our sticking around for another year or so? "

My objection is thus: nothing will have changed, we will have spent another 150-200 billion on the war, and I'll have to make this exact same comment to another war supporter asking why we can't just stay for One more year, just to see if we can get it right, this time?

You guys are like Lucy and the football...

Yes, I am indeed a conservative attacking the war from the right. The far right, in fact.

Think Pat Buchanan.

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_10_25/buchanan.html

That article is 3 years old but it hardly matters, it could almost have been written yesterday. Nothing ever changes in this war, it only gets worse. It's like some horrible, ghastly version of Groundhog Day.

This Pat Buchanan?

"We're going to bring back God and the Bible and drive the gods of secular humanism right out of the public schools of America."

"AIDS is nature's retribution for violating the laws of nature."

"[Despite Hitler's anti-Semitic and genocidal tendencies, he was] an individual of great courage.... Hitler's success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path."

"Rail as they will about "discrimination," women are simply not endowed by nature with the same measures of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism."

Filistro! Say it ain't so. Say you're with the libs, not Pat Buchanan!!

And this is what Pat's thinking today.

http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=11319

It's a mess.

It's hopeless.

It's over.

It's sad.

I agree.

Nothing ever changes in this war, it only gets worse. It's like some horrible, ghastly version of Groundhog Day.

What is so "horrible" and "ghastly" about it? As wars go, this is a walk in the park. God help America if it ever has to fight a serious war again.

How is it affecting you in any way?

Well, Bennett, nobody ever agrees with anybody 100%. (Perhaps you've experienced the blessed state of matrimony, and learned that little bit of wisdom firsthand? :-)

My own political views are much more secular/libertarian than Pat's on the social and cultural side of things. But when it comes to fiscal and foreign policy, he'd surely get my vote over any of the wimpy field of candidates currently on offer.

Yech.

"Homosexuality involves sexual acts most men consider not only immoral, but filthy."

Hmmm, well you're not with him on Larry Craig though, right? Or much else? So I'm thinking this doesn't make you much of a paleoconservative (the popular term for Buchananites).

I'm just joshing you. I think all these labels are silly anyway. You say tomayto, I say tomahto, let's call the whole thing off.

Cycloptichorn

My objection is thus: nothing will have changed, we will have spent another 150-200 billion on the war

That is the worst case scenario, but lets say you are correct. What if we leave right now? What are the consequences there? What are the relative costs? You act as if your preferred course of action has zero downside.

Bennett

I remain skeptical that filistro is actually a paleo.

But what exactly do you object to in Pat's comments?

Bennett I remain skeptical that filistro is actually a paleo. But what exactly do you object to in Pat's comments?"

I was making the point that based on some exchanges with Filistro in the past, I didn't think she'd have much truck with Buchanan's positions of very many things. So not a true paleo, I agree.

As for me and mine? I'm an American, I reserve the right to be inconsistent and unpredictable in my politics. Except when it comes to two things: a strong military and the protection of our rights as citizens as enumerated in the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution.

Okay, that's technically more than 2 things if you count all 10 amendments. So if I had to pick just one of them, I'd go with the First. So there, a strong military and the First Amendment (but I'm really partial to the fifth as well).

And I dislike bigots of any stripe.

I post this every couple of weeks in the hope that someday, someone will actually take the quiz and report back with results.

This seems like an appropriate time to give it another try...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy14.html

Everyone's a bigot, Bennett. Just about different things and people.

When I was 7 years old my teacher wanted me to learn long division. It is too bad that Cycloptichorn was not around so I could explain to her:

1. "committing" to long division was an open ended process that could go on for years without end. Whatever number I just divided, might be countered immediately with a larger number, possibly even a prime number. For what? The emotional satisfaction of an "A" in Math ribbon?

2. Reasonably it was up to the people who wanted me to learn long division, to convince me to spend the effort to do so; and by any poll of the subject population my teacher failed to make the case.

3. None of us asked to make the commitment had any clear idea what we were fighting for. How exactly was long division going to help me? What were the costs of doing my homework compared to the hypothetical costs of not bothering? What for?

Sadly, Cycloptichorn was not around to point out that avoiding flunking us all was really more about the teacher's personal pride and not about our wellbeing. So I had to go ahead and succeed for lack of "logical" arguments in favor of failure. Sigh.

Flenser,

"What if we leave right now?"

The region will probably devolve into sectarian warfare. Most likely, Iran will be the winner, as Iraq allies with them under their new shiite rule.

"What are the consequences there? What are the relative costs?"

It will certainly allow us to redirect billions of dollars per year on defense of our own nation, such as securing our borders - something that certain people say cannot be done, but very much can be done.

Also, US soldiers will not be dying at a rate of around a hundred a month due to enemy fire and explosions.

Also, it will demonstrate that we aren't fools and know when enough is enough; that this time, Charlie Brown is going to smarten up and not kick the football.

"You act as if your preferred course of action has zero downside."

Nothing in life has zero downsides. But leaving would be by far the most pragmatic course of action for us.

There are no more positive outcomes to this; that's the sad legacy of this war, that we are forced to choose the best of many bad options. Our fiasco in Iraq will act as a destabilizing force in the ME for some time to come, whether we stay or leave.

The Yell,

It's a pretty funny post, I agree; but the 7 soldiers who got blown to bits today probably don't think that comparing the situation in Iraq to long division is really all that funny. I bet a lot of Iraqis don't believe that either.

"Everyone's a bigot, Bennett. Just about different things and people."

Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

So no, I don't think everyone's a bigot. Except for fans of a particular sports team. Definitely bigots.

I think you can be partial to your own point of view without being intolerant of someone else's. This if often shown in some of the more intelligent discussions that rage here from time to time. Disagreement, yes. Intolerance, no.

Nothing in life has zero downsides. But leaving would be by far the most pragmatic course of action for us.

I'm open to a good argument to that effect, but so far I don't feel you have made one.
To be blunt, losing a hundred soldiers a month is not a big deal in the larger geopolitical picture. We lose that many to training accidents in peacetime.

There is an economic cost to the war, but also to Iranian dominance of the Middle-East. The latter is likely to be so great as to neccessitate a return to the region to overthrow the Iranian regime. There are good reasons why the leading Democrats for the Presidential nomination are more hawkish than Ron Paul.

Nothing in life has zero downsides. But leaving would be by far the most pragmatic course of action for us.

So why do you think it is that none of the likely Presidential nominess from either party are in favor of such a thing? Regardless of what happens in the next election, US policy in the Mid-East is driven by pragmatism and that is why we are not leaving Iraq any time in the next several years.

I took the quiz, filistro. I came back as "paleoconservative". I'd call myself more of a paleolibertarian, but there is a lot of overlap there.

And you?

I think you can be partial to your own point of view without being intolerant of someone else's.

That depends on what you mean by tolerance and intolerance. If by intolerance you mean a desire to stamp out anyone who thinks differently, by force if neccessary, then you are correct. Of course, Pat Buchanan shows no signs of thinking that way. At least, no more than you do.

If you are partial to your own point of view than at some stage you must want to see it actually implemented in the real world. Otherwise you are not really partial to it. Those who are partial to a different view will doubtless see this as "intolerant", just as you will see it when they try to impose their views on the world.

flenser... me too. Paleolibertarian.

That result surprised me a bit, and caused me to examine my innermost feelings to see if I could detect the slightest desire to start wearing a "Ron Paul" button.

Nope, none at all...

I guess I do stray off the paleocon reservation a bit on issues of moral and personal freedom, so maybe that skews the result.

Anyhow, nice to know we're cut from the same cloth, you and I. It's always best not to disagree too strongly with a guy holding a bloody filleting knife :-)

"[Despite Hitler's anti-Semitic and genocidal tendencies, he was] an individual of great courage.... "

Is there a factual error there? Do you disagree that Hitler had anti-Semitic and genocidal tendencies? That he had great courage?

Starfleet_dude,

I think that your comment regarding Vietnam is off base. You compare it to Iraq and say that it was the wrong war for us to be in. I think, that had we not fought Vietnam, the Soviets would have either won the cold war, or would still be in existence today. I believe that the United States won Vietnam, but that, unfortunately, the Vietnamese lost. They lost because we left. It was really the same situation as Korea. In Korea, we stayed. I think that had we remained in Vietnam, the Soviets would have imploded 10 years earlier than they did. I also believe that it would have ultimately prevented a lot of the spending that the US was forced to incur over the following 20+ years.

Cycloptichorn,

I think your comments are equally wrong. In fact, I would go as far as saying that Iraq is exactly the same as Vietnam and Korea. I believe that we have already won, but that we need ten years for the enemy to finally show themselves one by one and allow us to kill them. In the meantime, the Iraqis are being trained to do this for us.

As for the power of US forces – that depends on their situation. If they keep themselves in the right situations, they are pretty much unstoppable. A US unit might have the power of 10 normal, same sized military units because of their weapons and communications and training (and command.) They can not be compared to normal fighting units. I don’t think that you believe or understand this, but it’s very true and the actual multiplier is most likely higher than 10. Neocyte offers a good perspective on this as well. Swabjockey seems to understand the fight that these men are capable of.

KW64 has you both pegged. So does Doc. So does Uncle. So does Jeff. So does Tom. So does Sourdough. So does Brian P. So does The Yell. So does Azlabetarian. So does Bennett. So do I.

Filstro, Fedup: It’s already won. Flenser explains it well. Relax.

"Of course, Pat Buchanan shows no signs of thinking that way."

I think you give the man too much credit, Flenser.

"If you are partial to your own point of view than at some stage you must want to see it actually implemented in the real world."

Ummm...no...because I don't think it can really work that way in a representative democracy, especially one as heterogeneous as ours. I'm a believer in compromising differing points of view to reach a result that most can live with (after vigorous debate). And on those things that cannot be compromised? Then I believe in the will of the majority so long as it is consistent with the rule of law.

But I took the test and I came back as a centrist. Which will probably not seem surprising.

Bennett is a centrist!

So far, I'm really quite impressed with the test.

Flenser says:

Nothing in life has zero downsides. But leaving would be by far the most pragmatic course of action for us.

So why do you think it is that none of the likely Presidential nominess from either party are in favor of such a thing? Regardless of what happens in the next election, US policy in the Mid-East is driven by pragmatism and that is why we are not leaving Iraq any time in the next several years.

Eric says:

Yes, precisely. The next President (from either party) is going to continue this war upon gaining the insight of the current President.

Bennett, Pat is one of those poeple where it's important to pay attention to what he actually says... not what people claim he says. Read a half dozen of his columns and see what you think.

I think he's probably my favorite politician... warts and all.

Plus he's a GREAT writer.

(But then... I'm no centrist :-)

Posted by Cycloptichorn | September 7, 2007 7:50 PM

The Yell,

It's a pretty funny post, I agree; but the 7 soldiers who got blown to bits today probably don't think that comparing the situation in Iraq to long division is really all that funny. I bet a lot of Iraqis don't believe that either.

Eric says:

Cycloptichorn -- you couldn't be more wrong. I assure you that they do view it exactly as The Yell describes. Even the dead soldiers who most likely believed that they were fighting for something worth fighting for. By the way, I'm not aware of 7 soldiers dying today. Are you being theatrical?

America only exist today because of our ability to compromise. If that's centrist, count me in.

Iraq will survive if they develop this quality as well.

I do not think that the Iraqi front of the GWOT is all that far from being won.

The GWOT will be long, the Iraqi Front will not.

All you anti-Americans have asked when AQI will launch its version of Tet? Well sir, They did, and you never even noticed,as it was so feeble!

The results were the same; they traded lots of AQI lives for more unrest and American but mostly Iraqi civilian casualties headlines, before an American election.

That was October 2006; it wasn't enough. The non nation state of Al Queda does not have the resources of NVA, and the East Bloc, to draw on. The correlation of forces is totally disproportionate. AQI chose to NOT EVEN TRY to create a Guerrilla army. Their absolute numbers are also tiny. They are more a "Potemkin Village" of an insurgency. It doesn't really take many people to raise a little hell. But raising hell does not overthrow a government.

Iraq, unlike South Vietnam is not a hopeless economic basket case. It has the Oil to buy its arms, long after we are gone. The Democrat congress can't cut them off. Plus there are not thirty divisions of Iraqis just waiting to invade as So Vietnam faced. There are foreigners; non Arab Persians, historical enemies, but they are degenerating faster than Iraq is rising, IMHO.

The Iraqi Shia government is a majority democratic one. Its Army and National Police have outclassed the ability of AQI to compete, even now. The level of training and combat effectiveness is increasing daily. They won't need us much longer. Another 8-12 months at most. Then another front on the GWOT can be addressed. Iraq like Algeria, Libya, Morocco. Kuwait, will be finished. Finishing Afghanistan, and addressing Syria and Iran and Lebanon with economic warfare now, may turn hot next.

Bu tin Linclon's or perhasp reagans's Phase ... "My idea is We win; you lose" is apt.

"KW64 has you both pegged. So does Doc. So does Uncle. So does Jeff. So does Tom. So does Sourdough. So does Brian P. So does The Yell. So does Azlabetarian. So does Bennett. So do I."

No, you don't. None of you do. I don't think a single one of you has accurately studied the situation; none of you have mentioned the civil war between the Iraqis and the instability it's caused/will cause, preferring to focus entirely on AQ, who makes up a tiny portion of the fighters in Iraq.

All I can say, is you fellows are going to be pissed off when we pull out of the place. I'm sure you'll be pretty pleased; you'll have your very own Vietnam to complain about, your whole lives, how we were winning until the damned Democrats got their way!

Cycloptichorn:
All I can say, is you fellows are going to be pissed off when we pull out of the place. I'm sure you'll be pretty pleased; you'll have your very own Vietnam to complain about, your whole lives, how we were winning until the damned Democrats got their way!

Eric:
Time will tell. You're right, I'll be very pissed if we pull out and waste what we've done. I bet a lot of people will be if that happens. And if it does, here is what you'll have to look forward to -- a neo-neocon movement that will make Reagan through present look liberal.

As the US has undergone a steady and hardly-interrupted liberalizing trend, since it's inception, I am not threatened in the slightest by a resurgence of 'conservative values.'

After the agonizing years of humiliation and loss that are going to accompany the long, bloody and inevitable withdrawal from Iraq, no neoconservative in Washington is going to be able to buy a cup of coffee, let alone the ear of a president.

The neocons' last hurrah comes this fall, when they will do their damnedest (and fail) to start a war with Iran. After that they are going to fade away into history like a bad dream.

About time, too.

"(But then... I'm no centrist :-)"

That's okay, Filistro, it's people like me who keep the country from spinning off entirely into lefty lunatic or rabid righty hell. I wear the label proudly.

"So does Bennett." Oh, no Eric, leave me out of any discussion involving Cyclops. I disregard his comments after he called the story about Captain Travis Patriquin "a load of crap" (thread from yesterday). Granted he did acknowledge that the US military has success (in an abstract sort of way) and I'm sure he didn't mean to leave the impression that he thought the account of Patriquin's involvement with the Anbar Awakening was "a load of crap" but it came off that way to me.

Too many other fine commenters to read here anyway.

C'mon Bennett, you know you're one of my favorites :-)

Although come to think of it... If I'm a fan of both Bennett and Buchanan, I must be pretty eclectic my own self, no?

Cycloptichorn,

We are defending our own nation by being in Iraq. If you take a really good look at where Iraq is, and what surrounds it, I can't think of a better place to be at the moment. We make it so easy for the loonies to get to our forces...

I'd rather the loonies be fighting us in their lands than have them paying great attention in how to carry that fight to ours. They've admitted that even if we went home they'd still fight us. Why shouldn't we be using our military to fight them, rather than us as civilians having to fight them? Where can our military forces operate with the least harm to ourselves? They certainly should not operate in CONUS, so where?

I wonder how the Syrians feel about a large armed force, sympathetic to Israel, sitting off of their southern border. I wonder how the Iranians feel with American air bases sitting minutes away from their border.

We've heard other messages from Al Qaeda than Osama's, and I think Bush's recent VFW speech says it far better than anything I could.

That said, lets think about U.S.Grant and Robert E. Lee for a minute. Why did the North win? The South had the greater military mind, and for the first part of the Civil War the South won most of the battles. The answer has several facets, but the most interesting facet is that the North fought the war in the South. It was the South whose industries were destroyed, whose railroads were demolished, whose shipping was decimated. Lee tried exactly once (at Gettysburg) to carry the war into the North, and he never tried again. [There was one raid from Canada into Vermont at St. Albans by Southerners, but it was a pin-prick in comparison to what the North did in the South.]

The South is now Iraq, Iran, and Syria. We let up on them and they will find a way to carry jihad to our shores. This is their Vietnam, not ours, because the natives have figured things out and are on our side. We just have to give the natives room to fix their own problems without our politicians acting like they own the place and calling for impeachment, etc. Personally, I think it was culturally insensitive to expect the Iraqis to work over a hot summer Ramadan.

Cycloptichorn,

Al Qaeda is an ultra conservative movement. They would like you to die moreso than me. Please keep that in mind.

Why are you defending them? Why are you not more interested in their defeat?

Cycloptichorn

All I can say, is you fellows are going to be pissed off when we pull out of the place.

Any predictions as to when you think that will happen?

Cycloptichorn assured us (9/7, 7:46pm) that if we pull out of Iraq, "US soldiers will not be dying at a rate of around a hundred a month due to enemy fire and explosions". They are already not doing so. Total deaths due to hostile action were 66 in July, 56 in August, and are 16 so far in September. This site has all the figures in detail. Since it's already September 9th in Iraq, 16 in more than 8 days comes out to a hair under 2 per day, or around 60 for September if present trends continue, which is in the same ballpark as July and August (average 61). I sense a trend.

I also note considerable exaggeration on the part of opponents of the war, who can turn 61 into 100 without bothering to check the true figures.