What should we really do with Iraq...?

[Calabrio]

pol pot was the prime minister of cambodia ( and the khmer rouge )who massacred his own people..had nothing to do with viet nam..our pull out of viet nam had nothing to do with that mad mans quest to purify his country..as a matter of fact in 1979 viet nam invaded cambodia and lead to the collapse of the khmer rouge.

Then let me respectably expand upon a few things you've mentioned. I've been fortunate enough to spend a considerable amount of time with the Vietnam Vet community and it's not uncommon to have been to close to the situation to see the entire picture. I'll do it in a cliff note version.

When you talk about the pull-out, you're really talking about two phases. After the the American media had effectively been used to defeat us, despite having militarily crushed the North Vietnamese, Nixon and Kissinger negotiated a ceasefire. This was done along with the promise of ongoing financial and logistic support to the South Vietnamese.

But after Watergate, the Democrats with all their new power, were not satisfied with just a ceasefire. They hadn't completely lost the war or damaged our reputation enough. They then passed the Foreign Assistance Act, CUTTING OFF ALL FUNDING and evacuating personnel, leaving the South Vietnamese virtually defenseless against the well funded and vicious North.

And once we were gone, fleeing the country, the massacres and killing fields began.

 

[Eliot_Ness_Ls]

Calabrio, you win. I am not in to politics enough to care about what you have to say about my grammar so I am out of this but there are plenty of sides that want the country for they're own...Kurds..Suni...Shi'ite, they can fight amongst them self because they have different belifes on how the "COUNTRY" should be run some people might say that is a civil fight, but the wide spread violence that you have confused for this is only caused by the frustration of a "free" country dictateing them and breaking promisses.

And seeing on how you replied so well without confusion, I dont realy see my grammar as to much of a issue but I guess that means as a Elitest... you win.

 

[Calabrio]

Calabrio, you win. I am not in to politics enough to care about what you have to say about my grammar so I am out of this but there are plenty of sides that want the country for they're own...Kurds..Suni...Shi'ite, they can fight amongst them self because they have different belifes on how the "COUNTRY" should be run some people might say that is a civil fight, but the wide spread violence that you have confused for this is only caused by the frustration of a "free" country dictateing them and breaking promisses.

There are three dominant groups inside Iraq, you are right. The Kurds, the Shi'ite muslims, and the Sunnis. The Kurdish, in the North, finally free of the genocide imposed by Hussein, are living very well in the North right now. The area is peaceful, the economy is strong, and it's safe.

Then you have the divisions between the Muslims in the South.

You presume that by simply leaving the country, the violence and damage won't reach beyond the borders of Iraq. This is where you are wrong.

And you also presume that the violence taking place is being done by "sides." There are no sides. There is no civil war. There is simply violence and terrorism directed at civilians. The only strategy is terror and inflicting public relations damage to the U.S. in the world media. The United States had a civil war, there were two sides, two governments, military actions, and a strategic objective. In Iraq, you can't even identify the leadership associated with the violence. There is no one to negotiate with and there is no stated objective. Additional, there are several, unaffiliated groups all perpetuating violence as well.

And if you think this violence is because "another country is dictating how they are to run their government" then you've bought the lie. We don't run the Iraqi government. The closest explanation to your description is that a handful of sick and violent extremists resent the fact that they can't impose their will on the population so long as we stand in the way and support the FREE AND DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Iraqi government.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that Iraq is some kind of isolated situation. That it's outside the War on Terror. The problems in Iraq are directly related to the world wide problems associated with Radical Islam. And the violence directed at us is because we're standing in the way of their plans to rebuild an empire.

And seeing on how you replied so well without confusion, I dont realy see my grammar as to much of a issue but I guess that means as a Elitest... you win.

All of us who read your posts lost. You're trying to express an opinion, take a second and re-read it. If you can't speak what you wrote, re-write it. Typos happen.

 

[Joeychgo]

OK Bryan - that cartoon gave me a good laugh.

However. I really think this characterization is just the right wing spin.

I think the Dems belive we are not going to win anytime soon, especially under GW's leadership, and they want us out now before more US soldier's lives are lost fighting a losing battle. A battle none of us signed up for.

We signed up for regime change, disarmarment and establishment of a new Iraq government. All of that has been accomplished. This war has morphed into the beginning of a civil war, which is not what any of us signed up for.

Thats alot different then they WANT us to lose.

 

[Joeychgo]

You presume that by simply leaving the country, the violence and damage won't reach beyond the borders of Iraq. This is where you are wrong.

Yes, I agree. Maybe, since the war has become so much different, we should appeal to the UN and NATO for a peacekeeping force. Because really, that is what we are doing today.Unfortunately, I think the UN might just tell us to clean up our own mess and reiterate that, they told us so.

 

[Calabrio]

OK Bryan - that cartoon gave me a good laugh.

However. I really think this characterization is just the right wing spin.

It is 100% accurate.

I think the Dems belive we are not going to win anytime soon, especially under GW's leadership, and they want us out now before more US soldier's lives are lost fighting a losing battle. A battle none of us signed up for.

We signed up for regime change, disarmarment and establishment of a new Iraq government. All of that has been accomplished. This war has morphed into the beginning of a civil war, which is not what any of us signed up for.

No one thinks that the U.S. should maintain a heavy military presence forever. Nor do they think that "victory" will only come when a totally peaceful society resides there. The goal is simply stability and the ability of the government to stand up on it's feet and take charge.

And the more we discuss pulling out immediately, the less likely this will ever happen. If we telegraph our departure, that means that the public, the regular people who need to take a role in the civil structure of that country, will be scared into remaining quiet. Because, if we leave quickly, those brave people will likely be slaughtered by the minority of vicious animal terrorists. If it's uncertain that the country will be stable, would you sacrifice your life and that of your family?

The nature of the political debate right now is serving to undermine success.

Thats alot different then they WANT us to lose.

And you base this claim on what? The Democrats have invested their political fortunes heavily in our failure. Reid just spoke the other day about how he expects to pick up seats due to the war.

A premature withdraw is a concession of defeat. They clearly want us to lose because they are not interested in finding a way to win. They clearly want us to lose because they are trying to pull the plug on the war before they even allow the surge to be implemented. They want us to lose because if we win, they will lose power.

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt, let's assume they don't understand what the consequences of our loss will be. That's reasonable, Democrats have a long history of bad foreign policy. But the long term affect will be the same, regardless.

At the moment, a new commander has been put in charge in Iraq. A surge has been authorized. Before all the troops have even reached Iraq, the Democrats are now in a rush to pull funding and withdraw all troops. They are sabotaging things before they even start.

 

[Joeychgo]

They arent sabotaging anything. Thats a right wing talking point and utter garbage. They are doing what they are suppose to do, they are listening to the Ameican people. Thats how they got there, the republicans wern't listening.

Now, if the public has the wrong idea - blame Bush and the republicans. They have had years to convey their message. Trouble is, they aren't trusted by the american people. When the President's approval rating is so low for so long, and he seemingly could care less, the American people get pissed and fight back. They did so in the last election, and my suspicion is that they will again in 2008.

Either GW needs to repackage this war effort and present it in a whole new light with new ideas and fresh people, or lose. As long as he has his "Im the Boss" attitude and refuses to pay attention to the will of the American people, he will lose every battle. Dont blame the democrats, because you can talk about them and the 'liberal media' all you want. Fact is, if things were going well, they wouldnt have a leg to stand on.

 

[MERIJONS97LSC]

Then let me respectably expand upon a few things you've mentioned. I've been fortunate enough to spend a considerable amount of time with the Vietnam Vet community and it's not uncommon to have been to close to the situation to see the entire picture. I'll do it in a cliff note version.

When you talk about the pull-out, you're really talking about two phases. After the the American media had effectively been used to defeat us, despite having militarily crushed the North Vietnamese, Nixon and Kissinger negotiated a ceasefire. This was done along with the promise of ongoing financial and logistic support to the South Vietnamese.

But after Watergate, the Democrats with all their new power, were not satisfied with just a ceasefire. They hadn't completely lost the war or damaged our reputation enough. They then passed the Foreign Assistance Act, CUTTING OFF ALL FUNDING and evacuating personnel, leaving the South Vietnamese virtually defenseless against the well funded and vicious North.

And once we were gone, fleeing the country, the massacres and killing fields began.

i totaly agree with you..i never said there weren't massacres in viet nam i know there were..(pol pot in cambodia had nothing to do with it) .. my piont was the south did nothing to defend themselves and let the north walk through their county in less than a week..i repeat , if a county isn't willing to defend itself it doesn't matter how long we stay to defend it when we finally leave it will fall..

 

[Calabrio]

They arent sabotaging anything. Thats a right wing talking point and utter garbage. They are doing what they are suppose to do, they are listening to the Ameican people. Thats how they got there, the republicans wern't listening.

The American people don't have the ability or information to run a war. You don't run a war by committee. Furthermore, the are disseminating incorrect information in order to further deceive the public.

You said the Republicans weren't listening? Who did they not listen to, and who was listening to them?

If you're going to argue that we needed a larger surge, I must have missed the guys like Ted Kennedy standing on his soap box asking for more troops and increased spending.

Again, they changed commanders and they've authorized a surge. Why aren't they going to give it a chance to work? And why aren't they willing to discuss what the consequences of such a pull-out will be.

Here's the reality, the Democrats KNOW Bush will veto the disastrous legislation they have passed. But they are laying the foundation for defeat. They are hurting our country, they are threatening our security, and they are putting the military at greater risk. They are doing this PURELY for political reasons, securing their radical left base at all costs.

Now, if the public has the wrong idea - blame Bush and the republicans. They have had years to convey their message.

When did the Conservatives gain control of the media? When did the New York Times start honestly reporting the news, without it's far-left editorial agenda? How many times was Abu-Ghraib on the front page of the times?

Because of the media and political opportunist, the government has felt the need to fight this war encumbered by political correctness and timidness.

But, the administration certainly deserves some blame for poorly explaining and informing the public regarding the war. They also do deserve criticism for making mistakes.

Mistakes are made in ALL WARS. Pre-war intelligence was wrong. The Rumsfeld theory of the light force and quick occupation was wrong. We need to learn from those mistakes. (One lesson currently being ignored, INCREASE MILITARY SPENDING and expand the size)

But this isn't supposed to be a political pissing match. This is a security issue, not a political one. Unfortunately, the Democrats have made it one. They have INVESTED THEIR POLITICAL FORTUNE ON AMERICA'S DEFEAT.

Do you not understand that?? They have staked their future on us LOSING!

A surge has been approved. A new General has been put in charge. Tactics are being changed, strategy is evolving, and progress continues to be made. Yet, before this strategy is even IMPLEMENTED, the Democrats are moving with a high profile attempt to defund the war!!

That's damn near treasonous.

There is no reason we can't achieve a victory over there. Unfortunately, the Islamisists, just as the North Vietnamese before them, fully understand that you can defeat the United States but just prolonging the war and by utilizing the Democrat party and the American liberal media.

Trouble is, they aren't trusted by the american people. When the President's approval rating is so low for so long, and he seemingly could care less, the American people get pissed and fight back. They did so in the last election, and my suspicion is that they will again in 2008.

Perception isn't reality, and you should be aware of that. You're buying a very dangerous lie from the Democrats and the press.

Withdrawal is not consequence free. Unfortunately, you fail to understand that, or the nature of our enemies.

Iraq is not isolated. It is not simply an internal issue. We can not hide behind our borders, content that the great oceans will protect us. And you can NEVER project weakness.

Either GW needs to repackage this war effort and present it in a whole new light with new ideas and fresh people, or lose.

Remember the surge that was approved? Remember the confirmation of Gen Petreaus as the commander of the forces in Iraq? This happen only about 2 months ago.

The Democrats are gesturing to pull funding and defund the war before these NEW EFFORTS have been implemented. That editorial cartoon is 100% accurate!

As long as he has his "Im the Boss" attitude and refuses to pay attention to the will of the American people, he will lose every battle.

What is it your speaking of? They've changed commanders, they are implementing the NEW Iraqi Strategy Plan. Perhaps you should follow things more closely. Change has been made. The Democrats, now that the election is over, are now trying to surrender before these are even implemented, for fear of success.

Dont blame the democrats, because you can talk about them and the 'liberal media' all you want. Fact is, if things were going well, they wouldnt have a leg to stand on.

Going well? Define that.
You tell me. What is the definition of going well?

Are the Kurdish in the North doing well? They are. Funny though, I never see that story on the cover of the Times. How about MOST of the area outside Baghdad? Those are doing well. How about the fact that free elections have been held at least three times now? That sounds pretty good to me.

But since ONE scumbag terrorist can sneak into a market place with a bomb belt on, you think all is lost? These are terrorist. They operate by fear. They're only strategy is to manipulate the emotions of the consumers of media. There's no military strategy in blowing up a market place. It takes one person to scare the population, and then it gets on the Western news and erodes support for the war.

Stop responding defensively and think about what it is you're saying and my responses. You clearly don't get it. You think this is an election issue. You think it's like a big city wide debate regarding what color to paint the street lamps. You have to understand, if the U.S. fails to achieve success, if we turn tail and run, we will be destining millions of other people to die and greater destruction in the near future.

And the Democrats passing legislation, knowing FULL WELL it will be vetoed, that telegraphs a desire to cut and run, only serves to undermine our efforts in Iraq and help assure failure.

 

[Calabrio]

Petraeus Eyes Long Commitment in Iraq
Apr 26 02:59 PM US/Eastern
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Thursday that conditions in Iraq may get harder before they get easier and will require "an enormous commitment" over time by the United States.

Speaking as the Senate debated veto-threatened legislation to start bringing home U.S. forces in October, Petraeus called the war there "the most complex and challenging I have ever seen."

The four-star general, named by President Bush to oversee the recent buildup of American forces, cited some progress in the two months since the troop increase began. Still, he said, "there is vastly more work to be done across the board. ... We are just getting started with the new effort."

He avoided commenting directly on the legislation before the Senate, which passed the House Wednesday night. "I have tried to stay clear of the political minefields of various legislative proposals," he said.

But his comments made it clear that his war plan did not include a significant reduction of U.S. forces anytime soon.

"This effort may get harder before it gets easier," Petraeus told reporters at a Pentagon briefing, depicting the situation as "exceedingly complex and very tough."

He said that the increasing use of roadside bombs and suicide attacks, plus the greater concentration of U.S. troops among the population, has "led to greater U.S. losses" as well as increased Iraqi military casualties.

Asked how many troops he thought would have to remain in Iraq—and for how long—to finish the job, Petraeus said, "I wouldn't try to truly anticipate what level might be some years down the road." However, he noted historical precedents to long U.S. peacekeeping missions.

"It is an endeavor that clearly is going to require enormous commitment and commitment over time, but beyond that time I don't want to get into try to postulate how many brigades or when we would start to do something," he said.

Petraeus said matters were made worse by "exceedingly unhelpful activities by Iran and Syria, especially those by Iran."

Asked whether senior officials in the Iranian government were sanctioning sending weapons and technology to insurgents in Iraq, the U.S. general said it was hard to say. "We do not have a direct link of Iranian involvement," in attacks, he said.

Petraeus also said that, while the fledgling Iraqi government is often billed as a unity government among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, it actually is not.

"It is not a government of national unity. Rather, it is one comprised of political leaders from different parties that often default to narrow agendas and a zero-sum approach to legislation," the general said.

He said that was one reason why progress has been so slow on deciding how to divide up oil revenues and pass budget and emergency powers laws.

Despite the disappointing pace, Petraeus said he believes that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other leaders "are committed to achieving more in this area in the months ahead."

Petraeus cited slowly improving conditions in turbulent Anbar province in western Iraq, noting it had been "assessed as lost six months ago."

He said the increased U.S. presence in various outposts has enabled Iraqis "to stitch together the fabric of society that was so torn."

But he said improvements, such as the reopening of shops and the return by some residents to their homes, are "often eclipsed by sensational attacks that overshadow our daily accomplishments."

"Iraq is in fact the central front of al-Qaida's global campaign," he said. "Al-Qaida-Iraq remains a formidable foe with considerable resilience and a capability to produce horrific attacks."

"This group's activities must be significantly disrupted at the least for the new Iraq to succeed," he added. "The key to success is disrupting their attacks."


Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

[Joeychgo]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Thursday that conditions in Iraq may get harder before they get easier and will require "an enormous commitment" over time by the United States.

Havent I heard this before? Im not disputing it, just saying, I think we've been told this a few times.

Look. 2/3 of the American people have little or no confidence in the President and it has been that way for some time. This is what happens when people dont believe you, trust you, like you.

GW rarely has press conferences, and when he does, he often comes off as arrogant as well as stupid. He cant sell this war. He barely sold it in the beginning. Every little thing he has done has made him look bad. Like the whold aircraft carrier thing. Like the whole swift boat thing. Right or wrong, things like those make him look as though this is all politics. He looks inept because when we had one isolated dictator as an enemy, now, we are faced with Iraq becoming an iranian puppet and a haven for terrorists. How can we trust what his plan is now?

Should we leave Iraq? My first answer is, I dont think so. Unfortunately, I dont see much good coming from us being there.

This is literally a no win situation I think. If we stay, our overall troop strength might suffer. People might not want to enlist in the military because they anticipate being sent to Iraq. Not many people want to put their life at definate risk like that. On the other hand, if we pull out, well, there will be long term consequences there as well.

Point being - nobody has a good answer. The question becomes which is the lessor of 2 evils? I dont know that EITHER side is wrong or that EITHER side is right.

Were we not in a similar situation 40 years ago? Except wasnt it the Republicans that wanted us out of Vietnam?

 

[Calabrio]

GW rarely has press conferences, and when he does, he often comes off as arrogant as well as stupid.

First off, I don't agree with that claim. If you're already predisposed to believe that, then perhaps that how you'll see it.

But when he does have press conference, he isn't dealing with honest journalists. He deals with a succession of loaded questions, intended to embarrass or undermine him. "Gotcha questions," crap designed to smear his administration in the form of a sound bite.

It's not just journalism or probing for the truth, it's adversarial.

More importantly, except for people inside the Beltway or closely associated with politics, who watches those press conferences anyway. They take place in the middle of the day. In the meantime, his press secretary does it daily, and Rumself, Rice, and now Gates routinely have them. It would seem that the agenda driven, liberal press, is very selective as to what they lead their stories with.

He cant sell this war. He barely sold it in the beginning. Every little thing he has done has made him look bad. Like the whold aircraft carrier thing.

At the time, people thought the aircraft carrier celebration for the returning seamen was on of the best photo op in history.

Like the whole swift boat thing.

Bush had nothing to do with the Swift Boat Vets for truth. But with that said, what was wrong with them?

Right or wrong, things like those make him look as though this is all politics. He looks inept because when we had one isolated dictator as an enemy, now, we are faced with Iraq becoming an iranian puppet and a haven for terrorists. How can we trust what his plan is now?

Wrong. The mere fact that Bush continues to pursue this War demonstrates that it is NOT political. Everyone knows that it is unpopular. Yet despite this, despite the fact that the Congress was in jeopardy, ON PRINCIPLE, Bush has remained resolute reguarding the importance of Iraq.

It is the DEMOCRATS who have staked their political fortunes on our failure. It is the Democrats who have misled the public and are trying to profit on our vulnerability. And it is the Democrats who are risking our security in the name of political opportunism.

They just passed legislation that calls for withdrawal starting JULY 1. They know that it will be vetoed. They know that this telegraphs weakness, a desire to retreat, and it will embolden the enemy to intensify their attacks, but they have done it anyway. They did it to secure their radical anti-war base.

Should we leave Iraq? My first answer is, I dont think so. Unfortunately, I dont see much good coming from us being there.

There is no good coming from us being there, waiting to lose. You're right.

Thank the Democrats for that. If we have no intention of winning. If the Democrats are going to telegraph this defeat. And if the public lacks the will to win, then there's no point in staying. But you better fear the consequences.

What we should do is intensify the effort. Commit ourself to victory and then succeed.

This is literally a no win situation I think. If we stay, our overall troop strength might suffer. People might not want to enlist in the military because they anticipate being sent to Iraq. Not many people want to put their life at definate risk like that. On the other hand, if we pull out, well, there will be long term consequences there as well.

SELF FULFILLING PROPHECY!
It's a no-win situation if we resign ourself to defeat.
Troop enlistment will decline if we send the military into battles that we have no intention of winning.

Point being - nobody has a good answer. The question becomes which is the lessor of 2 evils? I dont know that EITHER side is wrong or that EITHER side is right.

No one has an EASY solution. The Democrats are trying to trick you into think they do. The good answer is a difficult answer, and get ready, there are a hell of a lot more difficult problems about to face America and Western civilization in the next few years, Iraq just happens to be one of the earlier ones. And our answer now will profoundly affect the stakes and challenges we face in the future.

Were we not in a similar situation 40 years ago? Except wasnt it the Republicans that wanted us out of Vietnam?

How many hippies do you know that voted for Nixon or Goldwater? No, the Democrats were the same cut and run party back then too. They supported the war at the beginning and then they sacrificed the troops at the end.

Fortunately, the situation was different. Other than the loss of face in the international world (which would go on to present America as a paper tiger providing our enemies with a blue print as to how to defeat us through the use of the left wing segment of the population and our media) the consequences associated with Vietnam weren't felt in the U.S. That conflict remained isolated to Asia. Abandoning Iraq will not be the same.

 

[MonsterMark]

They did so in the last election, and my suspicion is that they will again in 2008.

The power in the Senate was decided by less than 6000 votes.

The power in the Congress was decided by less than 100,000 votes.

Hop off the high horse. Take a look at history. The party in power has always lost seats in midterm election in the 2nd term of a Presidency. Reagan was the only one to buck that trend.

Truth is, the media won the election for the Dems. Plain and simple. People in the country with the attention span of a knat and the brain power of an ant feed off of 10 second snippets. They don't know how or what to think on their own.

Search for the media reporting on the war, economy, blah, blah, blah. I bet you'll find it to be at least 75% negative.

Hell, the Dow screamed past 13,000. Check out how it was reported. And don't think for a second if Kerry had won the election how great a leader he was and how the Dem agenda and lead to this profound wealth.

Oh, and check out how the media treated the record tax receipts that plopped into the treasury today. I'm sure they'll give credit to Clinton for his Tax increases.

 

[Joeychgo]

The power in the Senate was decided by less than 6000 votes.

The power in the Congress was decided by less than 100,000 votes.

If you want to compare:
Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000 by more then Half a million votes...
Hardly a ringing endorsement....

The Repubs lost 6 seats in the senate, 27 in the house. (about 6% of seats for both) This is after gaining seats in both in 2004;

GW won the popular vote by 3 Million votes in 2006.... Less then 3% of the votes cast.

The republicans also lost 6 Governors in 2006 -- 12%

BTW - where was the liberal media when the whole Swift Boat campaign occurred? The republicans got their message out then didnt they?

 

[shagdrum]

Democratic populations lose faith to a degree in the middle of any war. Look at how Churchill was rewarded during WW2. There was negative sentiment about the war in the middle of the Civil War and both World Wars. The American people as a whole r rather fickle, and u can't just do what they (supposedly) say at any one time. U do what is right and neccessary to do. The biggest problem with Vietnam was policial concerns that tied our hands behind our back and kept us from having the option to win (couldn't cross into North Vietnam). We had leadership that had lost the will to win. We don't have that hear. Bush is hardly my favorite president, but he is fighting this war to win, unlike Johnson. That is why this is different then Vietnam.

 

[shagdrum]

If you want to compare:
Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000 by more then Half a million votes...
Hardly a ringing endorsement....

The Repubs lost 6 seats in the senate, 27 in the house. (about 6% of seats for both) This is after gaining seats in both in 2004;

GW won the popular vote by 3 Million votes in 2006.... Less then 3% of the votes cast.

The republicans also lost 6 Governors in 2006 -- 12%

BTW - where was the liberal media when the whole Swift Boat campaign occurred? The republicans got their message out then didnt they?

Joey, u were doin so good at the beginning of this thread. It seems u r either unwilling or unable to look past your personal bias against Bush (probably due to the 2000 election) and republicans or acknowledge the fact that the mainstream media is highly bias and exerts considerable influence...


BTW, popular vote for president...doesn't matter.

 

[Calabrio]

BTW - where was the liberal media when the whole Swift Boat campaign occurred? The republicans got their message out then didnt they?

The Swift Boat campaign was entirely funded by a private donations. They didn't carry the water for the Swift Boat Vets, to the contrary, the only press they received in the MSM were negative attacks.

And the SBVFT weren't expressing a "republican message," they were a single issue group- they didn't trust Kerry. They campaigned against him in the primary and they continued to do so in the general election.

And your election numbers prove what we already know. Bush defied convention by picking up seats in both a midterm election and when he ran for re-election. The 2006 numbers were consistent with historic trends, and the result of a Republican smear campaign by Democrats with the full assistance of the media combined with frustrated conservative voters who wanted to send a message.

And Joey, don't get distracted. I've composed responses to your posts that directly challenge every false impression and claim you made.

 

[Joeychgo]

I disagree. There is little else to really talk about besides the war. The nation is fixed on it. And its been mismanaged, its not the war we were sold on, the basis on which we were sold the war turned out to be red herrings, and we are seeing a lack of progress at the present time and really since the invasion was completed we have seen little tangible progress.

Do I think we can leave now? No, honestly I dont. I think long term we have a bigger mess if we leave. But we need a better strategy for staying there for it to work. Otherwise, we will be in the same place in 2 years.

How far are you willing to go? That is the real question. Are you prepared to enlist or send your children to Iraq to risk their lives?

I mean, come on. Bush has ignored everyone, even his own Baker commission's recommendations. Thats my problems. I know we dont run a war by committee, but GW, while his policy is failing, seems to refuse anyone else's advice.

 

[Calabrio]

And its been mismanaged, its not the war we were sold on, the basis on which we were sold the war turned out to be red herrings,

No, it wasn't a red herring, but it was oversold. But that's something that we need to learn on. More money needs to be invested in human intelligence. We had virtually eliminated all humint during the 90s. That wasn't even Clinton's fault, the idea was that we could make due with technology.

and we are seeing a lack of progress at the present time and really since the invasion was completed we have seen little tangible progress.

A new strategy and a new commander have been put into place. There has been much progress since the invasion, and even since the announcement of the surge, progress is being reported. Why not give the strategy time to be fully implemented before retreating?

Do I think we can leave now? No, honestly I dont. I think long term we have a bigger mess if we leave. But we need a better strategy for staying there for it to work. Otherwise, we will be in the same place in 2 years.

No offense, but this very frustrating. You make the same statements, based on your "observations" over and over. And I respond to them each time, yet you never acknowledge them. You never disprove them, you never even effectively argue the point. You just restate it.

Once again- WE HAVE JUST ENGAGED IN A SUBSTANTIAL STRATEGY CHANGE IN IRAQ.

WE HAVE JUST NAMED A NEW, HIGHLY RESPECTED, COMMANDER TO OVER SEE THE FORCES IN IRAQ.

WE HAVE AUTHORIZED AN ADDITIONAL 21,500 TROOP SURGE TO GO TO IRAQ. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THIS NUMBER WILL BE DOUBLED.

You're getting what you're asking for. The rules of engagement and the strategy being used to secure the country are being changed under Patreaus.

How far are you willing to go? That is the real question. Are you prepared to enlist or send your children to Iraq to risk their lives?

As I mentioned in the self-fulfilling prophecy comment that you've ignored, enlistment will continue to fall. It would be foolish to commit yourself to fighting a war that the Congress is trying to lose.

I mean, come on. Bush has ignored everyone, even his own Baker commission's recommendations. Thats my problems. I know we dont run a war by committee, but GW, while his policy is failing, seems to refuse anyone else's advice.

It's like talking to a wall. You make posts, you don't read the response, and then you repeat your initial post.

The Baker Commision wasn't totally ignored, but it was a political document. Vernon Jordon (of Monica Lewinski fame) and Leon Panetta were part of the group.

One more time. You say the policy was failing and he refuses anyone's advice.
first of all, the first strategy was the suggestion of the military and Gen. Abizaid

A NEW GENERAL IS IN COMMAND OF THE FORCES IN IRAQ.
HE IS IMPLEMENTING A NEW STRATEGY.
THERE IS A TROOP SURGE UNDERWAY.
AND WE CHANGED THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. Rumsfeld is out. Gates is in.

Not let it work.

 

[Calabrio]

The Surge: First Fruits
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, April 13, 2007; A17

By the day, the debate at home about Iraq becomes increasingly disconnected from the realities of the war on the ground. The Democrats in Congress are so consumed with negotiating among their factions the most clever linguistic device to legislatively ensure the failure of the administration's current military strategy -- while not appearing to do so -- that they speak almost not at all about the first visible results of that strategy.

And preliminary results are visible. The landscape is shifting in the two fronts of the current troop surge: Anbar province and Baghdad.

The news from Anbar is the most promising. Only last fall, the Marines' leading intelligence officer there concluded that the United States had essentially lost the fight to al-Qaeda. Yet just this week, the Marine commandant, Gen. James Conway, returned from a four-day visit to the province and reported that we "have turned the corner."

Why? Because, as Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, the Australian counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. David Petraeus, has written, 14 of the 18 tribal leaders in Anbar have turned against al-Qaeda. As a result, thousands of Sunni recruits are turning up at police stations where none could be seen before. For the first time, former insurgent strongholds such as Ramadi have a Sunni police force fighting essentially on our side.

Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a major critic of the Bush war policy, reports that in Anbar, al-Qaeda is facing "a real and growing groundswell of Sunni tribal opposition." And that "this is a crucial struggle, and it is going our way -- for now."

The situation in Baghdad is more mixed. Yesterday's bridge and Green Zone attacks show the insurgents' ability to bomb sensitive sites. On the other hand, pacification is proceeding. "Nowhere is safe for Westerners to linger," ABC's Terry McCarthy reported on April 3. "But over the past week we visited five different neighborhoods where the locals told us life is slowly coming back to normal." He reported from Jadriyah, Karrada, Zayouna, Zawra Park and the notorious Haifa Street, previously known as "sniper alley." He found that "children have come out to play again. Shoppers are back in markets," and he concluded that "nobody knows if this small safe zone will expand or get swallowed up again by violence. For the time being though, people here are happy to enjoy a life that looks almost normal."

Fouad Ajami, just returned from his seventh trip to Iraq, is similarly guardedly optimistic and explains the change this way: Fundamentally, the Sunnis have lost the battle of Baghdad. They initiated it with an indiscriminate terror campaign they assumed would cow the Shiites, whom they view with contempt as congenitally quiescent, lower-class former subjects. They learned otherwise after the Samarra bombing in February 2006 kindled Shiite fury -- a savage militia campaign of kidnapping, indiscriminate murder and ethnic cleansing that has made Baghdad a largely Shiite city.

Petraeus is trying now to complete the defeat of the Sunni insurgents in Baghdad -- without the barbarism of the Shiite militias, whom his forces are simultaneously pursuing and suppressing.

How at this point -- with only about half of the additional surge troops yet deployed -- can Democrats be trying to force the United States to give up? The Democrats say they are carrying out their electoral mandate from the November election. But winning a single-vote Senate majority as a result of razor-thin victories in Montana and Virginia is hardly a landslide.

Second, if the electorate was sending an unconflicted message about withdrawal, how did the most uncompromising supporter of the war, Sen. Joe Lieberman, win handily in one of the most liberal states in the country?

And third, where was the mandate for withdrawal? Almost no Democratic candidates campaigned on that. They campaigned for changing the course the administration was on last November.

Which the president has done. He changed the civilian leadership at the Defense Department, replaced the head of Central Command and, most critically, replaced the Iraq commander with Petraeus -- unanimously approved by the Democratic Senate -- to implement a new counterinsurgency strategy.

John McCain has had no illusions about the difficulty of this war. Nor does he now. In his bold and courageous speech at the Virginia Military Institute defending the war effort, he described the improvements in Iraq while acknowledging the enormous difficulties ahead. Insisting that success in Iraq is both possible and necessary, McCain made clear that he is willing to stake his presidential ambitions, indeed his entire political career, on a war policy that is unpopular but that he believes must be pursued for the sake of the country. How many other presidential candidates -- beginning with, say, Hillary Clinton-- do you think are acting in the same spirit?

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

 

[Joeychgo]

No, it wasn't a red herring, but it was oversold. But that's something that we need to learn on. More money needs to be invested in human intelligence. We had virtually eliminated all humint during the 90s. That wasn't even Clinton's fault, the idea was that we could make due with technology.

Ok - I can agree to lower the intensity of the language. I havent gone so far as to belive that it was a deliberate measure on the administration's fault. I belive they believed what they said, and then pressured people to give them evidence in support.

I agree about the intel. I think it started to degrade with Bush I and continued. I think the last 3 presidents all made the same mistake, thinking that since the fall of the USSR, that a large military and strong human intelligence corps were unecessary.

Technology is great and quite helpful, but cannot replace boots on the ground.

A new strategy and a new commander have been put into place. There has been much progress since the invasion, and even since the announcement of the surge, progress is being reported. Why not give the strategy time to be fully implemented before retreating?

I dont see a new strategy really, I see a troop increase. And prior commanders were respected and talented as well. Further, im not retreating, im frustrated. this is a consuming national issue. I want us to win. I just dont have the confidence in GW to make that happen.

Once again- WE HAVE JUST ENGAGED IN A SUBSTANTIAL STRATEGY CHANGE IN IRAQ.

Whats the change?

WE HAVE JUST NAMED A NEW, HIGHLY RESPECTED, COMMANDER TO OVER SEE THE FORCES IN IRAQ.

See my above answer

WE HAVE AUTHORIZED AN ADDITIONAL 21,500 TROOP SURGE TO GO TO IRAQ. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THIS NUMBER WILL BE DOUBLED.

You're getting what you're asking for. The rules of engagement and the strategy being used to secure the country are being changed under Patreaus.


As I mentioned in the self-fulfilling prophecy comment that you've ignored, enlistment will continue to fall. It would be foolish to commit yourself to fighting a war that the Congress is trying to lose.

I'll take you a little more seriously when you stop blaming congress for everything and at least include GW in these statements. The dems didnt get us into this war, and they didnt get us to where we are today. Stop blaming them for doing their job, which is to express the will of the American Public. They dont believe the current policy to be working or likely to work, and they also dont see GW willing to consider other options. SO, they are forcing him. (although Sen. Mike Gravel was a little over the top when he suggested making it a felony to continue the war, how entertaining that nutcase was)

The Baker Commision wasn't totally ignored, but it was a political document. Vernon Jordon (of Monica Lewinski fame) and Leon Panetta were part of the group.

The commission also had
James Baker, (R) a former Secretary of State
Sandra Day O'Connor, (R) former Supreme Court Justice
Lawrence Eagleburger, (R) former Secretary of State
Edwin Meese III, (R) former US Attorney General
Alan K. Simpson, (R) former U.S. Senator from Wyoming


Lee Hamilton, (D) a former U.S. Representative.
Vernon Jordan, Jr., (D) business executive
Leon E. Panetta, (D) former White House Chief of Staff
William J. Perry, (D) former US Secretary of Defense
Charles S. Robb, (D) former Governor and U.S. Senator from Virginia

It was an equal bipartisian commission. 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats. Lets not make it out to be a Dem controlled commission.

One more time. You say the policy was failing and he refuses anyone's advice. First of all, the first strategy was the suggestion of the military and Gen. Abizaid

SO what are you saying? That they were the inept ones?

A NEW GENERAL IS IN COMMAND OF THE FORCES IN IRAQ.

This is not the first new general we've had.

AND WE CHANGED THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. Rumsfeld is out. Gates is in.

For that, Im grateful. Rumsfeld is partly responsible for this mess. I say that because the 'leaner military' that was suppose to be reliant upon technology and special forces, is a big part of why we dont really have the troops to spare right now.

Had GW made that change 2 or 3 years earlier, maybe the American people would be more tolorant today.


One more point.

I was watching the debate tonight. (former Sen. Mike Gravel was quite entertaining. I loved his "potted plant" remark)

One thing struck me as so very true. Sen. Joseph Biden noted that all we have right now are 2 options on the table. Keep on our present course with GW or pull out like so many dems want. We need OTHER options. I dont know if his idea to decentralize its control of Iraq and share the nation’s oil wealth will work, but at least its another thing to consider.

 

[Calabrio]

I belive they believed what they said, and then pressured people to give them evidence in support.

You're failing to note that the previous administration had come to the same conclusions based on the evidence. The British came to the same conclusion as well. So this wasn't based on one administration saying "make it so" as you seem to imply.

Furthermore, the extent that the intelligence was flawed is still highly controversial. The state of the programs were simply over-estimated. To what degree, we don't know.

I dont see a new strategy really, I see a troop increase. And prior commanders were respected and talented as well. Further, im not retreating, im frustrated. this is a consuming national issue. I want us to win. I just dont have the confidence in GW to make that happen.

Whats the change?

First off, the fact that YOU don't see a new strategy is irrevent. Sitting in the Mid West, you wouldn't. You don't follow these things very closely.

Let me repeat. NEW SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. NEW COMMANDER OF THE MULTI-NATIONAL FORCES. NEW STRATEGY. AND TROOP SURGE.

Bush did not create the strategy before, that was the product of Gen. Abazaid. It was based on the idea that is we left a light footprint, the Iraqi's would be more inclined to step up on their own. Gen. Petraeus, the new commander of the multi-national force, is implementing a TOTALLY DIFFERENT STRATEGY.

And while you say "YOU" are not retreating, the Democrat party is.

I'll take you a little more seriously when you stop blaming congress for everything and at least include GW in these statements.The dems didnt get us into this war, and they didnt get us to where we are today.

I place blame accordingly. The Democrat Congress is the one threatening to choke the military of funding and telegraph defeat to the world, not the President. The Congress is equally responsible for getting us involved in Iraq, with it's virtual unanimous support, as the executive branch.

Stop blaming them for doing their job, which is to express the will of the American Public. They dont believe the current policy to be working or likely to work, and they also dont see GW willing to consider other options. SO, they are forcing him. (although Sen. Mike Gravel was a little over the top when he suggested making it a felony to continue the war, how entertaining that nutcase was)

You're simply wrong. And even if the public wanted something, they are supposed to know better than to do thing that jeopardize our security.

You keep repeating this idiotic mantra "Bush won't consider options." LOOK:


NEW SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
NEW COMMANDER OF MULTI-NATIONAL FORCES.
NEW TROOP SURGE
NEW STRATEGY CREATED BY THE NEW COMMANDER.

You can't get a more clear "change of strategy" than that.

The commission also had

It doesn't matter. It was a political document and that undermined it's value.

SO what are you saying? That they were the inept ones?

No, but the strategy employed did not succeed. That doesn't even imply they were inept. It's a complicated situation and one we've never encountered before. But, consistent with your call for a new approach and strategy, the leadership has been changed.

Here's some news, the White House doesn't create the "strategy." They rely upon the Generals and military leaders to do so. You seem to be unaware of that.

I was watching the debate tonight. (former Sen. Mike Gravel was quite entertaining. I loved his "potted plant" remark)

One thing struck me as so very true. Sen. Joseph Biden noted that all we have right now are 2 options on the table. Keep on our present course with GW or pull out like so many dems want. We need OTHER options. I dont know if his idea to decentralize its control of Iraq and share the nation’s oil wealth will work, but at least its another thing to consider.

Biden is a blow hard and he's making these comments in vacuum, repeating the obvious like he's some sort of sage.

Of course you have only two options, if you make them as broad as you and the Democrats are doing. "Stay or Go." There are infinite number of different ways you can stay or go though. Biden and the left are framing this debate dishonestly, implying that "staying" means a static situation with no change in tactics. That's just not the case, nor has it ever been.

Ultimately, victory or defeat are the ONLY two options in a battle. You have this desire, based on your ill-informed bias against Bush, to want to see failure to spite him.

As for Biden's point, decentralize control and share oil wealth. DUH. That's what they ARE trying to do. The problem is finding a way to SHARE that oil between the ethnic groups.

Mind you, this isn't Biden's first "big idea" on the war, every few months he comes forward and states the obvious easy answer. It sounds good, until you learn how it's nearly impossible to implement as things currently are. Then he repeats someone elses idea a few months later.

Do us all a favor, do some reading on this. Your not acknowledging facts, you just stubbornly cling to the unsupported impressions you've made.

 

[Joeychgo]

President Bush laid out his administration's vision yesterday for winning the war in Iraq, acknowledging that the U.S. military has suffered "setbacks" but asserting that it is making unmistakable progress in training Iraqi security forces -- a mission he vowed will not be cut short by political pressures on the homefront.

December 1, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/30/AR2005113000164.html

New Iraq strategy: Stay in hot spots
November 23, 2005

The President's New Iraq Strategy Is Rooted In Six Fundamental Elements:

• Let the Iraqis lead;
• Help Iraqis protect the population;
• Isolate extremists;
• Create space for political progress;
• Diversify political and economic efforts; and
• Situate the strategy in a regional approach.

January 10, 2007
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-3.html

U.S. considering new Iraq strategy
WASHINGTON -- As the Bush administration considers military options for deposing Saddam Hussein, senior administration and Pentagon officials say they are exploring a new if risky approach: Take Baghdad and one or two key command centers and weapons depots first, in hopes of cutting off the country's leadership and causing a quick government collapse. The "inside-out" approach, as some call this Baghdad-first option, would capitalize on the U.S....

July 29, 2002 - Link


Ive heard all about the 'New" strategy in Iraq - a number of them over the years. We've been through a few generals over the years as well, so many I cant remember them all.

 

[Marcus]

Joey pointed it out before I had a chance. This "new" strategy is no different than the previous strategies, especially the "clear and hold" part of it. This same strategy was announced in 2005. The only difference is additional troops.

The famous definition of an insane person is "one who does the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different result".

NEW SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
NEW COMMANDER OF MULTI-NATIONAL FORCES.
NEW TROOP SURGE
NEW STRATEGY CREATED BY THE NEW COMMANDER.

Translation: Put another coat of paint on it.

 

[Calabrio]

Your claim is incorrect. The strategy and approach is NOT the same.
If you simplify any strategy to three words, they all sound about the same. You are simply wrong.

Abizaid and Casey are different than Petreaus.
Rumsfeld is different than Gates.

The former supported the "light foot print" idea of occupation. Petreaus, a Princeton graduate and the guy who wrote the manual on counterinsurgency, and Gates, have a different approach.