Why Bush Will Be A Winner

[Calabrio]

Why Bush Will Be A Winner

By William Kristol
Sunday, July 15, 2007; B01

I suppose I'll merely expose myself to harmless ridicule if I make the following assertion: George W. Bush's presidency will probably be a successful one.

Let's step back from the unnecessary mistakes and the self-inflicted wounds that have characterized the Bush administration. Let's look at the broad forest rather than the often unlovely trees. What do we see? First, no second terrorist attack on U.S. soil -- not something we could have taken for granted. Second, a strong economy -- also something that wasn't inevitable.

And third, and most important, a war in Iraq that has been very difficult, but where -- despite some confusion engendered by an almost meaningless "benchmark" report last week -- we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome.

The economy first: After the bursting of the dot-com bubble, followed by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, we've had more than five years of steady growth, low unemployment and a stock market recovery. Did this just happen? No. Bush pushed through the tax cuts of 2001 and especially 2003 by arguing that they would produce growth. His opponents predicted dire consequences. But the president was overwhelmingly right. Even the budget deficit, the most universally criticized consequence of the tax cuts, is coming down and is lower than it was when the 2003 supply-side tax cuts were passed.

Bush has also (on the whole) resisted domestic protectionist pressures (remember the Democratic presidential candidates in 2004 complaining about outsourcing?), thereby helping sustain global economic growth.

The year 2003 also featured a close congressional vote on Bush's other major first-term initiative, the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Liberals denounced it as doing nothing for the elderly; conservatives worried that it would bust the budget. Experts of all stripes foresaw great challenges in its implementation. In fact, it has all gone surprisingly smoothly, providing broad and welcome coverage for seniors and coming in under projected costs.

So on the two biggest pieces of domestic legislation the president has gotten passed, he has been vindicated. And with respect to the two second-term proposals that failed -- private Social Security accounts and immigration -- I suspect that something similar to what Bush proposed will end up as law over the next several years.

Meanwhile, 2005-06 saw the confirmation of two Supreme Court nominees, John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. Your judgment of these two appointments will depend on your general view of the courts and the Constitution. But even if you're a judicial progressive, you have to admit that Roberts and Alito are impressive judges (well, you don't have to admit it -- but deep down, you know it). And if you're a conservative constitutionalist, putting Roberts and Alito on the court constitutes a huge accomplishment.

What about terrorism? Apart from Iraq, there has been less of it, here and abroad, than many experts predicted on Sept. 12, 2001. So Bush and Vice President Cheney probably are doing some important things right. The war in Afghanistan has gone reasonably well.

Western Pakistan, where President Pervez Musharraf's deals with the Taliban are apparently creating something like havens for terrorists, is an increasing problem. That's why our intelligence agencies are worried about a resurgent al-Qaeda -- because al-Qaeda may once again have a place where it can plan, organize and train. These Waziristan havens may well have to be dealt with in the near future. I assume Bush will deal with them, using some combination of air strikes and special operations.

As for foreign policy in general, it has mostly been the usual mixed bag. We've deepened our friendships with Japan and India; we've had better outcomes than expected in the two largest Latin American countries, Mexico and Brazil; and we've gotten friendlier governments than expected in France and Germany. China is stable. There has been slippage in Russia. The situation with North Korea is bad but containable.

But wait, wait, wait: What about Iraq? It's Iraq, stupid -- you (and 65 percent of your fellow Americans) say -- that makes Bush an unsuccessful president.

Not necessarily. First of all, we would have to compare the situation in Iraq now, with all its difficulties and all the administration's mistakes, with what it would be if we hadn't gone in. Saddam Hussein would be alive and in power and, I dare say, victorious, with the United States (and the United Nations) by now having backed off sanctions and the no-fly zone. He might well have restarted his nuclear program, and his connections with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups would be intact or revived and even strengthened.

Still, that's speculative, and the losses and costs of the war are real. Bush is a war president, and war presidents are judged by whether they win or lose their war. So to be a successful president, Bush has to win in Iraq.

Which I now think we can. Indeed, I think we will. In late 2006, I didn't think we would win, as Bush stuck with the failed Rumsfeld-Abizaid-Casey strategy of "standing down" as the Iraqis were able to "stand up," based on the mistaken theory that if we had a "small footprint" in Iraq, we'd be more successful. With the new counterinsurgency strategy announced on Jan. 10, backed up by the troop "surge," I think the odds are finally better than 50-50 that we will prevail. We are routing al-Qaeda in Iraq, we are beginning to curb the Iranian-backed sectarian Shiite militias and we are increasingly able to protect more of the Iraqi population.

If we sustain the surge for a year and continue to train Iraqi troops effectively, we can probably begin to draw down in mid- to late 2008. The fact is that military progress on the ground in Iraq in the past few months has been greater than even surge proponents like me expected, and political progress is beginning to follow. Iran is a problem, and we will have to do more to curb Tehran's meddling -- but we can. So if we keep our nerve here at home, we have a good shot at achieving a real, though messy, victory in Iraq.

But can Bush maintain adequate support at home? Yes. It would help if the administration would make its case more effectively and less apologetically. It would help if Bush had more aides who believed in his policy, who understood that the war is winnable and who didn't desperately want to get back in (or stay in) the good graces of the foreign policy establishment.

But Bush has the good fortune of having finally found his Ulysses S. Grant, or his Creighton Abrams, in Gen. David H. Petraeus. If the president stands with Petraeus and progress continues on the ground, Bush will be able to prevent a sellout in Washington. And then he could leave office with the nation on course to a successful (though painful and difficult) outcome in Iraq. With that, the rest of the Middle East, where so much hangs in the balance, could start to tip in the direction of our friends and away from the jihadists, the mullahs and the dictators.

Following through to secure the victory in Iraq and to extend its benefits to neighboring countries will be the task of the next president. And that brings us to Bush's final test.

The truly successful American presidents tend to find vindication in, and guarantee an extension of their policies through, the election of a successor from their own party. Can Bush hand the presidency off to a Republican who will (broadly) continue along the path of his post-9/11 foreign policy, nominate judges who solidify a Roberts-Alito court, make his tax cuts permanent and the like?

Sure. Even at Bush's current low point in popularity, the leading GOP presidential candidates are competitive in the polls with Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. Furthermore, one great advantage of the current partisan squabbling in Washington is that while it hurts Bush, it also damages the popularity of the Democratic Congress-- where both Clinton and Obama serve. A little mutual assured destruction between the Bush administration and Congress could leave the Republican nominee, who will most likely have no affiliation with either, in decent shape.

And what happens when voters realize in November 2008 that, if they choose a Democrat for president, they'll also get a Democratic Congress and therefore liberal Supreme Court justices? Many Americans will recoil from the prospect of being governed by an unchecked triumvirate of Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. So the chances of a Republican winning the presidency in 2008 aren't bad.

What it comes down to is this: If Petraeus succeeds in Iraq, and a Republican wins in 2008, Bush will be viewed as a successful president.

I like the odds.

editor@weeklystandard.com

William Kristol is the editor of the Weekly Standard.

 

[Calabrio]

Bill Kristol: On the Train to Delusionville
Arianna Huffington
Posted July 16, 2007

I know it's a pretty high bar, but Bill Kristol, the founder of the Project for a New American Century that spawned the Iraq war, the man whose editorials often seem to be inserted directly into the president's speeches, and who once boasted that "Dick Cheney does send over someone to pick up 30 copies of [The Weekly Standard] every Monday," has now just written the single most deceptive piece of the entire war.

The charitable view is that he's lost his mind. The less charitable view is that he's now officially surpassed Dick Cheney as the most intellectually dishonest member of the neocon establishment (the highest of all high bars). The truth-shattering piece appeared yesterday on the front page of the Washington Post Outlook section. It is entitled "Why Bush Will Be A Winner."

I had a preview of this deluded triumphalist drivel a couple of days earlier -- on Thursday afternoon specifically. Even more specifically, I was on the 4:00 pm Amtrak Acela from New York to Washington.

Kristol was sitting a row behind me, talking on his cell phone with someone who apparently shared his optimism. "'Precipitous withdrawal' really worked," I overheard him say, clearly referring to the president's use of the term in that morning's press conference. "How many times did he use it? Three? Four?" he asked his interlocutor, and the conversation continued with a round of metaphorical back-slapping for the clever phrase they had "come up with."

I, of course, have no idea who was on the other end. Tony Snow, perhaps? After all, he and Kristol were colleagues before Snow left Fox. But whoever it was, the emphasis during their conversation on the significance of the "clever" phrase has been emblematic of the White House prepping of the president.

Instead of sending their boss out with the real facts or logical arguments, Bush's aides and their friends (see Kristol) concoct some nonsense phrase in the spin lab, hand it to him and tell him to go out there and repeat it as often as he can. The latest is "precipitous withdrawal." It's the new "cut and run." It's actually not all that new: back in January 1969, Richard Nixon used it again and again in his famous "Silent Majority" speech: "The precipitate withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam would be a disaster not only for South Vietnam but for the United States and for the cause of peace." Again and again throughout the speech, Nixon used the phrase to paint the nightmarish consequences of a "precipitate withdrawal" from Vietnam. Almost forty years later, George Bush is using the slightly tweaked "precipitous withdrawal" to paint his own nightmarish scenario of what will happen if American forces leave Iraq. And for that, apparently, we have Bill Kristol to thank. At least partially.

In an interview with David Carr in March 2003, Kristol sounded just as pleased with himself and with his president as he's sounding today. "I'm a little amused but pleased," he said, "that the bus has become more crowded and that it is headed in the right direction." Well, the bus is a lot less crowded today -- and a lot more dilapidated. But Kristol remains as confident as ever that he and Cheney and their other neocon friends are still steering it in the right direction.

It is truly incredible that, at this late date in the Iraq debacle, there are still people who believe that a few well-focus-grouped phrases will change the tragic facts on the ground.

My chance encounter on the 4:00 pm Amtrak was a glimpse into their thinking. Kristol's Washington Post piece is the entire Bush-era conservative brain laid bare.

It isn't pretty. In fact, the Washington Post should have put some kind of warning on the piece for pregnant women, heart patients, and anyone with an allergy to bull:q:q:q:q. And if the pipeline from Kristol to the White House works the same for this piece as for "precipitous withdrawal," the country is in even worse shape than we thought.

So what did he say? I'll take it in order, and focus on national security.

After allowing that the war has been "difficult," he writes that "we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome."

Really? Not only does he give no evidence for this, not only does he ignore all the overwhelmingly contradictory evidence; he also conveniently neglects to even define what a "successful outcome" would be.

Then comes an onslaught of lies:

"The war in Afghanistan has gone reasonably well."

Afghanistan is in fact teetering on the precipice of chaos. Indeed, 2006 saw the highest number of coalition deaths since the war began. The next highest before that? 2005. The Taliban is making a comeback and unrest among Afghans is growing. Obviously, Kristol's definition of "reasonably well" is very different than the experts'.

Then he's onto Pakistan, where, according to Kristol, "al-Qaeda may once again have a place where it can plan, organize and train." But, according to the National Intelligence estimate, there is no "may" about it, and this is not a future possibility, but a current reality. And, in what is unequivocally one of the greatest failures of the Bush administration, the NIE report concludes that al-Qaeda is "better positioned" to "strike the West" than at any time since 9/11.

But no worries, because, according to Kristol, "These Waziristan havens may well have to be dealt with in the near future. I assume Bush will deal with them, using some combination of air strikes and special operations."

Hear that? We're apparently just going to sort of casually start bombing Pakistan. That's the sort of thing that would make me nervous if I thought Kristol had any pull with the White House. Oh, wait...

Then on to Iraq. Just imagine what would have happened if we hadn't gone in:

"...Saddam Hussein would be alive and in power and, I dare say, victorious..."

Victorious? What does that mean? This, according to Kristol: "...He might well have restarted his nuclear program, and his connections with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups would be intact or revived and even strengthened..."

Ah, yes, that old, completely discredited war horse, the Saddam/al -Qaeda connection rides again. That'll no-doubt be high on the setlist when Kristol and Cheney are still touring with BushMania in 2012.

Then, putting aside his future delusions, Kristol treats us to his current ones:

"We are routing al-Qaeda in Iraq, we are beginning to curb the Iranian-backed sectarian Shiite militias and we are increasingly able to protect more of the Iraqi population..."

Actually, a growing percentage of the Iraqi population is no longer even in Iraq. Since we invaded Iraq, around 2 million Iraqis have left the country, with another 2 million still there, but having fled their homes.

But Kristol is just warming up. Now he starts to swing for the fences:

"The fact is that military progress on the ground in Iraq in the past few months has been greater than even surge proponents like me expected, and political progress is beginning to follow."

Preposterous. What "political progress" is he talking about? The fact that the Iraqi parliament is about to take the month of August off? Even President Bush's own "mixed bag" interim report on the benchmarks found little or no positive movement on political goals.

Gosh, Bill, how can we keep this great success going?

"It would help if the administration would make its case more effectively and less apologetically."

In other words: they should be repeating more of the clever phrases he sends over to them.

Also:

"It would help if Bush had more aides who believed in his policy, who understood that the war is winnable and who didn't desperately want to get back in (or stay in) the good graces of the foreign policy establishment..." (i.e. more people like Kristol).

"If the president," Kristol concludes, "stands with Petraeus and progress continues on the ground, Bush will be able to prevent a sellout in Washington."

What does he mean by "a sellout?" Is he already dusting off the stabbed-in-the-back theory from Vietnam: that, of course, we could have won, if only the soldiers hadn't been stabbed in the back by the media and anti-war liberals.

Kristol has plans for the next president too: "Following through to secure the victory in Iraq and to extend its benefits to neighboring countries will be the task of the next president."

Extend its benefits? Hear that 2008 GOP presidential candidates? Bill Kristol thinks you should run on a platform of "I pledge to take what we did in Iraq to even more countries around the world."

For Kristol, "What it comes down to is this: If Petraeus succeeds in Iraq, and a Republican wins in 2008, Bush will be viewed as a successful president. I like the odds...."

I'll take that bet. And you can, too. Kristol will be sitting in for an online chat at the Washington Post Monday at noon. It's entitled: "Outlook: Bush Will Win."

 

[Marcus]

You're really starting to freak me out Cal.

 

[fossten]

HuffNPuff comes across as nitpicky at best and vindictive and petulant at worst. She takes the position that Kristol is absolutely wrong about every single thing he says? Not only is that impossible, but it isn't even likely that he's half wrong. Kristol is one of the most astute political analysts of the last century, eclipsed only by maybe Dick Morris.

Interesting contrast between hope and optimism (Kristol's article) and doom, gloom, and Bush bashing (Huffington). What more needs to be said? Conservatives want to win, liberals OWN defeat.

By the way, Calabrio, Bill Kristol thinks we will win in Iraq. Do you believe him? If so, are you wavering in your belief that we need to "precipitously withdraw" from Iraq?

 

[Calabrio]

By the way, Calabrio, Bill Kristol thinks we will win in Iraq. Do you believe him? If so, are you wavering in your belief that we need to "precipitously withdraw" from Iraq?

Good opportunity for me to continue to elaborate-

Do I think we will win in Iraq? Let me answer first, do I think we "could" win in Iraq. I do think that we do have the means, resources, and ability to complete the operations in Iraq successfully and help make the world a better more stable place. I think that it is in our national interest to do so.

However, for any number of reasons, the reality is, support in this country is wavering. Worse yet, the Congress has invested all of their energies into seeing us defeated. The Democrats have dedicated themselves to nothing more than destroying anything associated with Bush, regardless the consequence.

By virtue of the weakening public support and their limit attention span, the obstructions in Congress telegraphing defeat, I do not see how it will be possible to escalate or maintain troop levels or funding into the future.

If Petraeus does not come back with a very optimistic report come fall, with easily identifiable gains in it, then the writing will be on the wall. It will simply not be possible to generate enough support to make any significant long term success.

Just this week, the Democrats engaged in a political act of showmanship, calling an all night session of congress, ordering in cots, to in an effort to pass a resolution advertised as calling for a withdrawal.

The truth was, they aren't willing to commit to anything as bold as a withdrawal. They want to simply whittle away strength and resources, leaving the operation to starve on the vine.

If there is no way to generate passion and renew interest within the public to support the military efforts, and if the Democrats remain committed to destroying the military, rather than simply continuing to invest in what will be a no-win situation, I say pull everyone out quickly. Unless the goal is achievable, and what's achievable today is different than the opportunity that existed three years ago, then pull everyone out and deal with the inevitable consequence.

And I'm really troubled by some first-hand information that I've heard, regarding some troop morale. And my most recent posting came after having a lengthy discussion with this professional soldier. But even that information needs to be considered in it's full context, considering the source, where they are servicing, the MOS, and who they work with.

In short, if people want to use a Vietnam analogy, they first need to realize, unlike Vietnam, there are real consequences associated with pulling out to the world security. But, if you had the ability to anticipate the end outcome in Vietnam, would you have maintained military forces despite knowing the we'd be defeated from the inside and withdraw by 1972? I wouldn't.

And if we can't realistically accomplish the goals necessary to achieve stability before Democrats successful kill the mission through attrition, then we need to deal with consequences and pull back. Save our blood and treasure. And I see no reason to believe that anything could happen to reignite the public's interest in investing in that country.

 

[fossten]

If only the Democrats treated three-letter American agencies the way they treat our military, our country would be better off.

 

[Joeychgo]

Do I think we will win in Iraq? Let me answer first, do I think we "could" win in Iraq. I do think that we do have the means, resources, and ability to complete the operations in Iraq successfully and help make the world a better more stable place. I think that it is in our national interest to do so.

I agree. But I think Bush has made this all but impossible.

However, for any number of reasons, the reality is, support in this country is wavering. Worse yet, the Congress has invested all of their energies into seeing us defeated. The Democrats have dedicated themselves to nothing more than destroying anything associated with Bush, regardless the consequence.

Why do you say Democrats? Senator Chuck Hagel, Senator Pete Domenici, Senator Richard Lugar, Senator George Voinovich -- those arent Democrats -- those are some KEY republicans in the Senate. How about the people? 70% feel the war is going badly, 63% feel we should either reduce our presence there or leave completely and 68% disapprove of the job GW is doing in Iraq. (source) -- So why single out Democrats and make them the bad guys?

If Petraeus does not come back with a very optimistic report come fall, with easily identifiable gains in it, then the writing will be on the wall. It will simply not be possible to generate enough support to make any significant long term success.

This has been the problem all along. No easily identifiable gains. Since we took down Baghdad, we've been stuck more or less.

Just this week, the Democrats engaged in a political act of showmanship, calling an all night session of congress, ordering in cots, to in an effort to pass a resolution advertised as calling for a withdrawal.

I give you this one. This was quite stupid.

In short, if people want to use a Vietnam analogy, they first need to realize, unlike Vietnam, there are real consequences associated with pulling out to the world security. But, if you had the ability to anticipate the end outcome in Vietnam, would you have maintained military forces despite knowing the we'd be defeated from the inside and withdraw by 1972? I wouldn't.

And there were people during the Vietnam era who told us that we had to fight the red menace or it would engulf us.

And if we can't realistically accomplish the goals necessary to achieve stability before Democrats successful kill the mission through attrition, then we need to deal with consequences and pull back. Save our blood and treasure. And I see no reason to believe that anything could happen to reignite the public's interest in investing in that country.

Again with blaming the Democrats.

What killed this mission is GW. I dont blame anyone else. Gw lead us into a war for the wrong reasons, and then, completely mismanaged it. We could have been out of there successfully by now, had GW and his cronies not made the mistakes they have. Had we gone in with 300,000 troops or more (like his father did a decade earlier) and had he not dismantled the Iraqi Army, (to name just a few blunders) then we wouldnt have the troubles we have today. GW and his Magic 8 Ball decision making got us here. Nobody else.

You just dont get it. The problem isnt Iraq, it isnt the troops, it isnt the democrats, it isnt the Iraqis, it isnt the American people. Its GW. Ive said it before. Start placing blame where it belongs.

What to do now? IMO -- ANOTHER surge. 50,000 this time. THEN we have a decent chance of winning this.

 

[Calabrio]

I agree. But I think Bush has made this all but impossible.

The Bush team have made mistakes, the government and military have made strategic mistakes. But right now, it seems like Bush is the only person still interested in any kind of victory.

Why do you say Democrats? Senator Chuck Hagel, Senator Pete Domenici, Senator Richard Lugar, Senator George Voinovich -- those arent Democrats -- those are some KEY republicans in the Senate. How about the people? 70% feel the war is going badly, 63% feel we should either reduce our presence there or leave completely and 68% disapprove of the job GW is doing in Iraq. (source) -- So why single out Democrats and make them the bad guys?

Do we have to go down this same course again? Hagel has been against the war for a while, but the other guys are recent defections. Since they just recently changed their tunes, I can't blame them from the PR war that has taken place during the past three years.

And your PR polling data only reinforces MY arguments to date. A long term, PR offensive, politically motivated, designed to undermine the war effort and destroy the Bush presidency in order to assure a Democrat control of government in 2008. If you don't recognize that, any further discussion is really in vain since you are either too stubborn or simply too naive to recognize this.

And it is for that very reason that these same defeatist Democrats won't call for withdrawal either. They want to simply damage the war, blame someone else for losing the war, but they don't want the responsiblity of being the publicly recognize cause of the defeat or association with the consequences of the withdrawal.

This has been the problem all along. No easily identifiable gains. Since we took down Baghdad, we've been stuck more or less.

As always, you speak with great authority, but lack any substance. There have been abundant gains throughout the process. However, there are alot of obstacles as well. Military victories are abundant.

And there were people during the Vietnam era who told us that we had to fight the red menace or it would engulf us.

And those were people who didn't have much of an understanding of Asian culture. The threat of communism spreading was very real, but Asia is a very different part of the world. Those same policy people didn't place enough emphasis on the cultural and ethnic differences in the region.

And because of that, this situation IS very different.

What killed this mission is GW. I dont blame anyone else.

And you limit your blame because it's easiest for you since you don't understand things well enough to blame anyone else.

Gw lead us into a war for the wrong reasons, and then, completely mismanaged it.

Again- there was a theoretically debate regarding the size of the occupying force. But also, you have to note, but the entire war has been engaged with an opposition Congress. They voted to support it when the polling was high, and then they immediately shifted gears to make it a "Bush's folly" kind of war. They did this in the hopes of advancing their own political futures, but at the cost of our national security and the safety of the troops.

But that's no surprise really. The modern Democrat party has had contempt for the armed forces for a few decades now.

We could have been out of there successfully by now, had GW and his cronies not made the mistakes they have. Had we gone in with 300,000 troops or more (like his father did a decade earlier)

You're a damn broken record, no matter how many times this stuff is explained to you, you won't retain it, you won't understand it, and you'll continue to repeat inaccurate information.

We've discussed the concept of the "small footprint" approach in Iraq. And when you consider the limited human intelligence available prior to the war, the rational behind this strategy is sound. And when you also recognize Democrats subversion of this war from the start, it makes even more sense.

It turned out to have been a mistake.

and had he not dismantled the Iraqi Army, (to name just a few blunders) then we wouldnt have the troubles we have today. GW and his Magic 8 Ball decision making got us here. Nobody else.

Again, unfortunately President Bush and all of the other Generals didn't have the luxury of knowing what would happen before the war. If only that had you, General Joey Hindsight everything would have worked out perfectly.

Again, mistakes, based on a sound decision making process, were made. I'm not arguing that. BUT- they weren't critical mistakes. And they were made in an atmoshpere that had the administration fighting a war both abroad and at home.

Need I remind you of Abu Ghraib? Do we need a relentless attack on our military operations overseas in OUR media? EVEN ON THE FIRST NIGHT OF THE WAR, the press spent time reporting, FOCUSING ON, the civilian deaths associated with the preemptive strikes intended to kill Hussein before the war launched.

You just dont get it. The problem isnt Iraq, it isnt the troops, it isnt the democrats, it isnt the Iraqis, it isnt the American people. Its GW. Ive said it before. Start placing blame where it belongs.

There is ample blame to go around. The Adminstration and the Military Brass do deserve a hefty load of blame. No doubt. But so far they haven't been mistakes that can not be recovered from.

No, the what will result in our defeat in Iraq will be the assault by the left. Just as they did in Vietnam, the relentless assault in the press, by the left, by the Democrats, will have erroded support so much that it's impossible to win...

What to do now? IMO -- ANOTHER surge. 50,000 this time. THEN we have a decent chance of winning this.

If by sending in 50k more troops we could confidently secure a victory in that country, I would absolutely supported- PROVIDED that they were assured the FULL support of the liberals in Congress.

Because WITHOUT that support, victory is simply not possible. You can not hold televised sleep overs in the Senate pretending to be with the intent of withdrawal and still win a war. And to say that it is not a projection of weakness or a projection of defeat, is a bold lie, or gross ignorance.

But let me ask you this- if General Petraeus, a guy who is VERY respected by the military to this day, came forward in the fall and said that the surge was demonstrating hugely successful results and with an increase of 50k troops (bringing the total to 200k) we could nearly assure an expedited victory within the next six to 12 months, WOULD YOU support it and ATTACK those Democrats insistent upon attacking the venture.


As for a me, I'm increasingly in a full-support or pull the out mindset. If the Democrats are simply going to simply kill our military on the vine for their political gain, then I want to see a rapid withdrawal. The democrats lack the strength or integrity to actually vote on a real withdrawal proposal.

 

[Joeychgo]

The Bush team have made mistakes, the government and military have made strategic mistakes. But right now, it seems like Bush is the only person still interested in any kind of victory.

Let me toss out another point of view.

Maybe many people stayed behind the President and gave him support because of loyalty, either to him or the party, --or-- gave him support in order to support the war effort.

Do we have to go down this same course again? Hagel has been against the war for a while, but the other guys are recent defections. Since they just recently changed their tunes, I can't blame them from the PR war that has taken place during the past three years.

And your PR polling data only reinforces MY arguments to date. A long term, PR offensive, politically motivated, designed to undermine the war effort and destroy the Bush presidency in order to assure a Democrat control of government in 2008. If you don't recognize that, any further discussion is really in vain since you are either too stubborn or simply too naive to recognize this.

And it is for that very reason that these same defeatist Democrats won't call for withdrawal either. They want to simply damage the war, blame someone else for losing the war, but they don't want the responsiblity of being the publicly recognize cause of the defeat or association with the consequences of the withdrawal.

SO what your saying is that its ok for the Republicans to be against the war now, being that they are just a victim to the PR and, but the democrats are defeatist because they ahve been against it longer.

Sounds to me like your saying Republicans are only changing their position in response to the polls.

We've discussed the concept of the "small footprint" approach in Iraq. And when you consider the limited human intelligence available prior to the war, the rational behind this strategy is sound. And when you also recognize Democrats subversion of this war from the start, it makes even more sense.

It turned out to have been a mistake.

EXACTLY. Now, GW dragged his feet in making any significant change, he held the line on Rumsfeld and the small footprint approach even though both were not working some time ago. Instead of acting quickly to change policy, he waited and waited and when he finally did make a change, it wasnt enough.

Again, unfortunately President Bush and all of the other Generals didn't have the luxury of knowing what would happen before the war. If only that had you, General Joey Hindsight everything would have worked out perfectly.

Ive been saying this since day one. No hindsight on my part. Day one I questioned why so few troops. A few weeks ago, even General Powell said essentially the same thing, that he would have like to have 500,000 troops for this war in the beginning.

Again, mistakes, based on a sound decision making process, were made. I'm not arguing that. BUT- they weren't critical mistakes.

Not critical? Oh, so they were just bumps in the road and had little to do with the current state of Iraq?

But let me ask you this- if General Petraeus, a guy who is VERY respected by the military to this day, came forward in the fall and said that the surge was demonstrating hugely successful results and with an increase of 50k troops (bringing the total to 200k) we could nearly assure an expedited victory within the next six to 12 months, WOULD YOU support it and ATTACK those Democrats insistent upon attacking the venture.

Yes. I would. If I was seeing success, you bet. I didnt want this war, but I fully support our need to win. I always have.

I've struggled with the missteps mostly because of my American ego. By that I mean, I really prefer we go in and stop the hell out of them and make the rest of the world realize that, we will talk and negotiate, but if we commit our military - its game over for them.

I want us to win any military undertaking. But I also want the win to be decisive. Not the small footprint, just squeaked by kind of win. I'll take that, but I would much prefer to ensure victory then hope we have enough to do the job.

As for a me, I'm increasingly in a full-support or pull the out mindset. If the Democrats are simply going to simply kill our military on the vine for their political gain, then I want to see a rapid withdrawal. The democrats lack the strength or integrity to actually vote on a real withdrawal proposal.

I believe that some of the democrats have latched onto this like a pit bull primarily because they have been stepped on by GW for 6 years. I will give you that. I also believe some of them (and repubs too) have been or become against this because its what the polls say their constituancy want.


Politics in Washington. Who would have guessed.

 

[Calabrio]

Let me toss out another point of view.

Maybe many people stayed behind the President and gave him support because of loyalty, either to him or the party, --or-- gave him support in order to support the war effort.

I really don't know what you're trying to say, but I know of no one who would support a war effort simply out of loyalty to a lame duck President. To the contrary, if you switch your support for the mission now, it's a purely political decision. Many would argue that distancing yourself from the Iraqi operations now is a demonstration of political survival and opportunism.

SO what your saying is that its ok for the Republicans to be against the war now, being that they are just a victim to the PR and, but the democrats are defeatist because they ahve been against it longer.

Sounds to me like your saying Republicans are only changing their position in response to the polls.

I said absolutely no such thing.

EXACTLY. Now, GW dragged his feet in making any significant change, he held the line on Rumsfeld and the small footprint approach even though both were not working some time ago. Instead of acting quickly to change policy, he waited and waited and when he finally did make a change, it wasnt enough.

Thank you General Hindsight. If only you were sitting at MacDill with your insight and crystal ball.

Ive been saying this since day one. No hindsight on my part. Day one I questioned why so few troops. A few weeks ago, even General Powell said essentially the same thing, that he would have like to have 500,000 troops for this war in the beginning.

You don't get it. There was a disagreement throughout the administration and the military. There was sound logic for the small footprint approach and a strong argument for the large force.

Sending in a huge force, had the pre-war intelligence been accurate, could have had equally catastrophic results. You're gross oversimplification of the situations on the ground ignore the realities.

Yes. I would. If I was seeing success, you bet. I didnt want this war, but I fully support our need to win. I always have.

So will are you waiting to pass final judgement until Petraeus release his reports in the fall?

I've struggled with the missteps mostly because of my American ego. By that I mean, I really prefer we go in and stop the hell out of them and make the rest of the world realize that, we will talk and negotiate, but if we commit our military - its game over for them.

I want us to win any military undertaking. But I also want the win to be decisive. Not the small footprint, just squeaked by kind of win. I'll take that, but I would much prefer to ensure victory then hope we have enough to do the job.

Again, you still don't understand the "small footprint" concept, and that's one of the difficulties in discussing this. And despite having explained this countless times, you ignore it.

Small footprint was about not sending in a huge invasionary force that would cause MORE problems. Prewar intelligence was not accurate. There was virtually NO human intelligence in Iraq at the time of the war, the result of the 90s. Even the first attack of the war, the pre-war strike intended to kill Hussein in order to avoid the invasion, was a failure due to the BAD intelligence.

The small footprint wasn't about "squeeking by" it was about a decisive victory based on superior strength and technology. And the conclusion that the Iraqi infrastructure actually existed, based on the intelligence data available.

I believe that some of the democrats have latched onto this like a pit bull primarily because they have been stepped on by GW for 6 years.

I take issue with that statement, but it's not important-

I will give you that. I also believe some of them (and repubs too) have been or become against this because its what the polls say their constituancy want.

Political opportunism at the cost of our security and the safety of the military.

Again, you fail to address the Democrats refusal to actually vote on a decisive measure to initiate a pull out. They love to exploit the issue, but they don't want to be responsible for the consequence. So, since they think it's a political win for them, they "fight" the President, oppose the war, and in doing so weaken the military and the mission, while never actually proposing a withdrawal or doing anything bold or decisive, despite a Congressional majority.

Politics in Washington. Who would have guessed.

And the disgust from the public is the reason why 2008 is still wide open.

 

[Calabrio]

Joey,
Can we agree to this:

Recognize that there has been a substantial and significant change in the way the U.S. military is operating in Iraq. The leadership has changed, the battle plan has changed, the troop levels have increased, the strategy has changed, and the rules of engagement have changed.

Petraeus has promised a report to the President in September. It's impossible for Congress to do anything genuine within that time period anyway, so let's give this respected General the benefit of the doubt for the next two months and withhold making a judgment on the war until his assessment is made.

Can we also agree that there are going to be severe consequences to the world if we are defeated or retreat in that country. Besides simply being genocide within the country, that violence and instability will spread. Additional, if you think it's bad that Al-Queda can build strength simply because they have free reign in the South of Pakistan, what do you think will happen if they have the whole of Iraq? If you go back and read some of the published intelligence data and correspondences from the leadership, you will see that this has long been the goal, to cause enough civil strife in the country to pressure the U.S. out. That's why they bombed the sacred mosque in Samarra. Twice.

Furthermore, another perceived U.S. defeat will only embolden the enemy around the world. The world is a lot less safe if the bad guys aren't even afraid of our military. That projection of strength can prevents violence.

So, if withdrawal is the decision you ultimately decide to support, you do also need to recognize that the consequences.

But ultimately, can you simply wait until September with an open mind? Recognize that there have been significant changes to the way the war is being fought. The surge level was reached last month. The congress isn't going to "end" any war this year anyway. And a comprehensive report is due in September.