Powered by TypePad

« Alcee Hastings Watch - AP Edition | Main | Not Loving It In New Jersey »

October 27, 2006



Considering how important this issue supposedly is, it's interesting that this went from #1 to off the list of AP Top Stories between 10:08 AM EST and now:

Diminished Violence in Baghdad Holding


Well, it's been quite a few years now that the Republicans have been in control of the entire government. Do you expect they might come up with a plan one of these days?


I'd just like somebody to tell what the "course," on which we're apparently now not staying, was.


The Bush administration's plan is being carried out today on the ground. You may not like it, but to pretend it doesn't exist is patently dishonest.


The White House has different messages for different audiences. Seven Republican Senators are calling for changes in the Iraq strategy. "Stay the Course" has a new meaning every day. Which party lacks a clear policy? Both of them, but only one is in power.


"You and you,over there,you two behind the wall,the rest of you follow me". A paraphrase from the DNC movie.


The policy -- clearly elucidated many times, and whose existence is therefore doubted only dishonestly -- is to turn Iraq into a democratic oasis in the midst of the seething Middle East. The plan to accomplish this was and continues to be:

1. Take out the Saddam regime. Done.
2. Help the Iraqis get a constitution in place. Done.
3. Help them get a government in place. Done.
4. Help them establish security, and protect them from enemies both foreign and domestic until they can. In progress.

The unique thing about this plan is that a giant swath of political America is hoping and praying that it doesn't succeed, in so doing is providing moral support and hope to the foes of the Iraqi government, and has therefore become a de facto enemy -- both of the Iraqis and of ours.

I agree that Bush should have had a plan to fight this enemy, since their existence, tactics and strategy were easy to anticipate.


The moonbats posting here STILL do not understand the difference between strategy (the overall goal) and tactics (the methods by which you reach the goal, which change depending on conditions on the ground).

Democrats can't even agree among themselves on the GOAL.


In WWII,this same vast swathe,in Britain also,believed Capitalism was the enemy,that fighting the Nazis was secondary to that end.It wasn't until Operation Barbarossa that these "vast swathes" wholeheartedly joined the fray.
Amnyone gone to Tehran to ask for help defeating the Administration,or is it still Russia they look to?


"Stay the Course" has a new meaning every day.


Maybe for the democrats. The president has only used that phrase 8 times since the war began. How many times have you used it?

Wilson's a liar

Democrats are even running "Iraq vet" candidates like Patrick Murphy who can't even say on national TV whether they would have voted to authorize the war. The disingenuousness of this campaign is staggering and extremely disturbing, because the war is serious business and the Democrats have simply treated it like another campaign tactic. Unfortunately, if they win and later say "Sorry, just kidding," Al Qaeda is not going to get the joke.

I had a huge argument with a Democrat friend over this very issue today and had not even seen the NYT article. He threw out the "Bush went into Iraq with no plan of what to do after Saddam was removed" argument, and I countered that this is EXACTLY what the Democrats are doing now. They are trying to topple George Bush and they have NO PLAN what to do if they succeed.

I predict a quagmire.


Amnyone gone to Tehran to ask for help defeating the Administration,or is it still Russia they look to?

That's an excellent question, PUK. Of course there are plenty of Hezbollah fans on our college campuses these days, and I was particularly impressed with Mike Wallace's glowing comments about Ahmadinijad after his interview with him. Perhaps we'll learn about other meetings at some point.


Whilst the Democrats may not have a plan,al Qaeda does,the "vast swathes" seem to be playing their part to perfection.


Every time I think about it I get furious. The left has a plan - to take down Bush. That is the only plan. Their hatred is palpable, and it is in everything they say and do. They believe it is their ticket to power. I agree, they are the enemy no one planned for.


Pelosi is rich.


PUK, it's hard to tell whose plan that is, huh? Did the Dems take their plan from AQ or did AQ take their plan from the Dems?


Sunny Day,
When the Democrats,the nutroots and al Qaeda all sound the same,does it matter?

Jim C.

No, the Democrats do have a plan: pull out regardless of conditions in Iraq.

They know damn well this would energize Republicans. That's why they haven't said anything definite. They're cowards. Like the Dems who voted for the war (and who whined that Bush "misled" them) were cowards for not standing up for their own principles.

Wilson's a liar

They don't have the guts to even put a cutoff of funds for the war up for a vote if they take control of the House. All they are going to do is use the platforms of committee chairmanships to investigate everyone under the sun. And they will find out very soon that they have a lot of unhappy constituents who thought they were voting for "change."


"Like the Dems who voted for the war (and who whined that Bush "misled" them) were cowards for not standing up for their own principles."

Whatever those "principles" may be.


"Whatever those "principles" may be".

In the pursuit of power,all is expendable.


The republican plan is now in effect and we are depending on the Iraqis to get their act together. Dems real plan is to withdraw immediately. Anything else they say is election spin. The don't understand the basic concept of the war on terror so how can they have a cohesive plan to fight it.


I kind of think they might try to cut off funds. The investigations - definitely. Conyers and his crew have everything in place. When they had the big "world can't wait" rally day, I posted something on the "world can't wait" site - got an email trying to "soften my heart" - their exact words.

I took a shower after I read their response. It's sedition, in my opinion. I question their patriotism. Sorry.

Now, they have ticked that little plan away and wannabe Pelosi has promised "no impeachment" ...but you know how things change...


Lest we forget...some Democrat principles (posted in August by Other Tom):

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

"And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.
"There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.”
W. J. Clinton, February 17, 1998

" He has used such [chemical] weapons before against soldiers and civilians, including his own people. We have no doubt that if left unchecked he would do so again..."
W.J. Clinton, December 19, 1998

4. Help them establish security, and protect them from enemies both foreign and domestic until they can. In progress.

That's the grand strategy?


You're hoping they succeed, right?

Crew v1.0

We are operating under a UN mandate. The UN has not asked us to leave. Nor has the Iraqi government asked us to leave. If memory serves, and putting aside the horde of unimpressed and unenthused "allies," the only "governments" that have actually demanded we leave yesterday are governments like Venezuela, Iran, Syria -- gee, really! Even the execrable Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, since pulling Spanish troops out and thereafter rooting to see others sell out Iraq in similar fashion, has basically shut his socialist piehole.

Therefore, it would seem that Democrats who call for withdrawal now -- or even "soon" -- are doing so in flagrant disregard of the authority of the glorious UN, and are violating principles of "multilateral" foreign policy. It would also seem that the Democrat positions actually begin to appear as if they coalesce somewhere to the left of Zapatero, and somewhere to the right of boy Bashar.

Or not.


" 4. Help them establish security, and protect them from enemies both foreign and domestic until they can. In progress.

That's the grand strategy?"

Posted by: jpe

So what is your "grand strategy",take your bat and ball home?


re: "Stay the Course - The President has only used that phrase 8 times since the war began"

Actually, at least 52 times, per washingtonpost.com.


Ah yes strategy.

Launch an invasion against a country that posed no real threat to the US, had nothing to do with 9-11, an artificial country that under the surface was a hot-bed of ethnic, sectarian, and religous hatred going back centuries...

Base your plan on faulty and grossly over-optimistic assumptions about Iraqi reactions, i.e. flowers and smiling and waving Iraqies, little to no resistance, oil revenues will pay for everything, statues of King George Bush erected by the grateful Iraqies, ad nasuem...

Then launch that invasion with inadequate forces to secure the peace (against the advice of the military professionals), then disband the Iraqi Army, then ignore the growing insurgency, then stretch the greatest Army in the world to its breaking point by back-to-back deployments in a no-win situation(an Army who has yet to lose even so much as a squad-size engagment in Iraq at the tactical level)... Not to fight terrorist, but to fight home-grown insurgents and to police a growing civil-war between Sunni and Shia. An Army that now has little or no forces available if it had to fight a major conventional battle against a serious opponent...

Then once the huge blunder has been recognized by almost everyone with a brain, readjust and base the new strategy on the hope and prayer that the new Iraqi Army and Government will actually get its shit together, despite all evidence to the contrary. Call it Operation 'Hope and a Prayer'...

I don't know how much more 'strategy' we can afford from the incompetent and strategically bankrupt clowns currently in charge.


"An Army that now has little or no forces available if it had to fight a major conventional battle against a serious opponent..."

Er,which "serious opponent"?

When was the last "major conventional battle"?

Where is this next one going to take place?

Why fight a conventional battle when you have air superiority?

Knowimg this why would any "serious opponent" be stupid enough to attack conventionally?


More on strategy. Here's a principle that goes back to the dawn of time:

Good Strategy + Good Tactics = Victory
Good Strategy + Bad Tactics = Victory but at a cost
Bad Strategy + Good Tactics = Defeat

Thank God that stragetic genius George Bush is in charge eh? He's probably the greatest strategist this side of Adolph Hitler (who also fancied himself a grand-strategist of the first order and who also ran one of the finest Armies in history into the ground due to his 'strategic genius')



Bush = Hitler.



To the trolls (debators?) it does not matter what Bush says or what Bush does. It will be wrong. It was wrong on day 1. wrongwrongwrong. Bushchimpshrubhitlerhaliburton. whatever.

What is your alternative? Not go in the first place? You're too damn late. We're there. We elected Bush because we wanted him to fight this war. You didn't vote for him. Too bad, you lost.

You want to win? Better find yourselves a plan of your own, then win an election. ...diebold, disenfranchisement, they cheated blahblahblah...

You are background noise.


Guess we'll hear from a few more supporters of the Iraqis before the night is over, since of course we all have the same overall objective there, even if some of us aren't as smart about how to carry it out. At least we're all on the same side.

(And if we're not, please try to limit the "we" references, ok? It's confusing.)


Which serious opponent? North Korea or China would be serious opponents. Russia even more so. Even Iran would be a much more serious opponent than Iraq ever was...

As for air-superiority, it has its limitations. Works great in the desert, not so great in more restrictive terrain (i.e. the lack of serious damage inflicted on the Serb Army during the Kosovo conflict despite a long bombing campaign)


Sorry to intrude on the George Bush fan club. I've never really been into the cult of personality thing so you'll have to forgive me... But Extaneus wanted to talk strategy, so I talked strategy. As for answers or a plan of my own, I have none. I was just a lowly grunt in the greatest Army in the world and I hate seeing it slowly being broken by a bunch of incompetent clowns most of whom never bothered to serve a day in uniform themselves


As for air-superiority, it has its limitations. Works great in the desert, not so great in more restrictive terrain (i.e. the lack of serious damage inflicted on the Serb Army during the Kosovo conflict despite a long bombing campaign)
What a BS comment. Actually Air Power works great everywhere as long as you don’t fly with your hands tied behind your back and are not overly concerned about collateral damage. I served in the Balkans during the mid 90’s and as a retired AF man I can tell you the restrictions that were put on the aircrews were absolutely ridiculous. The administration at the time and their minions in State and DOD were so worried that we would have jet shot down we ended up using terrible tactics which limited the effectiveness of the overall air package. You just don’t fly Vipers at medium altitude and expect the crews to eyeball ground threats and get great results. Air Power works best when you let the experts run the show and allow us to use the full fury and power that is available to us. Wars are bad news and even non-combatants get killed, this is the price the so-called butchers bill that must be paid. When you drop a GBU-10 on a building in and urban area you will definitely affect the rest of the block. We have the ability to bring any force anywhere to its knees with Airpower; you just have to have politicians with the stomach to deal with the collateral damage. Can you imagine the reaction of today’s MSM and some of the commenters to this blog back in WWII when 20th AF was firebombing the Japanese back to the Stone Age? Where is a modern Harry Truman when you need him?


"Good Strategy + Good Tactics = Victory
Good Strategy + Bad Tactics = Victory but at a cost
Bad Strategy + Good Tactics = Defeat"

Ignorance + Stupidity = Cromagnon

"Thank God that stragetic genius George Bush is in charge eh? He's probably the greatest strategist this side of Adolph Hitler (who also fancied himself a grand-strategist of the first order and who also ran one of the finest Armies in history into the ground due to his 'strategic genius')"

Aslo sprach Cro-Magnon our stone age Sun Tzu.
OK Cro, let's hear the master plan,there are demerits for comparisons with Stalingrad.


Cromagnon's construction on strategy and tactics puts me in mind of one used to define a good horse race.

Poor jockey, poor horse = Poor race
Poor jockey, good horse = Fair Race
Good jockey, good horse = Good Race

Notice that this construction is less apocalyptic than the one used by Mr. Magnon. It does not predict victory or defeat; it only addresses the nature of the race or, in this instance, the campaign.

As pointed out so clearly by Billmil above, I do not believe that anyone can question the quality and capability of our military. The generals (or jockeys, if you will) set the tactics. The strategy in Iraq, however, is determined by the complex political and social situation in that country and its newly elected government.

Victory - no matter the strategy and tactics always comes at a cost. Given the will to see this through, to defeat the insurgents and foreign terrorists bent of destabilizing the country and to establish a free and prosperous Iraq, the only outcome can be "good". The question now is whether we are willing to see this particular campaign through and to pay the cost for a successful outcome or if, as some would like, we will squander what we have achieved and leave Iraq (and the future) to the mercy of the terrorists. That "will" alone will determine whether or not we achieve a victory.


Amendment: As with many a horse race, that "will" alone will determine whether or not we are victorious.


The Dems have a plan... their going to use a few ideas from Webbs book Lost Soldier

"A shirtless man walked toward them along a mud pathway. His muscles were young and hard, but his face was devastated with wrinkles. His eyes were so red that they appeared to be burned by fire. A naked boy ran happily toward him from a little plot of dirt. The man grabbed his young son in his arms, turned him upside down, and put the boy’s penis in his mouth."

Yup... sounds like the Democratic plan to me! Su@king a little dick!

Mister Snitch!

What war could ever be won on a timetable? What ANYthing of importance can be put on a timetable? If we don't cure cancer in five years - let's give up. How many decades was the Internet (or even email) the purview of a few academics and military types before it exploded in widespread use?

Want to resolve a baseball game? It takes what it takes - two hours, or maybe ten. Even football games have provisions for overtime.

Only fools and cynical opportunists would insist on a 'timetable' for something as difficult and complex as what's going on in Iraq. It's sad to see just how many of both are out there.

Mister Snitch!

BTW, Extraneus: Bravo.


Ditto Mister!

Isn't it interesting that there's no indication that our military is growing weary or in danger of losing the will to prevail, but our own weasely lefties here at home -- who never actually had the will in the first place -- are oh so worried about our strategy?

It's like the "Rumsfeld should resign" chorus. I never fail to consider who the source of those sentiments might prefer as a manager, and what exactly they're hoping for in terms of an outcome. Actually, I don't spend too much time considering it, because I think I already know.

gerald berke

To suggest that "victory" is a plan just pushes the rational mind to the brink. That's like belief in Jesus is a family value.
Withdrawing is a plan: it suggests a finite amount of time to get the job done: does your boss EVER tell you "hey, take as long as you like, let me know, meantime, I'll keep paying you."
My goodness, just what does a plan look like, has anyone ever seen one that satifies them besides the numbingly vaccuous "stay the course".
Get out. No matter what we do or when we do it will get worse before it gets better. And all the Bush supporters with their skirts way over their heads are just waiting for... yep: Bush to change the words "stay the course" to "mission accomplished".
There is a laundry list of failures in this administration, and I tire of listing them. Sufficeth to say damn that man. And for a man that thinks habeous corpus is a fop, what better way to tell George and his skirts up friends "that's all folks"


I tire of listing them.

glad to hear it. we tire of scrolling past them.

I assume this is more bushshribchimpyhitlerhaliburton?

Cecil Turner

And for a man that thinks habeous corpus is a fop . . .

Not sure when the mythical suspension of habeas corpus became an article of faith with the left (nor what that has to do with high fashion), but it is entertaining.


Oh, I see you have your own blog. Why not post there? We will come read if we are interested. :)


Cecil, terrorists have rights too. Get them lawyers and mirandize them. It's the American lefty way.


You tire, huh? Gee. Sorry to hear that.

Tell the truth, though, did you want us to succeed at any point, and just lost the will? No, don't bother. I think you'd be lying.

(Btw, the mission was accomplished exactly when Bush said it was on the carrier. Regime change, remember? What followed was apparently just messy enough to warm the hearts of defeatocrats and their allies worldwide.)



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/washington/29ballot.html?ei=5065&en=e0c8ab46eb7f870b&ex=1162789200&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&adxnnlx=1162123697-fGdgFeTtCKTTCxcnenqAsQ>U.S. Investigates Voting Machines’ Venezuela Ties

"Smartmatic was a little-known firm with no experience in voting technology before it was chosen by the Venezuelan authorities to replace the country’s elections machinery ahead of a contentious referendum that confirmed Mr. Chávez as president in August 2004.

Seven months before that voting contract was awarded, a Venezuelan government financing agency invested more than $200,000 into a smaller technology company, owned by some of the same people as Smartmatic, that joined with Smartmatic as a minor partner in the bid."


It appears that the FOBs have finally found the bottom of their wallets, the extravaganza for Bill Clinton's birthday has a high likelihood of coming up a bust.


What luck! Today's top stories on both AP and Reuters:

100 Americans Die in Iraq During October

U.S. troop death toll in Iraq for October hits 100

This must really warm their hearts.

Larry (USAF ret)

Even Iran would be a much more serious opponent than Iraq ever was... Posted by: Cromagnon |
October 27, 2006 at 07:20 PM
Ah, yes. The vaunted Iranian armed forces. You know. The ones who, in only eight years, fought the vaunted Iraqis to.........a draw. This expression of your ignorance is typical of most of your posts. Go read a little?

The comments to this entry are closed.