Powered by TypePad

« Valerie Plame Supplemental | Main | Blog Survey »

May 28, 2007

Comments

richard mcenroe

Jeffrey Broderick has my respect. We're usually outnumbered at our Studio City countermarch... but the response we get from passersby makes it worthwhile.

">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBONC7OArsY"> A Memorial Day Sentiment

richard mcenroe

Sorry, don't know why that link isn't working.

Here's the cut'n'paste:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBONC7OArsY

MikeS

On one side of the street are people who put their faith in the NY Times. On the other side of the street, people who believe the facts they find in the Washington Times.

SMGalbraith

Let's see if I have this right:

We pull our troops out of Iraq to end the war there. Then we re-deploy (ahem) those troops (some of them) into Darfur to end that war.

After we end the war in the Sudan, do we then send, sorry re-deploy those troops back into Iraq to stop that war?

Well, anyway it's Bush's fault.

At least if we send them into Darfur we won't be hearing the chickenhawk smear anymore.

So, we got that going for us.

Other Tom

It continues to astonish me--really astonish me--that this entire debate about when and how quickly to withdraw from Iraq is carried on with scarcely any discussion of the consequences.

While some Democrats will from time to time claim that we should withdraw because we make the situation worse, that claim is not often heard anymore, and seems to be clearly contradicted by the facts on the ground. I think it is fair to say that the Democratic position is that we should get out because 1,000 KIA per year is too great a price to pay to avoid those undiscussed consequences. That strikes me as quite remarkable.

I don't think there can be any doubt that in the eyes of Al Qaeda, Iraq is where they have chosen to fight us. I believe it is clear now that the country--at least under George Bush--simply doesn't have the stomach for that fight. There is no Democrat on the horizon who would even attempt to restore the willingness to fight. Is there any doubt that we are thus looking at the makings of a tragedy of unimaginable proportions? Al Qaeda announces quite publicly that this is where the fight is, and we announce just as publicly, and unequivocally, that we quit and they win.

Am I missing something?

PeterUK.

"We pull our troops out of Iraq to end the war there. Then we re-deploy (ahem) those troops (some of them) into Darfur to end that war."

Where al Qaeda and the Islamists will fight you.There seems to be no understanding amongst the surrendering classes that,AQ wants to fight you and will do so wherever you go.Why? it's the biggest kid on the block syndrome,they take you down they have beaten everybody.

boris

too great a price to pay to avoid those undiscussed consequences

IMO it is only fair to point out the very strong probablity that consequences are not going to be limited to Iraq and the MidEast.

Those consequences will find there way here and it when that happens it could get ugly.

There is a risk in pretending to be nicer than you really are. It invites testing.

Charlie (Colorado)

It continues to astonish me--really astonish me--that this entire debate about when and how quickly to withdraw from Iraq is carried on with scarcely any discussion of the consequences.

Why?

Tom Maguire

I believe it is clear now that the country--at least under George Bush--simply doesn't have the stomach for that fight. There is no Democrat on the horizon who would even attempt to restore the willingness to fight.

There is a faint chance that Dems will run as the faux-surrender candidates - Hillary and (IIRC) Barack recently explained that "troops out" really meant about 75,000 troops left behind to train Iraqis and target Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

But Bush has done a miserable job of (a) having a sensible plan; (b) promoting that plan to the public.

As to the miserable post-war planning, there is no one to blame but Bush. And in terms of rallying public support, he had to know that the press would turn on him - they had Vietnam flashbacks about three weeks into Afghanistan and declared that a quagmire, so they were bound to do the same in Iraq.

It was his job to anticipate and address that; one more Mission Unaccomplished.

My guess is that Bush figured he didn't really need a media strategy since results would speak for themselves. That was not a suitable strategy for a protracted debacle.

boris

he didn't really need a media strategy

So just how was W ever going to get Russert, Kristof, Pincus, etc on his side?

Are you so young that you don't remember how worn down and "discredited" Reagan was in his last couple of years?

PeterUK.

"That was not a suitable strategy for a protracted debacle."

Most wars are protracted debacles,none of them go according to plan.War, by its very nature, is nasty, messy and brutal.Sad to see the Bush had to fight this one on two fronts.

PeterUK.

The enemy from Absolute Moral Authority.

Maybeex

It continues to astonish me--really astonish me--that this entire debate about when and how quickly to withdraw from Iraq is carried on with scarcely any discussion of the consequences.

It's interesting.
On the one hand, I keep thinking about this which TM brought up: And in terms of rallying public support, he had to know that the press would turn on him - they had Vietnam flashbacks about three weeks into Afghanistan and declared that a quagmire, so they were bound to do the same in Iraq.

I don't for one minute believe they thought Afghanistan was a quagmire within months, or that Iraq was a quagmire within days. They went negative to keep Bush from gaining political advantage over the war, all the while knowing that he wouldn't make the mistake of actually pulling out.
I believe they don't seriously address the consequences of pulling out even now because they don't believe it will happen.

However
If we did pull out, the one benefit for withdrawl-supporters is that it would be virtually impossible for the press to operate in Iraq. We know from the Saddam Hussein days, Vietnam, Pol Pot, North Korea, and Mao that what the press doesn't have access to report simply doesn't happen.

PeterUK.

"They went negative to keep Bush from gaining political advantage over the war, all the while knowing that he wouldn't make the mistake of actually pulling out."

Exactly.However many are anti-war,some have financial interests at stake,but most simply don't care as long they win power for their party.

Soylent Red

Hi folks...

The protests have never been about "peace". The anti-war protests regarding Iraq have to do with Bush-hate. GWB could singlehandedly square away Darfur armed with a slingshot and dressed in fuzzy bunny slippers and the Left would still hate him.

Where, when, why or how is irrelevant. It is only the who that matters to the Left.

The only expansion on that theory is that the Left is knee jerk anti-authority. Thus, all the quasi-Leftist-wannabe-revolutionaries who don't even under political theory, or the cultists of the myth of Che. I see it as mostly self-absorbtion coupled with the fact that most of the younger ones really have nothing else to protest. So, why let facts get in the way of feeling like you and your dimestore ideological leanings are changing the world.

Why anyone tries to analyze moonbats' motives or logic anymore is beyond me.

Hope all had a safe and reflective Memorial Day.

boris

Same to you SR.

I don't believe W blew it or screwed up.

The craven backstabbers did.

Soylent Red

I don't believe W blew it or screwed up.

The craven backstabbers did.

Even though he is my boss I have opinions on how it could have been done better.

Still, at least he can't be accused of concentrating on his peccadillos while mass graves were being filled. GWB at least acted, as opposed to reacted.

Ah, but when you're on the Left, what's a few hundred thousand brown people snuffed for the maintenance of your power?

Other Tom

I'm with Boris--I don't think for a minute that the consequences will be limited to what happens in the region. (If I did, I would think withdrawal might be a much more plausible option.) Bin Laden has made no secret at all of how encouraged he was by American inaction over the course of thirty years or so. This would be far more encouraging to the jihadists than mere inaction--this would be viewed unmistakably as action culminating in abject defeat. Worse, it would be a defeat suffered because of an unwillingness to absorb casualties on a scale that they must regard as unbelievably trivial, given the stakes.

As to the faux-surrender stratagem, I think Hillary is playing with fire if that's what she has in mind. If, at the end of four years in office, she still has 75,000 troops on the ground in Iraq, there'll be no placating a substantial portion of her base. And long before election day 2008, someone somewhere (don't look to the MSM) is going to put her feet to the fire on this issue.

Maybeex

SOOOOYYYYYYYYYLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNTT!!!!


Soylent Red

Other Tom:

You got the weakness of the Faux-Surrender Strategy exactly right. And come 2008 the whole meme of "Bush's War" is going to be blown right out of the water.

By that I mean...

We have given A-Q a pretty good beating in Iraq, despite what MSM would have you believe. So much so that by their own admission they are looking for a new failed state in which to lick their wounds and rebuild.

That failed state, depending on our actions will either be A)Iraq, or; B) someplace in the Horn of Africa. Far smarter people than me have predicted the Horn of Africa is going to be the Middle East of the 21st century.

At any rate, with or without Iraq failing, a President Hillary will be faced with the specter or having to face down A-Q somewhere. That somewhere is going to be a failed state that "never declared war on the U.S." and all the rest of the Michael Moore jargon.

It will only remain for the RNC to point out the double standard in her political thought. Not that the MSM will assist in that process, but still...

Jane

Hey SR - nice to see you.

And I agree. There never has been anything this president could have done to bring the left around. After the impeachment they were determined for revenge and the Florida recount just made it a kajillon times worse. And on this Memorial day their pal Hugo Chavez who they love because he hates the president, has just ended democracy in Venezuala.

I guess it is a good day to be a democrat.

PeterUK.

"If, at the end of four years in office, she still has 75,000 troops on the ground in Iraq, there'll be no placating a substantial portion of her base."

Nor will she placate Iran and al Qaeda,having got rid of half the troops they will do their damnedest to get rid of the others.

Soylent Red

a President Hillary will be faced with the specter or having to face down A-Q somewhere. That somewhere is going to be a failed state that "never declared

Ah drat. I should have included the option of letting another attack happen on the U.S.

Considering all of the importance her and her ilk put on the 13 seconds of pity we got for 9/11 (before the world decided we deserved it) I would not rule that out as Hillary's Plan A.

boris

I think Hillary is playing with fire if that's what she has in mind

She would have an easier time (no security leaks, no bad press) with a managable situation. IMO Iraq and Afghanistan are messy but managable. Like BJ's instant turnaround on the economy (economic growth was already climbing before he took office) Hillary would be able to turn every good thing that happens into credit and bad stuff would simply get no play or obviously be somebody else's fault.

SR, the "perfect plan" might have saved Flight 93. With only one try there is no way beforehand to know what that is (if it even exists.) When the time came to act, W acted with the best he had. His best has been better than anything else I've seen, including RR. An honest historical ranking as a war president will put him near FDR.

Maybeex

Hillary understood (and understands) that Saddam had to be taken out. Of all the candidates, I think she and Biden understand that the most.

You are correct that someone will hold her feet to the fire before the election. That someone, however, is going to have to have his own plan if he wants to be President. His own plan he's actually willing to live with, I mean.

As far as not being able to placate a substantial portion of her base if she still has 75,000 troops in Iraq in 2012, I disagree. She'll have a problem with some of her base, sure. Much of the opposition to Iraq is opposition to Bush (or Republicans). If Hillary's in office, most of the big money message machine will lay off. I don't remember ever hearing Kosovo was the next Vietnam.

PeterUK.

Talks are taking place with Iran on the future of Iraq The Iranians share the same desire for an stable,democratic independent Iraq it says,someone is going to get Frenched.

Soylent Red

Boris:

Without getting too deeply into it, I wasn't referring to GWB's handling of pre-9/11. I was referring specifically to his staff's handling of the non-kinetic phase (misnamed "post-war") of the Iraq invasion, which I believe was wildly optimistic.

Unfortunately he is ultimately responsile as CiC. Still, all that planning is:
a. way above my pay grade
b. beside the point now
c. much clearer to me in hindsight than it probably was to those in charge before the invasion, and
d. ignores the fact that even poorly planned action is usually superior to well thought out inaction.

I agree with you that history, in a couple of decades or so, will be very kind to GWB. Not on the particulars perhaps, but certainly on the concepts.

PeterUK.

Soylent,
Welcome back.

"I was referring specifically to his staff's handling of the non-kinetic phase (misnamed "post-war") of the Iraq invasion, which I believe was wildly optimistic."

They were wildly optimistic in 1914 and 1939,"The Boys were going to be home for Christmas",seems to be some kind of syndrome which affects most fields of human endeavour.

Soylent Red

PUK:

Not back yet. Just on a pass for the long weekend. And I should be studying.

Anyway...

WRT to optimism in 1914 and 1939, I think you are correct. The 2003 version was "six months of relatively easy reconstruction aided by a grateful population, and score one for the good guys."

So, IMO, D- for planning and analysis, B+ for execution of plan, A+ for commander's intent.

PeterUK.

Soylent,
I think a comparison can be make with the Italian campaign,the Italians were on the run so the Germans ran troops into Italy,the allies had to start fighting again.

Soylent Red

PUK:

Now that's an interesting comparison.

But the A-Q/Saddam connection was more of an Axis of Intent rather than a political alliance. Still, "Axis of Intent" may have bearing on the way we view the 4GW transition we are currently in.

That is, we are transitioning from the conflict of political entities or groups thereof (Axis vs. Allies) to conflict of more raw intentions and end-state conditions.

Which then, in turn, suggests a transition in domestic political thought. IOW, we need to move from domestic wrangling over policy considerations regarding whether toinvade this country or that to a wider discussion of desired end-state over a period of time.

Good food for thought.

Sue

Hey. Some tool at KOS? has stolen my ::grin::

The link is to http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/28/more-heart-ache-st-cindy-quits-the-anti-war-movement/>Hot Air. It's been cut and pasted into the comments section.

This means war. Only bonafide friendlies are allowed to use my ::grin::

::grin::

Sue

Hi Soylent. Shouldn't you be studying? ::grin:: Great to have you back, even if just for the day. And thanks for your service.

I should have mentioned that the link to Hot Air is more than my ::grin:: being stolen by some moonbat. Seems Mother Sheehan is tucking tail and going home. The left doesn't want or need her anymore.

::grin::

Other Tom

Hi there, Soylent--I gather you're still at OCS, or else you're a brand-new shavetail lieutenant. Whichever, the very best of luck to you, and keep your head down. Let us know where you are, and how you're doing.

I wish a candidate would say what George Bush should have been saying all along: "Some of our troops are going to be killed in action, and the death of every one of them is a tragedy. But this is a war we didn't start, and it's a war that has to finish on our terms, not theirs. We can and will continue to fight at this level of hostility for twenty, thirty, or forty years, whatever it takes. We have to come to grips with that fact as a nation, and the sooner as it becomes apparent to the world that we are prepared to fight for as long as necessary, the sooner the murderers will understand that they can't win. We just can't delude ourselves into thinking that if our troops come home, this whole thing will just go away. It won't."

JorgXMcKie

Other Tom, that says it as well as it could have been said. I am totally lost at the mindset of my friends who think everything will be just peachy as soon as the troops come home and Bush is out of office (and maybe handed over to the International Courts). Then we'll all have candy and ice cream and sit around the campfire hugging and singing Kumbaya.

Charlie (Colorado)

Other Tom, which of those things do you think Bush *hasn't* said? It all looks pretty familiar to me.

JM Hanes

Soylent!

We've missed you, and hope all goes well! What a treat to see you here, especially on a day when troops both past and present are so much on our minds and in our hearts.

"Considering all of the importance her and her ilk put on the 13 seconds of pity we got for 9/11 (before the world decided we deserved it)...."

Not to mention the 30 seconds of national unity that Bush squandered....

JM Hanes

Other Tom:

That's what Bush has been saying. The problem is that he hasn't put in the time it takes, or delegated others, to say so much more, so much more often. Shoot, they probably spent more time & money on promoting the new medicaid entitlement than they've spent on promoting citizen involvement in anything resembling a war effort.

Bush & co should have been talking -- nay, educating us -- about who's who, and who's doing what both Iraq and the Greater Middle East (complete with maps & pointers), involving the public in our success and failures, encouraging folks to steady on, turning every medal into a national celebration of heroism, and making sure that people see what extraordinary things our troops are doing and the sacrifices they are making up close.

Bush needed to be selling psychological war bonds and finding a 21st century substitute for Victory Gardens from the start. If there's only one thing that VietNam should have taught us, it's that public disaffection is deadly.

scrapiron

The war in Iraq has served multiple purposes. It Removed Saddam from the land of the breathing. More important we now know almost every traitor in the United States (including hundreds of democrats in congress), all of the cowards, and the criminal Mexicans that are crossing the border. These are people we all know but will never trust again. Democrats can pertend to love and trust the democrat party, but they really don't. They are only satisfying the drive to feed their BDS. Found out today that my Niece has changed her major (UVA)to the mental health field. Democrats will make her a multi-millionaire in just a few short years. Funny that a 20 year old college student would figure that out and prepare to treat thousand for BDS.

Did we manage to lose more people in the city of brotherly love and N.O. this weekend than in two wars?

We definitly lost more in three days on the American Highways to drivers with a cell phone grafted to their ear than we've lost in the past year, maybe in the entire war.

Damn, I love it when the right is right all the time. Cindy 'Ditch Witch' Sheehag figured out the democrats had used her and were now throwing her out like a soiled pair of underwear.

The drunks, druggies and cell phone users have made it hard for me to have any sympathy for the people I help cut out of crushed vihicles. I only hate it when the uncaring fools have their children in the vehicle.

Happy Veterans Day from a 22 year Vet.

PeterUK.

Soylent,
Much of 4GW looks more like the Dark Ages,or even the Indian wars.Tribal peoples have always fought this way,the only difference is guns,explosives and a supportive MSM.
Another group to study is the Assassins and perhaps the Thuggee,there is much to be learned from the old colonial "policing "methods.
The Romans,the British, the French and the Turks all fought the same tribesmen,the records are probably worth reading.

syn

I won't use Bush to excuse the apathy of many Americans who, after witnessing the biggest attack on American soil, have no idea who is the enemy and why we are at war.


The environment today speaks less about Bush's ability to communicate (Blair was a great communicator yet the Brits think he too lied) and more about the wasteland of self-indulgent narcissism which has damaged so many American brain cells.

PeterUK.

Syn,
"Blair was a great communicator yet the Brits think he too lied"

A large number of us thought he lied every time he opened his mouth,not just about Iraq,everything.Nu Labor could give the Democrats lessons in sleaze.

Rick Ballard

"Another group to study is the Assassins and perhaps the Thuggee,there is much to be learned from the old colonial "policing "methods.
The Romans,the British, the French and the Turks all fought the same tribesmen,the records are probably worth reading."

Contemplation of the resolution of the Mohican, Carhaginian and the Aztec problems is also worth a few moments. It ain't like savages and death cults are a "new thing" in the world.

Blair looks (and sounds) good from a distance. As he stumbles from office, one might ask what history will record as the crowning achievement of his tenure. It will take some time to select just one thing - measuring the height of mole hills is a tedious affair at best.

If I were to select one thing that was missed in the beginning it would be the general popularity and success of Osama Bin Dedawile's brand of islamic reform. Driving the Russians from Afghanistan fed a delusion of competence among a populace whose achievements otherwise are somewhat less than minimal.

Jeff Dobbs

Off Topic, but something for which perhaps TM would be interested...

Geraghty at NRO points out Gov Richardson on Lil Tim's show...

MR. RUSSERT: You’re a Red Sox fan.

GOV. RICHARDSON: I’m a Red Sox fan.

MR. RUSSERT: End of subject.

GOV. RICHARDSON: End of subject.

MR. RUSSERT: You better get rid of this book [in which Richardson says he's a Yankees fan].

GOV. RICHARDSON: Oh, no! I’m also a Yankee fan. I also like...

MR. RUSSERT: Oh, now, wait a minute!

GOV. RICHARDSON: You can—Tim...

MR. RUSSERT: I guarantee...

GOV. RICHARDSON: No, I know, I got in trouble...

MR. RUSSERT: ...if you go—if you go to Yankee Stadium or Fenway, you cannot be both.

GOV. RICHARDSON: But I like—Mickey Mantle was my hero. If I weren’t running for president, and the Associated Press asked me, I’d play center field for the New York—I wanted to be number seven. And—but I still love the Red Sox as a team. I mean, this is the thing about me, Tim. I can bring people together. I can unify people.

MR. RUSSERT: Yankee fans and Red Sox fans?

GOV. RICHARDSON: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: Not a chance.

GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, I bet you I can.

Geraghty ends his entry with: I'll take that bet, Governor. You've got a better shot with the Sunni and Shia.

BEGS THE QUESTION: In the analogy, are Yankee fans the Sunni or the Shia?


Other Tom

Charlie and JMHanes: Here's one thing Bush hasn't been saying, and apparently dares not say: " We can and will continue to fight at this level of hostility for twenty, thirty, or forty years, whatever it takes."

I am talking specifically about sustaining casualties. It's the elephant in the room when it comes to discussing the need to fight and win this war. It is a subject that is in the exclusive possession of the left, who use the casualty figures as a club to urge withdrawal. Someone needs to step forward and forthrightly put these figures in perspective, and address the fact that we have to accept them as a cost of winning.

There are more Americans than there are Arabs. Yet to hear the hand-wringing on the left, we face an inexhaustible supply of fanatical warriors who can outlast us. We are killing them at a far greater rate than they are killing us. All we have to do is perservere.

boris

Bush has made clear that his resolve goes "as long as it takes to win".

The other side says "that's too long, let's lose now and get it over with".

Somehow the other side has managed to have combat casualties count against Bush in the absense of US civilian casualties. If we were taking similar or higher casualties here in the US the public would be furious at the terrorists. Since they're not attacking us here they don't seem as bad anymore. The delusion is that leaving Iraq would make everybody happy because they don't see (or hide) the connection between lack of terrorist attacks here and the war over there.

Their false logic is: No War = No Casualties

Appalled Moderate

"I, John McCain will tell you we are facing a forty -- fifty year war. We will triumph, but I'll be dead by then, and so likely will you. Taxes -- well, they'll just have to be high, because war requires financing, and we can't spend the next two centuries in hock to the Chinese. Course, if you don't like the taxes, we can always cut social security. That money we don't get from the death tax ought to take care of you."

Other Tom -- The whole problem with this war on terror is nobody ever identified an opponent or an end state.

Jane

The whole problem with this war on terror is nobody ever identified an opponent or an end state.

I see that as a symptom. Why do you think it is a problem?

Sue

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120415.html>Is this site our Hit & Run?

Other Tom

AM, I sure wouldn't describe that as the "whole problem." If it were my choice I would have called it a war against terrorists, or even a war against jihad (which is what it is--nobody seriously thinks we are at war with IRA terrorists, or Basque terrorists). And I'm not sure what would constitute defining an end state. I think what is needed is to continue fighting until the terrorists abandon their efforts. It does, indeed, seem that McCain comes far closer than anyone else to saying what needs to be said. But the guy is simply unacceptable to me on so many other grounds that he's out of the picture.

Jeff Dobbs

Nope...Reason's Hit & Run is not me.

And for the record, if you're wondering, I am not any of the guys pictured on this site either.

Sue

Thanks http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjkyMWU0NzA3ZDM2OWE5NzlkZmMwMDA0N2IyZTQ4MTQ=>Texas. You make me proud!

Jeff Dobbs

Thanks Texas. You make me proud!

And me homesick...

::grin::
speaking of which, if you need someone to go after the theft of your grin, you let me know.

PeterUK.

Rick,
Two of the defining moments of the 20th century in this context,First the US Embassy in Tehran 1979,second the Fatwa on Salman Rushdie in 1989.The Embassy allowed a pipsqueak revolutionary regime to cock a snook at a super power,second established Islamist authority across national borders.The West was weak in both cases,we don't seem to realise what we gave up.

hoosierhoops

It continues to astonish me--really astonish me--that this entire debate about when and how quickly to withdraw from Iraq is carried on with scarcely any discussion of the consequences -Other Tom
_______________________________________
Agreed Tom, But maybe part of the problem is nobody knows what will happen..Will Iraq go up in flames or will the terrorist look around and not finding american targets simply go home..( see post russian afgan campaign ) yea maybe far fetched but the point is we really aren't sure..
Well Jordon is on his way back to Camp Pendleton today and as I blogged last week I was going to sit down with him and have a heart to heart talk about his training concerning using torture methods in the Marines.
First off to my great relief..When they capture a bad guy they always send him up the command chain. That is the way it should be..
We talked for hours about his training and after that, I felt 1000% better about the way the Marines are waging this war and the intense training they undergo.
As you all know I opposed going to Iraq until the whole Bin Laden thing was settled..( He's still around directing his troops) I didn't believe then nor now we should have opened up a second front in the WOT. Now we are in this Iraq war, We must fight to win it and kill all those opposed.. We are there..We must win, we must prevail..we must support our troops in all ways, methods, money, armour, weapons and bombs...And if we are not there to win..Then the Dems are correct..bring em home...Sorry, I'm kindof emotional today and probably make no sense to most of you..
Regards,

cathyf
will the terrorist look around and not finding american targets simply go home..( see post russian afgan campaign )
I am simply flabbergasted that you think that's what happened in post-Russian Afghanistan. OBL wrote theological treatises on how Allah had helped them defeat the Russians in Afghanistan, that the Afghan defeat had brought down the Soviet Union, and that if al Qaeda but only remained steadfast and on the attack, America would be defeated next.

They didn't "go home" -- at least not to their homes. They came to our home, and blew it up, in WTC I, African embassies, USS Cole, WTC and Pentagon.

hoosierhoops

I am simply flabbergasted that you think that's what happened in post-Russian Afghanistan..
Well I told you Cathy I wasn't making much sense today.. I just want us to win and my son safe and back home..Not much balance in my current mindset i readily admit..
But Cath..I believe we should have stayed in Afghanistan and totally kill AQ there along with OBL..Then, yes everyone knew that something would have to be done in Iraq..we left unfinished business there and alot of you folks bitch that Clinton didn't do something..like what? Crap Bush had him on the ropes and walked away..And don't go into the old UN business..BS..We never listen to the UN except when it fits our purpose..Bush 1 left Iraq for someone else to take care of and we had to pay the piper sometime..But don't cry about Clinton not cleaning up the mess Bush 1 walked away from..what a cop-out..But I know hindsight is 20/20..if it wasn't, then W wouldn't have invaded Iraq until we had some real planning and world-wide support...I don't know Cathy, I'm just frustrated with the whole thing and am just blogging to take my mind off of my son..I worry too much :)
He said his unit was going to kick some terrorist ass over there..And you know what? they surely will..I hope they kill every single one of those murderous bastards
and he comes home safe and sound..

PeterUK.

"Allah had helped them defeat the Russians in Afghanistan, that the Afghan defeat had brought down the Soviet Union, and that if al Qaeda but only remained steadfast and on the attack, America would be defeated next."

If American runs from Iraq,that is exactly how it will be construed.There is considerable support throughout the Muslim world for the"restoration" of the Caliphate

Jeff Dobbs

OT, but slow day...

Hillary gets LA mayor's endorsement:

[Los Angeles mayor] Villaraigosa's endorsement of Clinton is not unexpected; he lavished praise on the New York senator at a campaign event in Los Angeles in March, calling her campaign "fighting for a brighter and cleaner future for all our children."

My question is, if Villaraigosa is looking for "bright" and "clean", shouldn't he be looking at another candidate? Because not only do you get those with Obama, you also get articluate and nice-looking to boot.

PeterUK.

"if it wasn't, then W wouldn't have invaded Iraq until we had some real planning and world-wide support.."

Yes let's just forget the troops from.

Australia
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
El Salvador
Estonia
Hungary
Italy
Kazakhstan
Latvia
Netherlands
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
South Korea
Spain
Thailand
Ukraine
United Kingdom

It just isn't the same without Fwance.

Please HH,don't let your emotions blind you to the "no international support" line peddled by the left.

PeterUK.

"fighting for a brighter and cleaner future for all our children."

Hillary does a valeting and laundry service? Babies bathed whilst you wait?

hoosierhoops

Allah had helped them defeat the Russians in Afghanistan, that the Afghan defeat had brought down the Soviet Union, and that if al Qaeda but only remained steadfast and on the attack, America would be defeated next."

Ah phewy..point 1. the Afghan defeat didn't bring down Russia..Reagan bankrupted them with overwhelming technology and internal changes and political winds brought down the USSR.. AQ sat in the mountains with thousands of stinger missles we gave them and shot down thier aircraft and blew up thier convoys in ambush attacks..Very similar to the Iraq war..they didn't ever leave the nation, they stayed at home and shot at the Russians..AQ hardly is able to project any power outside thier borders so to say OBL thought he could press the attack to russia the USA and defeat us is retarded..do you believe everything he spouts on tape? The only projection to our shores so far of power was to highjack 4 of OUR aircraft..I guess thier fleet is in drydock under construction..
_______________
I just reread what I wrote...oh well..think I'll just call it a day and pour me a highball and forget about politics today..
I know you folks make fine convincing points and I don't have my 'A' game today..
Say a prayer for our troops tonight.

boris

9-11 was their 3rd try.

WTF?

Rick Ballard

"AQ hardly is able to project any power outside thier borders so to say OBL thought he could press the attack to russia the USA and defeat us is retarded.."

So the effects of a widespread anthrax dispersal would be minimal, right? And everyone would become accustomed quickly to a few snipers bagging the odd pedestrian - kinda like they did in DC when Chief Moose was making the biggest ass of himself in law enforcement history? And certainly the odd suicider showing up occasionally at the mall would be no big deal.

Is there an 'Asymetrical Warfare for Dummies' available? 'Cause there's a definite market out there.

hoosierhoops

Boris..
Setting off a car bomb is hardly what I would call a projection of overseas power..I was thinking Aircraft Carriers and large Army that are mobile and project power..you know like Germany in WW2.. I'm not saying car bombs and attacks aren't serious things and we should and must respond.. But OBL was saying he could press an attack to Russia and the USA and defeat us. You can't possibly believe his egomanical declarations..I personally don't care what he said..he should have already be dead by now..when was the last time the WH even said his name?
OK..I am really going to go pour that drink and spare you guys..

PeterUK.

Off Topic,but a wonderful piece of Hillaryana.
Hillary washes whiter than white

boris

19 of OBL's killed more than Pearl Harbor with all that stuff.

Suppose the problem is not that OBL can't actually defeat the US, but that he's dumb enough to nuke it once or twice. What happens next?

Genocide?

hoosierhoops

Boris..Rick B., Cathyf..
Yes, you all make valid points..
Sorry...

PeterUK.

"I was thinking Aircraft Carriers and large Army that are mobile and project power".

No the terrorist tactic is to create disruption and an impression that those assets are of no avail,they cannot protect you.
Al Qaeda will keep feeding bombing spectaculars to the media,who in turn will bleat about defeat thus demoralising a large number of voters who will in turn put pressure on politicians to end the pain.
AQ have been brilliant at manipulating the MSM and the Democrat party,to the extent that withdrawal is a political option,presidential candidates are running on running.
Why spend money of immensely destructive weaponry which cannot be used because the enemy is hiding in the civilian population.For the expenditure of some cheap explosives and dispensable, gullible imbeciles you can get half the population of a superpower quivering in their boots.

Sara

Hoosierhoops, et al. Today, David Asman on Fox made a terrific point that we should all think about. I have decided to change all the "Support our Troops" banners I use as a result of his short editorial remarks. He made the point that we should "support" our children, but that those serving in the military are no longer children. They have joined voluntarily and we might not like it as their parents, or we may be scared to death for them, but these are not our babies going off to their first day of kindergarten, they are grown men and women who have made adult choices and therefore they DO NOT NEED our support they need our RESPECT.

RESPECT OUR TROOPS! Do not denigrate either their choice or the war or battles they have chosen to fight.

PeterUK.

"RESPECT OUR TROOPS!"
I agree wholeheartedly,whatever the nationality.

MikeS

Hoosier:
I hope your son stays safe.
If you get a chance, please thank him for me.
regards,

hoosierhoops

Hi Lady Sara..and thanks Mike..
We know Jordon is not a child, 6'2" 235# young man..
We had a BBQ for him Monday and a 100 people showed up..we are proud of him.
Last night he told me this.." Pops, I'm doing this for you and mom and my brothers and sisters..When I wake up at 5am I don't want to get up..but I always think of my family, and it makes me want to protect you guys" Then he kissed me on the forehead and went to bed..
there is nothing left to say...

JM Hanes

"I believe we should have stayed in Afghanistan and totally kill AQ there along with OBL."

With respect, hooserhoops, the only problem is that AQ largely fled Afghanistan and dispersed, as soon as we brought the Taliban down.

In many ways, the fact that they have chosen to make both a militant and symbolic stand inside Iraq gives us an advantage we would not otherwise have if they simply chose to continue operating as they used to -- conducting increasingly devastating transnational, globalized operations while protected by borders that we cannot cross.

The point about egomaniacal declarations is not that anyone here might believe them, but that they prove so seductive to potential recruits.

In any case, I hope you are well into your second drink by now -- or whatever it takes to get by for that matter.

cathyf

In academia, one of the alternate code phrases of the multi-culturalists for "white male hegemony" is "western centric." It's yet another case study of leftist self-parody -- because leftist arguments are totally with the west, and completely ignore the actual intellectual process and product of the non-western cultures that they imagine themselves the champions of.

So, I say:

OBL wrote theological treatises on how Allah had helped them defeat the Russians in Afghanistan, that the Afghan defeat had brought down the Soviet Union, and that if al Qaeda but only remained steadfast and on the attack, America would be defeated next.
In a typical leftist talking point, hoosierhoops responds:
AQ hardly is able to project any power outside thier borders so to say OBL thought he could press the attack to russia the USA and defeat us is retarded..
So, who is "retarded"? The person who reads what OBL says he believes, and thinks that he really believes what he says he believes? Or the person who thinks that OBL's thinking can be magically changed simply by coming up with an appropriate insult delivered to anonymous blog commenters? (all of whom seem to be westerners.)

So who is "western centric"? Who is "retarded"?

hoosierhoops

with an appropriate insult delivered to anonymous blog commenters? (all of whom seem to be westerners

Cathyf: I don't believe I've ever insulted anyone here..and if i insulted you i am sorry...wait..I said i was sorry earlier in this post...
I don't exactly know why you think I'm spouting leftist talking points..I'm just expressing my feelings, of which today i warned you was off the charts..
I just think some policies are retarded..maybe not a good word to use..
If you are implying i am retarded..well I designed nuclear weapon systems for the DOD for 20 years..( Employee #796001..check that in your resources.. you guys seem to know everything )few have called my engineering skills retarded..just some of my political judgements..but i'm not running for office so don't worry.
We are all americans in this together and i am not here to make enemies..just chat..
Yes mike..i'm up to 3 drinks :)

PeterUK.

Cathyf,
The Chechens have links with al Qaeda,so to say "AQ hardly is able to project any power outside thier borders so to say OBL thought he could press the attack to Russia the USA and defeat us is retarded..",is for HH to ignore the extremely nasty war which has been going on in Chechnya for some years.

Rick Ballard

Peter,

Thailand, the Phillipines, the east coast of Africa down to South Africa, all of North Africa and the coast of West Africa down past Nigeria plus the odd central Asian republic and parts of the Balkans. Not much outside of that.

Oh, except for the cells in Western Europe, Canada and the US.

So, from this we can logically conclude that Afghanistan is the focal point in the battle against AQ. Except for maybe their bases in Zimbabwe - the "farms" that Mugabe swapped for oil where the Norks show up from time to time. Depending on the weather.

Looking_For_a_Way_out

Yeah, now that the troops' families are proving they provide their own equipment, they don't need our support. "RESPECT OUR TROOPS!" Now we can send them to war without raising taxes and not feel guilty about it. "RESPECT OUR TROOPS!" Good one Sara! After all our troops chose to fight this war so we should respect their decision and let them worry about the rest. Don't worry if they have what they need, or if their families are falling apart, it is all their choice.

Never has a lamer rationalization been made than "Respect our Troops!". You can put that slogan in your pocket and let the thought make you feel good. I'll stick to "Supporting Our Troops!".

PeterUK.

"Never has a lamer rationalization been made than "Respect our Troops!". You can put that slogan in your pocket and let the thought make you feel good."

Rationalisation?


"I'll stick to "Supporting Our Troops!".

The best way you can support the troops is walking in front of convoys banging the ground with a big stick.

Sara

Looking -- you are an idiot and your remarks prove it. Those of us who know what disrespecting the troops is all about understand the nuance. Too bad you don't. I know, let's raise taxes so we don't feel the least shame in calling our troops terrorists. Families falling apart? Sure it is tough on the families, I know that first hand from being at home raising the children while my husband served four tours in a combat zone, but today's families have more support than in any previous war or conflict. At least they can talk to their loved ones thru the miracle of cell phones and email and electronic videos, which is a far cry from Vietnam when sometimes we'd go 2, 3, 4 months without a letter and then get 20 all at once or paying for a long distance collect call from the Far East would take an entire month of rent money. I doubt many commanding officers are telling wives that "you knew he was in the military when you married him, so suck it up and shut up," which is something a commanding officer told me and about 17 other wives when we were trying to set up a family liaison plan. And I'm sure that the troops would rather have your respect than the support of spitting on them, dumping raw sewage on them, protesting them at their military hospitals, or at their grave sites. And I'm sure they would prefer respect over what your type of supporter did in Washington state by burning Memorial Day grave flags and replacing them with Nazi swastikas. And I'm sure Casey Sheehan would have much preferred his mother respect his military service, his desire to serve, and his belief in his mission than going around the world playing kissy face with communist/socialist dictators, and getting herself arrested and making a total fool of herself at our nation's capitol among other places, in his name, denigrating him over and over.

Other Tom

The troops who are buying their own body armor are free to do so if they wish, but it has been considered and rejected by the Army because of its prohibitive weight and inferior stopping power. The issued armor the troops are wearing now is infinitely superior to any that American (or any other) troops have ever warn in any war.

Coming from six generations of US naval officers, I can attest that family separation and stress are part of the bargain, and it's to be regretted when it happens to conscripts. For volunteers, not so much.

I respect our troops enormously. I know what I'm talking about. And I'm not looking for a way out.

PeterUK.

Rick,
This is very similar to the situations that gave rise to the "Zero Tolerance" doctrine.

Johnny Jihadi murders a few villagers in some far off place,we ignore it,they whack a few diplomats,we let it pass,after are they not celebrating their culture,they move up to embassies,the odd capital ship,"Ssshh,if we notice,we'll have to do something about it".
They keep bombing until we lose patience,then lo we are nasty bullies,we must give them their own way,perhaps the odd country as a special reward,a seat at the UN,treat them like grownups and they will behave.Reduce it to a nuisance level,enough to bring a tear to a glass eye!

JM Hanes

hoosierhoops:

On a slightly different note, Instapundit linked to this piece by J.D. Johannes on conditions in his neck of Iraq, which might interest you.

I don't know if you're aware of how many "milblogs" are out there, but on the assumption that you might be looking for something more than political wrangling these days, here are a couple of links you could start from, if you haven't already done your own exploring.

Michael Yon has done extended embeds with the troops, passing along extraordinary stories & pix when he's in theatre and knowledgeable commentary when he's back home.

You can access a number of blogs by both former and currently serving military folks from the Milblogs homepage (just scroll down to "Authors" on the left).

Depending on how much you end up knowing about Jason's deployment, you might even find a blog by someone who is or has served in his vicinity by scanning the milblog Ring List.

Wired Mag's Defense Blog focuses on news from/about the field, but has an interesting mix of posts on related stories and on the technologies our troops are using, like the recent item on the Hesco barriers they've been using.

ThreatsWatch has done some of the best multimedia mapping of specific campaigns in Iraq that I've seen, although I haven't been a regular visitor for awhile.

This is just the tip of an iceberg, of course, in case you didn't realize how much following along you can really do, if you feel like you want to.

Other Tom

A bit of an anecdote for you: shortly after D-Day, US tank drivers discovered that our tanks would not penetrate through the hedgerows that covered the landscape of Normandy. So they sent guys back to the beach to scavenge those triangular steel obstacles the Germans had strewn in the surf and on the beaches, and welded them to the front of the tanks so that the apex of the triangle formed a brute-force spear-tip to go through the dense hedgerow. Worked like a charm.

No one whined. No one said FDR or the Secretary of War or Eisenhower were guilty of piss-poor planning. No one looked for a way out; they looked for a way forward, and they took it.

Sue

I watched Fox News last night. All of the military pundits think September is the end game. And all agreed that we wouldn't see the necessary changes needed to move the goal post past September. Republicans will jump ship for political gains. Fair enough. They are politicians, after all.

I viewed the messages left for Mother Sheehan last night at KOS. 610 of them, at the time I looked. Two. Count them. Two that were anywhere near negative. All praising her for bringing Bush's poll numbers down, for being the face of the anti-war left, and on and on. I'm not sure how the two were left up long enough for me to read them. Probably because they weren't really anti-Sheehan but merely criticized her getting "off track" by visiting Chavez and Cuba, etc.

::sigh::

I have given up hoping we will prevail in Iraq. I blame lots of people for that, but not our troops. A few of them caused shame. A very few. They would have caused shame though wherever they wound up. Just the type.

I place the largest percentage of the blame on those who are fighting against this war to bring down Bush. And you know who you are. Had we stood united for longer than 6 months, this would have been over by now. When all that is needed is to win the hearts and minds of those who hate Bush to join in, the terrorists didn't have far to search.

I hope we survive the coming tide. Hillary wants socialism. Bush wants open borders. Edwards doesn't see the threat. Obama says whatever he needs to say to be fresh and not Hillary. God only knows what he really thinks. McCain, Romney, Guiliani, even Thompson, aren't enough to stem the tide of what is coming.

God bless our troops. Bring them home. They shouldn't be dying for a cause that Republicans will jump ship on...come September...for political reasons.

Sara

No one whined. No one said FDR or the Secretary of War or Eisenhower were guilty of piss-poor planning. No one looked for a way out; they looked for a way forward, and they took it.

Amen!

My husband, a Repair Officer, ran "Tiger Teams." He started first at the Mekong Delta during the Vietnam War, but later, off of two different tenders stationed at Diego Garcia and responsible for the entire Persian Gulf. When a ship or a unit was in trouble, the "Tiger Team" was called into action. They took what tools and supplies they thought might be needed with them, but there is no way to anticipate everything. These teams need to be innovative, creative, and sometimes quite visionary, in order to complete their missions successfully. There is no time for whining or grousing about someone in Washington, DC not anticipating their exact need. The motto is "get the job done!" The "can do" spirit vs. the "we can't" or "why me?" attitude of the loony left.

hoosierhoops

Thank you JMHanes
We will check those sites out..may I suggest marineparents.com.
Lady Sara..You seem to be an awesome person and have paid a high price for your loved ones to serve..If you ever need anything please let our family know..we will be there for you..
Good night friends

JM Hanes

Other Tom:

My Dad's job was to keep the tanks running in the 1st Armored Div. across North Africa and on up into Italy. They were famous for the ad hoc rigging they'd whip up from anything they could lay their hands on, no matter how mundane. They were also famous for the sheer number of casualties they took because they kept being sent out to take positions that they didn't have the manpower to hold. By today's leftist lights, WWII would have been over before anybody ever thought of leaving for Sicily and FDR would be in the dock awaiting trial for war crimes -- which would ultimately be adjudicated by Japan or Germany, of course.

Looking_For_a_Way_out

Sara,

As long as families are buying equipment the military can't provide we aren't providing enough support. You feel better respecting the troops. Of course I respect the decisions made by those who chose military service but respect won't get you a ham sandwich, much less the body armor so many troops lack. You're going to project whatever stereotype you want on me, but I'll challenge every post you make that exists only to make yourself feel better about the war or the treatment of our troops who are fighting it. Nothing pisses me off more that a sanctimonious Republican telling me how our troops are happy to be fighting this war in Iraq. Fine "Respect Our Troops!" Now what are you doing to "Support Our Troops"? I'm pretty sure you can find somebody collecting donations for body armor.

Sue

What equipment are families buying for the troops?

PeterUK.

At Slapton Sands, on the South Coast of England 749 US military and Naval personnel were killed when German torpedo boat attacked landing craft on exercise for D Day.

Sara

Nothing pisses me off more that a sanctimonious Republican telling me how our troops are happy to be fighting this war in Iraq. Fine "Respect Our Troops!" Now what are you doing to "Support Our Troops"? I'm pretty sure you can find somebody collecting donations for body armor.

A sanctimonious Republican? I don't think so. I'm neither sanctimonious nor a Republican. And, if I came across someone raising money for body armor, I'd let them know that they are doing something harmful since that family provided armor is not up to the standard that the military requires. It is too heavy and it doesn't stop the bullets. Of course, the only good troops are dead troops, right?

I don't post to make myself feel better. I post because I made a vow at the beginning of the War in Afghanistan and repledged at the beginning of the Iraq War that never again would our brave men and women in uniform suffer from the anti-war unwashed cowards what we suffered during and after Vietnam. It is very personal with me. And I see people like you as much an enemy as I do the terrorists because you do as much damage to the troops and their families as they do only in a far more insidious way.

Specter

HH,

Good luck to your son. Keep us informed. My son was due to go into the marines last year. Unfortunately - well maybe fortunately - he developed some pretty serious knee problems where he could not run well any longer. He would not have made it through boot camp. He still wants to go, so maybe after more intensive phys. rehab. he still will. But it is very scary.

LFAWO,

You sure have turned into the jerk troll. Get a life.

lurker9876
Nothing pisses me off more that a sanctimonious Republican telling me how our troops are happy to be fighting this war in Iraq. Fine "Respect Our Troops!" Now what are you doing to "Support Our Troops"? I'm pretty sure you can find somebody collecting donations for body armor.

I'm with Lady Sara. None of us are happy to be fighting this war. But they understood why we needed to fight this war. These are volunteers.

Other Tom

"Looking For a Way Out" declines to respond to my undeniable factual assertion that the armor issued to the troops has been deemed, and is inarguably, superior to the armor that some are buying on their own. Those facts are uncomfortable for him to contemplate, and so he ignores them. To acknowledge them would devalue his comments by exposing them as the whining defeatism that they are. His is not a practice well calculated to earn our respect.

The issue rifle during the Vietnam war was the M-16. In every outfit you could find someone who maintained that the weapon it superseded, the M-14, was superior. Those guys would find themselves an M-14 by hook or by crook. Others maintained that nothing matched the old M-1, and they would set out to find one as their personal rifle. I even heard a few guys arguing for the '03 Springfield. I carried a captured AK-47 myself for a couple of weeks, but abandoned it because I kept burning my hand on the barrel after a few rounds.

Grousing and whining about the equipment is a phenomenon as old as warfare. It is, and always has been, indulged in most by those whom one least wants nearby when the going gets tough. This is true on the homefront as well as on the front lines. It is rare that they are so willing to admit their spinelessness that they identify themselves by such names as "Looking for a Way Out."

Other Tom

A can't-afford-to-miss item: Part six of the IBD's ten-part series on the presidency of the vile rodent Carter.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20

Looking_For_a_Way_out

I was a bit rash with my last comment and decided to go visit happier places. I'm fairly certain that nobody over here wishes for anything but the best for our troops. As for the semantical argument Respect vs. Support, Tom's most recent post contains a link where you can donate frequent flier miles to help wounded soldiers and their families. There are ways we can help and we shouldn't accept cop outs from anybody, particularly those supporting the war. I don't care what you do, just "Support Our Troops!"

Jane

OT,

Thanks for the link. I can't recall when I enjoyed a series this much!

Jeff Dobbs

Run Fred! Run

Fred Dalton Thompson is planning to enter the presidential race over the Fourth of July holiday, announcing that week that he has already raised several million dollars and is being backed by insiders from the past three Republican administrations, Thompson advisers told The Politico.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame