Chester hits a few points that have troubled me for a long time, and has the beginnings of some solutions. Read Time for a Pep Talk: What Bush Should Say on June 28th:
"President Bush has a major address planned for June 28th, the one year anniversary of the transfer of sovereignty back to the Iraqis. What will he say?
He needs to give the pep talk of his life. He needs to tell the American people that there has been great progress in Iraq and needs to lay that out explicitly. He needs to give concrete examples of the progress of Iraqi forces and note as clearly as possible how our own presence there depends upon their progress. He needs to spell out clearly where the path to victory leads, and he needs to be very, very clear about the catastrophic results of a premature withdrawal.
He then needs to ask people for sacrifice, and for two kinds of sacrifice....[more]"
Interesting echoes of some things Sen. Biden and Sen. McCain have both been saying of late - and makes sense to me. The fact that Chester needs to write about these desired calls for sacrifice in 2005 highlights one of the biggest strategic mistakes of this war to date.
Yup.
In the days immediately following September 11, 2001 I thought I could understand the President's reluctance to mobilize the population as a way of preventing people from overreacting. I don't understand the continued reluctance. IMO it's been the single biggest failing of the Administration.
Looking for a comparison with Viet Nam? This is it: trying to conduct a war without mobilizing the population.
I'll take a somewhat different view on the current "political posturing".
IMHO Various Senators and Congressman(other than the usual suspects(Quagmire Ted and Co) are saying that without some sort of tangible progess by October 2006, they are going to be forced to take a position in relation to the FY 2006 defense budget that they know will be irresponsible, but they will do it to save their own bacon in the Mid-Term elections.
The targets of this message are Bush, they want any negative public backlash to be shouldered by Bush and Rumsfeld alone. The other target is the Iraqi government, to stop leaning on US troops as fast as possible.
Incremental progress is a very difficult thing to sell to the American public. 100 Iraqi Army batallions formed in 12 months is a monumental accomplishment. The American public won't start being cheerful until it's 100 Fully Combat Capable battallions.
Fundamentally, it is the same problem the Iraqi's are having with electricity. No one cares that there are 2 brand new power plants that are 80 or 90% complete and a 3rd one that the Japanese have just started on. Until the power plants are actually turned on and functioning, the problem hasn't changed.
The Iraqi government has been clear since February that taking over security in Baghdad was their first priorty. Operation Lightning can reasonably be assumed to be a dry run.
American public opinion will change when Baghdhad is turned over, not a moment before.
interesting comment soldiers dad.
and i hope he or she is safe, wherever they are.
I agree that this has been the President's biggest strategic blunder: not putting the US on more of a war footing. Sure, it takes several years to get good, qualified infantry up and going as combat units. Had we started by the end of 2001, we would have had the first of these units already on line.
The biggest use for this would have been a "go fast" strategy would be possible: after Iraq, then Syria. After Syria, then Iran or Saudi, and so on. It would have been expensive in lives and dollars, but odds are we would currently be occupying Iraq, Iran and Syria and moving all three towards democracy, having provided a much harder problem for the jihadis. And with what Americans understand as a war going on - something they can feel involved in, something big - there would be less of a backlash against the continued dribbles of bad news real or invented.
On the other hand, a "go slow" strategy, as we are currently pursuing, means that we let the Arabs decide to convert to self-rule, rather than forcing the conversion. Cheaper in lives and money, but more expensive in time, this is a risky strategy: what if they don't go for it. It takes a lot of faith in the yearning of all men for freedom, the willingness of the American public to stick it out as we did in the Cold War, and the lack of other crises urgently requiring intervention within the first 3-5 years in order to try such a strategy.
On the other hand, it seems to be working, and as long as Iraq is as well as or better than now by mid-2006, odds are that the American public will stick it out as well.
I do not want to be President: the chances of such a call being wrong are too horrible to contemplate.
Sacrifice imparts a certain sense of ownership. There have been no sacrifices, except of those serving in uniform. There hasn't been public involvement, period, except as "consumers;" news consumer; consumer of goods and services. This is our assigned role. Consumption is the very opposite of sacrifice.
The American people do not own this war.
If George W. Bush gives a speech asking for more Americans to join the military to fight in Iraq, the republican party will be blown out of Congress in 2006. The American people are already reacting to the prospects of what waits for them if they join the military as seen in the resounding drop in enlistments, both reserve and new recruits. The total mismanagement of this war starting with intelligence that was not correct, improper, or as some have suggested, non-existant strategies for a post Saddam Iraq, ill equiped soldiers fighting in sub-par armored vehicles, to the outsourcing of security forces to Halliburton subsidiary KBR, who doesn't answer to any military chain of command are just some of the reasons the American people's feeling have changed about this war and our further envolvement in it. The American people aren't stupid, and if The White House wants the republican party to remain in control of Congress, it better come up with an exit strategy for our armed forces pretty damned quick!
Kathy, your complaints have long been discussed here, and frankly, are mostly nonsense.
Our soldiers are not "ill-equipped" - they are in fact the best equipped troops in the world. One of the problems we've had with our coalition is that no other nation is able to field troops that can keep up with our capabilities.
Our armored vehicles are not "sub-par". Again, our troops have the best equipment in the world. Our only issue with vehicles is that our army had not - over a period of many years - developed a light patrol vehicle. This was not a failure of the Bush administration, just that we had not raised units equipped for occupation duties. Instead, the light truck HUMVEE needed to be uparmored for the new role.
And your belief that there is something wrong with private companies supplying security is just baseless. The gratuitous reference to Halliburton only serves to suggest irrationality.
Your comments lack seriousness.
Robin, I think that was a methane bubble rising out of the fever swamp.
Is that the same swamp gas that causes UFO sightings ?
Other than swinging the leftist media off lamposts, how does bush overcome the enemy propaganda machine ?
Other than that the word "Sacrafice" seemes aimed at out economy, which if it wasnt growing, would terribly hamper our ability to fight this war.
The debt we can still grow out of, and growth supports the value of our paper.
Beware what you ask for in terms of sacrafice.
Bush has the state of the uninion speaches as the only time he can bypass the enemy media filter, otherwise, they will hide his words from the public, often pretending suprise at things he spoke out about for a year.
Bush has been speaking, the enemy leftist media on our soil has been keeping his message from the public, and twisting disorting and lieing to engineer public opinion and bring about defeat at any cost.
Raymond if you believe anything the President has said to date rises to the level of what Chester and I have asked for and that Bill's father is irate about, the stench of gas is the bloated thought process of your rotting mind.
Fortune smiled on those of us whom support the GWOT with Chester's post. Chester is elucidating ideas to bring the country together not push us apart.
Robin, my complaints are based on fact and I take great pains to be correct in everything I say.
30 of the 60 Americans killed in Iraq this month of June have been killed by IED's exploding near the vehicles they were traveling in, mostly HUM-VEE's.
It's true that our coalition lacks better military support from our allies. Great Britain is the only one capable of fielding troops equal to the task of keeping up with ours, but this is not an argument justifying the insufficient needs of our soldiers in combat. It was G.W. Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq with the equipment we have to fight in this type of war with an enemy the likes we haven't seen since Vietnam. "Up-armoring" HUM-VEE's is not the answer to support our soldiers in this combat roll, and the American casualty count this month alone supports this argument.
There are only two private firms in support of combat rolls in Iraq, Halliburton and Aegis. Aegis in a support roll for the British. Halliburton's subsidiary KBR supports a security roll for American soldiers. And that's it. Why is it gratuitous to memtion Halliburton?
Today the Pentagon does not have enough people in the armed services to manage contracts as it has in other wars, and is reliant on private companies like KBR and Aegis when it comes to support and security for it's troops and for Iraqi government officials. But these companies do not follow military doctrine. And in Iraq our military relys on these contractors ON THE BATTLEFIELD. The major problem seen with security is the lack of military proticol when these private security forces deal with civilians. They are intimidating, at times running civilians off roads, and offending locals and making enemies each time. Thomas Hammes USMC Col. (ret) believes these contractors are actually hurting the U.S. military's counterinsurgency efforts.
Under these conditions our soldiers face, how can any American be willing to "step up to the plate" and join. This war is hell and Americans are now begining to understand why.
No, Kathy, your complaints are not based on facts but on a misunderstanding of reality. The idea that we should not have invaded Iraq until - a decade or more later - we had a brand-new light armored vehicle for counter-insurgency patrols is simply silly. Your implication that this reflects "mismanagement" is equally silly.
And by the way, the Israelis experience reminds us that IED's can even destroy main battle tanks. The answer to IED's is good tactics not more massive armored vehicles.
The first part of Chester's suggestion seems self-evident. Bush's entire legacy is going to be caught up in the success or failure of the 'go slow' strategy as opposed to either a defensive posture, or a 'go fast' strategy aimed at a military solution. That implies a sustainable armed forces (remembering we're also doing a rework on the military as we go). If we are short of that, what additional exposure does Bush undertake making an explicit call to the colors? Sure it'll be denounced by leftists and ridiculed by some Dems, but so what's new? Let's just say it'll help further clarify their position for the rest of us.
The second part - shared sacrifice - is the tougher nut. One can understand the roots of what is parodied as the 'go shopping' response. In the 'go slow' strategy, this is a long term struggle that will require a healthy economy as much as a strong military. That's at the end of the day how we won the last long term, iterated struggle, the Cold War.
And yet - nearly four years on, I've now got to agree with Joe and Chester. We're running into the old moral > physical issue. Shared commitment and sacrifice go together, and feed on each other.
But what sort of commitment and sacrifice? The old style levee en masse (draft) is pretty much useless to our current military, unless we are ready to precipitate the civilizational struggle that many of us want desparately to avoid. And even then, this would embed an assumption that the outcome is occupation of the ME by draftees with M-16s, rather than destruction of the eneny's means and will to fight using our own strengths.
If the analysis is at the civilizational level, and long term, I have to keep coming back to energy, oil in particular. The necessary addiction that feeds the Saudis, the Wahabbis, and Al Qaeda, not to mention aspiring pestholes like Sudan, Nigeria, Venezuela. We could 'solve' that fast, as some have advocated, by parking a division or two on the Saudi and Gulf oil fields, but again at the cost of kicking off the civilizational struggle.
The logic of Bush's long term strategy is now sufficiently apparent that there would seem to be little additional risk in leveling with the American people re the amount of long term risk created by lack of shared vision and sacrifice around energy. With Condi running around the ME dissing the plutocrats, it's about the only shoe left to drop re our policy repositioning. And perhaps the last piece needed to convince the House of Saud et. al. of our seriousness.
But only convincing if endorsed and supported by the American people, meaning specific sacrifices. Which to my mind will include not only monetary obligations, but changes in lifestyles and sacrifice of some sacred cows from all sides. A real energy policy with something for everyone to hate, such as:
- Tough CAFE standards for SUVs and other guzzlers
- A tax on imported (only) petroleum
- With the proceeds to be split between raising and supporting 2-3 new divisions, and funding research and forward pricing (subsidizing) products towards a hydrogen economy
- Cooperation with other oil dependent economies on the second part
- Constructing a new generation of nuclear plants
- Drilling ANWR and CA offshore (with stringent environmental controls)
No one of these initiatives can provably solve the problems, but having the determination to go into them simultaneously makes the commitment real and credible. Short of lining up divisions on the Iranian and Saudi borders, this is likely the best we are going to do at threatening the strategic rear of the enemy, while foreshortening an economic transformation that will face us anyway.
Yes, this would get blasted from both sides, but again, what's new? A good way to sort out who's serious and not in our civilizational corner.
Bring us together with the evil left standing on their mass grave of kids denouncing the US ?
The idea that you can win them over, who hope for our failure, who are happy when people die so they can use them for political gain,,,,
The commi-love (Ted Koppel holding up the slave and his minder as one example) media doing everything they can, they dont consider themselves americans, ....
Why would I need to restate what is self evident, that the leftist media has been drowning us for years.
Just what in particular do you refute ?
Look how the media particpated in the leftist lie "reason for war"
It will be interesting to see if the media even covers his address, because we normally dont get them unless you go to C-Span
The media is the enemy, they are twisting distorting and the willing amplifier, their "coverage" is barely different from Al Jazira however you spell it, but no different in substance.
So while Newsweek is presenting the amrican flag in the garbage can, what makes you think the media will allow anything that dont fit their agenda.
Bush will probably not get an oppertunity to address the nation untill state of the union.
You see the same thing happen during the conventions, during the DNC, we get the podium almost 24/7, during the RNC we get the anti-american enemy on the floor and perhaps 3 keynotes.
Frankly untill the leftist media enemy is swinging off lamposts, I doubt any good and decent man will ever get a fair skake.
Tim Oren
You had me untill you attacked our economy with your Nixonian delusion that the reason for our superior ... everything, our market, should become more like europe to enjoy some of their failure.
Robin, the reality is, about half the American combat soldiers in Iraq that are killed and/or wounded happen while riding in vehicles not suited to fight this war. How is that a misunderstanding of reality?
I never made a suggestion that we should have waited "a decade or more" to invade Iraq. Invading Iraq was G.W. Bush's decision with the reason's and wherefor's he based that decision on. The equipment our soldiers have, the tactics they use, and the military decisions the Pentagon makes will not change overnight, as you imply. And that fact along with our mounting U.S. casualties and political pressure from Congress, takes The White House to a place where the American voters will decide who is better suited to run this country in 2006.
Kathy, again, you don't know what you are talking about. IED's are a tactical problem not an equipment problem.
Kathy, when i go out on the oil rigs, I meet Haliburton people, they dont have tails or horns on them, usually a man with a wife 2 kids and two broke down cars, who is wondering if the logo on the back of his work jumper is a target on his back for all your fever swamp hatemongering.
Good and decent people, made targets by fever swamp leftist like you.
The same old evil corporation crap i saw a puppet spouting when I watched team america.
You dont seem to have the ability to interpert your facts, probably because they are select ingredients for your fever swamp pie.
Raymond, I never said the people that work for Halliburton are "evil". I said that people within the U.S. military believe they are counterproductive to their efforts in fighting the insurgency, primarily due to the fact that security forces run by KBR do not follow U.S. military doctrine in dealing with civilians.
The Pentagon has no other avenue but to use private firms to provide basic security for it's troops. But must the Pentagon not have authority to, in some way, supervise KBR's security tactics?
And Robin, cetainly tactics are a factor, but if the tactics are wrong, is that going to make the decision for Americans to join the military any more attractive? If the tactics are wrong, and the equipment used has to rely on those tactics for armored support, it's a no-win situation for every American soldier.
Kathy, you continue to not understand the issues. And you've done nothing to support your claim that it was the Bush administration's fault for invading Iraq with an army that wasn't perfectly armed in your imagination.
Thankfully, FDR didn't have to listen to your advice in WWII or we'd still be waiting for the perfect moment to liberate France.
Kathy: about half the American combat soldiers in Iraq that are killed and/or wounded happen while riding in vehicles not suited to fight this war.
I assume that you refer to the Humvee. Who says it isn't suitable? Ask any old-timer if it's more or less suitable than all the vehicles it replaced, especially when it comes to protecting its occupants.
It makes no more sense than saying that the weapons we used to win World War II were "not suited" to fighting the Nazis - the Sherman, the M3 Halftrack, and the old Willy's Jeep. All of those vehicles had more serious weaknesses compared to the enemy than the Humvee does.
Kathy, something like a fifth of all the US casualties in the first Gulf War were caused by explosive debris from SCUDs shot down by Patriot missiles. Was it irresponsible for us to have gone to war until we had perfected our anti-missle technology not only to be 100% effective, but to prevent that as well?
Heck, how many friendly fire incidents have there been in past wars? Was it "irresponsible" for the US to fight in Afghanistan when we weren't sure our technology would prevent us from dropping bombs on any Canadians in the area?
IEDs are inflicting a significant proportion of the total casualties, NOT because the US force is mysteriously vulnerable to them, but because they're damned near invulnerable to conventional military tactics. Attacking a US outpost is virtually suicidal, and not only causes a ruinous exchange ratio, but virtually no American casualties. The only effective tactic lies in disguising explosives in something harmlessly civilian (a passing car, or a bump in the road) and then blowing up when an American comes near.
If you think that not having fully-enclosed, heavily armored jeeps is a sign of criminal negligence, then how the heck do you read military history? The original Jeep and its successors were used pretty widely in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, and not only were they totally unarmored, they weren't even enclosed!
Heck, how do you read any military history? What would you make of MacArthur's direction of the Port Moresby campaign? The assault on Tarawa, which had almost as many casualties in one day of fighting on an island of three square miles as the US has had in Iraq for two years? Man, what must the first world war look like?
Glen, I agree with you about the equipment used against the Nazis during WW II and would go even further to say training was minimal before our soldiers were put into combat. My own father was trained using WW I equipment and tactics in Texas before the 7th Army was sent to Attu and Kiska Islands to fight the Japanese in sub-zero weather. But are the circumstances then the same as they are now? That's an argument all by itself. We're talking about if it's wise for G.W. Bush to give a speech encouraging enlistment to fight in Iraq. And if he does, is Congress prepared to suffer the consequences of it in 2006.
Robin, I Believe you are right that when Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq the military was properly equiped. But I submit to you that the war we are fighting now was not anticipated nor planned for. And this was well observed and objected to by many within our own military.
Kathy,
Read the post Robin links - it's a "Lessons Learned" re: IEDs in Iraq from an American officer. Some units regularly ride around in Hummers WITHOUT DOORS, by choice, and do very well. It isn't as simple as armored vs. unarmored. Also, read the data re: the number of IEDs going off vs. those doing damage.
It's critical info. if you wish to speak from an informed perspective.
Meanwhile, soldiers have to be on the ground, and indeed many will still be driving around in some kind of light vehicle no matter what else the Army has. You have to cover the areas and be meeting people on the ground, or eveyone becomes less secure.
Now, what else should the USA be equipped with? Still a good question. Even an armored Hummer isn't really the ideal vehicle for that kind of patrolling (but it's the fastest-arriving and mostest). Lots of different suggestions out there:
Each of these alternatives has passionate supporters - and also people who hate or diss the idea. So, there's lots going on. This is war - you experience, you argue, you draw conclusions, you change over time. It's all normal.
If y'all had used something different... the enemy would have reacted to that instead, and you'd still be on this merry go 'round. That's just how it works. As always, the answer comes through trial and error and seeing what things or combinations of things succeed (some of which are always unexpected).
Don't demand perfection (see Armed Liberal's The Cowboy War for why not), therefore, demand and offer ideas for faster adaptation. That's part of what "military transformation" is supposed to be about.
The real point of people who make these "mismanagement" claims is simply opposition to the Bush administration. It isn't to critique the policy decisions, it isn't to critique the implementation of policy. The comparisons are made against some weird and usually internally inconsistent fantasy. Its just cheap gotcha partisanship.
There are no serious attempts to correct policy, correct implementation or correct TOE.
They are not serious comments.
You sure can pick your targets, Raymond. If you did one iota of research, you'd find out I'm a venture capitalist, and predictably haven't a lot of truck with socialism. Do you dispute that our current energy situation is no less than an IV tube sucking right out of our veins into the Wahabbis'? What the heck do you propose to do about that? Ready to roll the 3ID into Riyadh and deal with the results? You even know what forward pricing means? I'm not impressed.
There are two lessons that should have been learned from the Vietnam War. Joe nailed one on the head, and that is mobilizing the population. The second is contending with the subversive elements in our own society. The current administration has not grasped this yet, and so far it has been the blogsphere and talk radio that has been doing the fullfilling these roles.
Blackwater is staffed with freshly discharged navy seals, special forces, as well as those from law enforcement, the records must be spotless, their training top notch, these are the people that subcontract under Haleburton
There to protect their service people that do everything from repairing oil infastructure to cafeteria services for our troops, I see the same people supporting the crews on the drilling rigs
They have a job to do, made mandatory by the clinton distruction of our military, as well as the mandate that we hold in reserve the forces to deal with others from N korea to Iran.
Frankly, I grow weary of the leftist fever swamp crap, we are doing damn well for what we have to work with, and our military an outstanding account of themselves.
The adults work to bring Dadmanly home to his family, and to set inital conditions for the future so that we might not need to do this again
You do a good job to show why the left should never be in charge of anything except their mountain of 100 Million skulls.
Tim Oren
Taught by marxist achedumbics ?
Telling the consumer what he can buy ? the hand of govt again ?
As I said, you had me untill the delusion that the reason for our superior everything, our free market, should become more like europe to enjoy some of their failure.
Go fish, attacking our economy is a foolish way to combat anything.
Kathy
You are correct. President Bush made a serious error sending our finest to war.
September 12, 2001 he should have been on t.v. announcing that thermonuclear warheads had been dispatched and would arrive at their appointed destinations as he was speaking.
No war, no GitMo, no AbuGrab, no survivors.
Nat.
That certainly is one solution, and would not have brought any more world contempt than what we are doing now, or at least, nobody would be able to tell the difference.
I must say however, it has provided no small moral uplift to take the softer approch
The left=evil that shrug past mass graves of kids will never give us the credit, they created a mountian of 100 Million Skulls (their leftist idilogy) themselves and have found no reason to reform their faith. For them, Nukes or troops is all the same to them.
For ourselves however, how can you not be proud of what we have done, even if it was all to turn bad and fail somehow, we did the right thing.
And thats what is important, isnt it.
Instead of converting them to gas and ash, we gave them a chance at freedom, and if they make it, a better life for their Kids.
.
To quote Reagan,,, All in all, not bad, not bad at all.
Raymond,
The arguements put forth by the agitprops are void of morality. They are unwilling to understand or accept the fallibility of humanity and are willing to accept nothing less than perfection: ie. perfect armor, vehicles, personnel, and decisions.
My proposal was not one to appeal to the great and honorable way that we are conducting this war but to bring thought to the shallow arguments
and resolve the petty quibbling.
bq. For ourselves however, how can [we] not be be proud of what we have done, even if it was all to turn bad and fail somehow, we did the right thing.
And thats what is important, isnt it.
Instead of converting them to gas and ash, we gave them a chance at freedom, and if they make it, a better life for their Kids.
.
To quote Reagan,,, All in all, not bad, not bad at all.
Well said.
So, the decision to use our Army to perform a task which it absolutely wanted to avoid since 1974 (counter-insurgency), and which its leadership (Gen. Shinseki) warned would be costly, was in hindsight brilliant. Because the ideologues say so.
?bq. For ourselves however, how can [we] not be be proud of what we have done, even if it was all to turn bad and fail somehow, we did the right thing.
And thats what is important, isnt it.
Aside from the questionable literacy of this post, there is also the jaw-dropping passivity of it. And this characterizes most of the cheerleading for the Iraqmire. Problems with the occupation? Well, uh, stuff happens. It's not Rumsfeld's fault. Sure as heck not Bush's fault. Torture? Well, they're all ragheads, so torture away. Firing the Iraqi Army for no good reason? Well, they were (probably) all Ba'athists anyhow. Can't guard the road from the Green Zone to the airport? Well, that Zarqawi is one wily SOB. Total failure to guard the Iraqi borders? Well, hell, we're not guarding the Rio Grande, so what'd ya expect?
Who is in charge of this "war"?
Raymond:
I'd like to send a very special shout-out to you, the "man" who continually references a fantasy wherein every person to the left of Sen. McCarthy is somehow "shrugging" their way past "a mountian of 100 Million Skulls".
Please, if your Internet-lurking schedule allows, read something -- anything -- about fascism. You know, the ideology which drove Nazi Germany to liquidate a hell of a lot of people.
Fascism, Nazism, and their ilk were products of the radical Right. The Nazis were funded by businessmen like Fritz Thyssen and Henry Ford and Prescott Bush. That may be an uncomfortable truth. Suck it up.
Fascists used the demonization of fictitious "internal enemies" like socialists, Communists, and Jews. They created caricatures of these "enemies" to whip up popular frenzy. They demonized a caricature of the "Left." Sound familiar?
The Nazis in particular prided themselves on creating the "big lie" which enabled so much evil. Like, for example, the metaphor of the "100 million skulls." All piled up for Harry Reid, or John Kerry, or Harry Truman to prop their feet up on.
You, sir, are a fascist. You use fascist rhetoric. You deserve to be opposed as the fascist you are. Fascism is a discredited ideology. I'd advise you to choose one better suited to the 21st century.
Congrats sticker ,, every sentence you wrote is false and / or absurd.
More of that fever swamp gas ...
Look how glactically stupid your assertion that no bussinessman can be a leftist, or that anyone to the freedom side of stalin isnt a leftist.
So I guess Sweden is a "right wing" state because they dint follow in the example of Mao.
Then as in typical of a left=lies=fraud you ignore all the material that been presented here on Socialism in germany or Mousini's rise to power thru the socialsit party as a socialist.
I brought the subject up here, others, even the sceptics, have come around and confirmed what i said in spades.
As is typical, you have had your reality defense screen on full, and wander in here, infront of everyone and smack yourself in the mouth with that board.
Man must suck to be you.
And its sure clear you still dont read any solgers blogs, who im sure would be too civilized to plant his boot in your butt over your fever swamp crap.
"Here's Iraqmire-boot in the ass, thanks for the help buddy"
And ill let you know when I endorse the axe and the bundle of sticks or begin to admire Den Xao Peng.
Raymond
The so-called leftist media does not effect the decision of the President to come before the nation and make a speech about an issue. This President has had every chance to make the speech and/or hold a press conference. He has had fewer press conferences than Ronald Reagan. This decision lies with him and his advisors. They have chosen not to do either.
If on Jun 28th he makes the speech Chester, Joe and I have called for on this blog, I expect there will be a change in the population's attitude towards the GWOT. The loony left and right will not change their perspectives but for those of us whom sense that the population as a whole has become wobbly towards the GWOT we believe that the attitude change will move institutions of influence to make further effort to educate the population as to what's at stake. We believe that a call to support the war effort made publicly by the President even if it is as simple as adopt a unit(just think of the opportunity to educate the population about the military), send toys and candy for children or as difficult by challenging NOW to send textbooks for women's education in Iraq and Afghanistan will unite and educate more of the American population. It will peel off some of those whom object to the GWOT simply because it is something to do and give them something to think about. For those whom have become wobbly there will be a reinvigoration of attitude.
Are people going to challenge it? Of course they are and it will be on both sides. But simply blaming a fading political idelogy for self-inflicted wounds is a waste of time. If this is all you can do I suggest an alternative, institute Rule 303 on yourself.
Whoa, there...
Thanks for steering the conversation back towards what this post is about, Robert M (#38, paragraphs 1 & 2). This comment thread had gotten well away from those points.
Remember: Winds of Change isn't the place for spurious charges, personal insults, flame wars--or worse. If you have something to say that's gratuitously mean-spirited, or well away from the subject being discussed, time to hit 'delete' or start up your own blog.
We'll have more to say, later.
Raymond, you're right in saying our military does an outstanding job accounting for themselves. But, it does not serve our military well to have privatized security forces mistreating civilians, no matter how well they are trained in policing. It's KBR's accountability that's in question. If KBR doesn't answer to the military chain-of-command and their tactics are hindering the U.S. military's counterinsurgency efforts, how are "we" doing well?
Robert M, reinvigorating attitudes of the American people who have and are continuing to moving toward disfavor about the war in Iraq is something President Bush can't do in one speech, especially when many discredit the idea that the war in Iraq is coupled with "the war on terrorism". How much sacrifice, and for how long, must the American people be asked to endure for the task we were asked to do by The White House in toppling Saddam Hussein? Senator Lindsey Graham said it best in yesterday's hearings about the Iraq war, "people are beginning to question (our involvement in Iraq), and I don't think it's a blip on the radar screen". Gen Abizaid acknowledged too that U.S. troops are aware of the drop in public confidence with The White House's leadership with this war. How The White House is conducting this war is in question, and for the American people to somehow become reinvigorated in support of it will require a miracle. Like I said in my original post #6, an exist strategy for our military forces in Iraq from The White House is now in order.
You do a great job of gathering allies, don't you, Raymond? For the record, I escaped university before the lefties took over the poly sci and econ departments, and I was an engineer anyway. What I've got is courtesy of twenty years of surviving business in Silicon Valley. Just checked my woodpile for commies, and none jumped out.
I could go on re while my energy policy to offend everyone might be workable and a worthy war fighting idea, but I somehow doubt you're listening. Go look up idee fixe, why doncha? Probably time to cook it up as a full length post instead.
Sorry Kathy but I can not agree with any thought of withdrawing or setting a timetable. You can not run a war this way. Especially when much of the wars aims are good liberal ideas; republican democracy, the rule of law, as independent as possible judiciary, public education, and an independent press. I do not imagine you are against these values. I only support President Bush on the issue of GWOT.
I suspect that much of what drives your call for the withdrawal is the fact that Bush's policies at home do not match yours. Politically you are likely not to give him credit for anything especially as much of the legislation has come under the rubric of wartime and you believe it would not have passed without the war to marshall it forward. Here you have my sympathy and possibly much agreement. But this is not the place to discuss those issues.
The Presidency in America has evolved into a different kind of position than once imagined. It has been especially true since the Great Depression. From the Presidency we expect to see as much big "P" politics as possible i.e. Statemansship. Recently we have seen it in Sec Rice's speech in Cairo where she stated for 60 years "my"(read OUR) country has sought stability and we are now seeking something else. Sixty years means Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush. These are both Republican and Democratic Presidency's. This means both parties and Presidencies have been complicit in seeking stability over liberal democratic ideas and regimes. So we all have to stand up and be held accountable and move forward.
As you noted many are questioning what is happening in Iraq on both sides of the aisle. The Presidency is the one place when the nation is in peril that has the responsiblity and obligation to speak to and unite the whole nation. He will have to talk of the GWOT broadly and how Iraq is one theatre of the war. He can best do that by laying it all on the line, pointing out why we fight, what the goal is in Iraq, both militarily and politically, how victory in Iraq helps achieve victory in the GWOT and what we the American people as individuals can do to help achieve these goals both in Iraq and Afghanistan. He can do that by calling in members from both sides of the aisle into a war council. He can do that by eliminating the small "p" politics from the process of winning the GWOT by eliminating extraneous but nearly as serious issues from legislation regarding the GWOT. He can ask us to donate time and resources to our servicemen and their families needs here and abroad. He can ask NOW to organize book drives for women's school's.
And the one thing I personally would like to see is that he should ask that no one give instant analysis in the media and blogsphere. He should do this so we as individual Americans can sit, think and talk to our neighbors, our gang around the water cooler at the convience store or whereever we gather to just say hello to one another and let us decide for OURSELVES.
After the speech on Jun 28th the chips will fall where they may for President Bush. But whatever happens the campaign being conducted against the Jihadist terrorists will have to continue. Their goal of an Islamic state that is intolerant to the point of genocide to all whom are not Moslem can not be allowed. They will have no mercy for any of us should they win
Rober M, the United States has never gone to war with the expressed purpose of spreading "good liberal ideas", and I'm sure G. W. Bush never mentioned that in his addresses to the American people before ordering the invasion of Iraq. The United States exemplifies all thiose qualities of liberty you stated with having to shove a cruise missile down another nations peoples throats to express this point.
G.W. Bush's foreign policies stand alone from all other issues, especially when it comes to Iraq. And the fact that many republicans throughout America are beginning now to question his decisions on Iraq as a necessary part of "the war on terrorism" attests to this.
I totally disagree with you about the fact the presidency has changed over time, especially when it concerns international foreign policy. From FDR to Clinton the policy has been one of containment, and this is a historical fact. However, I agree with you that G.W. Bush is the first president to change this long standing policy, as you pointed out with the statement from Rice about Bush seeking "something other than stability." The foreign policies G.W. Bush has established have provided anything but "stability" around the world. Iraq is coming apart at its seems. North Korea and Iran are producing fissile materials to build nuclear weapons. Our once staunchest allies in Europe are alienated from us, with even our longtime support from the people of Great Britain changing, as evident from their most recent elections.
Your personal idea of restricting "instant analysis" in the media and blogsphere is nothing more than a statement to limit dissent. This country was founded upon the willingness to dissent at the risk of death. The American people would never stand for such a request from G.W. Bush or any president. Wispering dissent at the water cooler or corner drug store depicts a situation that probably existed in the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
...ooops, "with having to shove a cruise Missile" was meant to read "without having to shove a cruise....."
OK I wrote about this sometime ago that the American people have not been challenge as are parents were in WWII.
See this essay:
FREEDOM - Thx to The Greatest Generation for Preserving It
July 17, 2004
To Sherry and all my family,
After reading Sherry’s post on Judge Young's sentencing statement to the "shoe bomber," it gave me a moment to reflect on the freedoms we do have as Americans. It also reminded me to say thanks to all of you, “The Greatest Generation.” You endured the horrors of evil of the 20th Century. It was your self-sacrifices, sense of purpose, and perseverance that preserved the freedoms we enjoy today. We of the generations that followed often take these freedoms for granted and fail to give you the thanks you deserve. We have not been personally challenged as you were by the threat of global evil. The Cold War while threatening was abstract and distant.
The whiners and snivelers of our generations must appear as ungracious wimps and whooshes. Yes, we are a spoiled and complacent lot and forget the precious gift you gave us. We have not experienced the pain and hardships you lived through. WWII was already past history to be read in our schoolbooks. WWII has no collective visceral memory for us. We have no first hand experience. You did not dwell on it and shielded us from its impact. You didn’t consider yourselves as heroes. You picked up and got on with life. While the Vietnam War is still fresh in our memories some thirty years later, WWII ended less than a decade before we were born and has less of an impact. Our collective memory only is of grainy film clips and those few first-hand stories you told us on rare occasion.
[...]
Read More
Here's the speech G. W. Bush should deliver tomorrow evening from Ft. Bragg.
My fellow Americans, what have been our objectives in Iraq? I have said many times what we wanted was for Iraq to be free to determine its own affairs -- that is why we are fighting. We have tried every possible way to gain this objective. We have offered negotiations. And we have fought -- hard, and courageously, on unfamiliar territory -- with an increasing commitment of ground forces, designed to bring the war to an end with honor.
I don't need to tell you that we have not been successful. We have not destroyed the insurgency's will to fight. This is not a pleasant fact to report, but it is a fact.
There is another unpleasant fact to report. The government we have supported in Iraq has not succeeded in gaining the respect of its own people there. No matter how valient our men and women are, they cannot fight a war that is not supported by the people of the country we committed ourselves to defend.
No one in the world needs to be told how powerful we are. We can stay in Iraq as long as we like. We can reduce the whole country to ashes. We are powerful enough to do this. But we are not cruel enough to do this. I, as your President, am not willing to engage in a war without end that would destroy the youth of this nation and the people of Iraq.
As Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, I have ordered that, as of midnight tonight, our Air Force and our Navy will hault military operations in Iraq. Too many have died. Too many have suffered.
Let us speak frankly now about the consequences of this decision.
We may see a period of turmoil and conflict in Iraq. But that was true before we arrived. That is the nature of the world. It is hard to imagine, however, any conflict that will be more destructive than what is going on now. Our departure will inevitably diminish the fighting. It may end it. To the extent that the United Nations can mediate in helping to bring tranquility to Iraq, we will happily lend our moral and financial support.
We have made an important decision. It is a decision based on a fundamental American belief that human life is sacred, that peace is precious, and that true power does not consist in the brute force of guns and bombs, but in the economic well-being of a free people.
My fellow Americans, good night and sleep well. We are no longer at war in Iraq.
The speech excerpted above was written by the famous historian and educator Howard Zinn in 1967, to offer Lyndon B. Johnson a way to withdraw US troops from Vietnam.
The only word changed in this excerpted speech was the word "Vietnam", changed to "Iraq". But knowing what is happening today 2 year and 5 months after the invasion, approximately the same amount of time that this speech was originally written after The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, does it not hold true the conditions we find ourselves facing today? George W. Bush is to address the nation tomorrow. I submit that this is the speech he should give for the good of our nation and of the world.
I voted for George W. Bush, in spite of fundamental disagreements on other issues, because I know that that is a speech he will never deliver.
Tim, LBJ never gave this speech either. But, how may lives would have been saved if he had?
Perhaps you should study the words of Osama bin Laden, regarding the effects on Al Qaeda's strategy of our withdrawal from Mogadishu, amongst others. Weakness and muddled strategy then, and weakness and appeasement now (as you counsel) have the same end: greater tragedy later.
I'm not going to get into debating LBJ and Vietnam. Iraq is not Vietnam, and these are not the 60s (I lived through them).
Kathy,
...and when you're done with that, sit down at google, type in the following terms, and read the results:
"boat people"
"pol pot"
"democide"
That was the result of the course of action you agree with re: Vietnam, and it will be the same result now. I have rarely seen such a display of cold-blooded unconcern for human life, coupled with cloying, onanistic moral vanity, as the suggestion you have just proferred.
A reminder: John Kerry testified that he thought maybe 3,000 to 4,000 people would be in danger after America quit.
He was off by a factor of nearly 1,000.
[channeling]One would think those who live by the religion of 170 million skulls would eventually come to understand the human costs of their ideology. But having piled up a neat 3 million score last time, they still seem willing, even eager to do it all over again[/channeling]
No thank you.
Kathy
It was never my intention to suppress dissent. I am looking for a way for everyone to quietly think aboout the issue for themselves. It is why it is a personal request. I personally never listen to the speeches but buy the NYT because they usually print the whole thing. I can annotate it, mark it research it for myself.
As to going to war to spread good liberal ideas. Usually we have gone to war outide of our soil for various differnet reasons. Our efforts as peace approached were to spread those ideas despite the hypocrisy of the day, e.g Wilson's League of Nations did not envision the colonial entities of the day being free to join nor did the UN after WWII. Think of where Germany or Japan would be today if we had allowed the equivalent of the Versailles Treaty's to be imposed upon them.
I am not sure you understood stability as Sec Rice used it. In an international order it refers to a hegemonic postion imposed by outside forces with little regard to the wants of the local inhabitants. When the people of a country whom use republican democracy make decisions they can often lead the world into messy places(the tiff between France, Germany and England over the EU constitution comes to mind), but freely elected governments rarely opt for military action to achieve their goals. Sec Rice was explicitly rejecting that path.
As to the UN and the USA giving it moral and economic support, the Jihadists blew up the HQ of the UN's in Iraq within weeks of it being set up. The UN deliberately set up their HQ away from Coalition areas so to make clear the UN was there to help the Iraqi people transition to a new government and fill in until the Iraqi people could provide aid and reconstruction services on their own
As to Iraq coming apart at its seams are you really advocating the return of the Bathist party and the draconian measures they used under Saddam's control to repress dissent among the Sunni's; the sunnification of Shia and Kurdish areas to maintain political control, the way the PRC has taken over Tibet; the physical and psychological torturing and killing of children in front of their parents before they themselves were killed to repress Shia and Kurdish nationalism; to hold the country together? I do not think so.
As to the North Koreans and the Iranians their decisions to obtain nuclear weapons clearly took place before the current administration was elected.
As to death and dissent. I am sure if you go to the local al-queda meeting, dissent is answered with a round from an AK-47 quicker than bat an eye. Even if you didn't dissent you are from the west, believe in dissent, woman's rights, education and various other ideas about government they do not believe in and if you are a Moslem you would be considered a heretic and THEY WOULD STILL KILL YOU.
The latter is really the hardest thing to deal with. They just want to kill you for who you are. They do not need to get drunk and think it is a great idea to drag you over dirt roads behind a pick up. When they get on planes they do not pull out white hoods to tell you who they are.
That is why I continue to call for a major speech by the President to remind everyone what this is all about. That is why I railed at Rumsfield's appearance(s) on the Sunday new's shows in this blog because he showed no regard for past actions and statements of this administration. Regardless whom is President these people have no sense of live and let live.
Joe Katzman,
By the time John Kerry testified in front of the Senate in 1971, over 80% of the estimate 2 million Vietnamese killed in the Vietnam War were already dead. And between 1967 and this same period in '71, over 47,000 Americans were killed. I sincerely doubt that any estimate John Kerry made as to how many Vietnamese would need help finding sanctuary was relevant by this time.
If the majority of people are too uninformed or apathetic to make morally correct, rational and effective decisions, they are just revealing their inherent nature. Like almost all political leaders, President Bush uses popular ignorance for his own purposes much the in same way a seller of dubious merchandise depends on the lack of buyer discretion. It is only in certain situation, like now during a time of an unpopular war, that there's hope that people like you will wake up from their troglodyte torpor and begin to seriously inform themselves.
Ah, so that's Kathy's answer. 3 million dead - not relevant.
If... people are too uninformed or apathetic to make morally correct, rational and effective decisions, they are just revealing their inherent nature.
We certainly agree there.
Actually Kathy, after Kerry's testimony, North Vietnam itself would be responsible for a million more civilian deaths in Southeast Asia.
But Joe has correctly identified the real problem.
Kathy: the 60 Americans killed in Iraq this month of June
Vietnam Combat Casualties : 11,153 for 1967 (avg. 929 per month)
Kathy: But knowing what is happening today 2 year and 5 months after the invasion, approximately the same amount of time that this speech was originally written after The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, does it not hold true the conditions we find ourselves facing today?
Me: No.