Just another pathetic attempty by the Pro-war freakshow to justify hitching their wagons to the biggest idiots ever to gain control over a major military power.

Lots of self-medication going on here, eh? Feeling "groovy" with it yet? Hey, dude, it's all cool, whatever, so what, gotta do what ya gotta do, at least somebody tried to do something, right? Hey, pass the bong, I want a hit of whatever you're smoking....

Well said.

The problem is that the administration did not prepare itself or the American people for a long war in Iraq. Now they don’t seem to be able to level with the American people about how long it will take to do thinks right and what sacrifices might be needed.

I want a hit of whatever you're smoking

The original post is well said. The first comment is vapid.

While I am NOT one of those who thinks we need to cut and run, as I've said before -

This post is idiotic in so many ways - I'll count a few:

a. Horrible analogy - paternalistic, screwball, and just plain disconnected from any good description of the situation,
b. Ignores the history of how we got to where we are in the first place
b. "Plan of action" - uhh, what? You hold someone accountable via a "Plan of Action"?

So if you hold your son accountable for the bathtub, and he comes out and tells you about his "plan of action" - in great reassuring detail - then he's been accountable? That's clearly not accountability.

A better analogy might have been the following:

There is a colony of bees, in a beehive that provides your family with your main sustenance. Your sister was stung by a bee - because your sister was allergic - and it does appears that for some reason there's a small group of bees that is desctructive.

Not having any sense, you barge into the bees, telling everyone if you don't break into the hive RIGHT NOW, then the bees will attack again, killing your sister! And maybe your mother!

While the fear was understandable, by simply attacking the hive, this was irresponsible because:

a. A distinction wasn't made between the hive and the destructive bees.
b. There was no realistic plan to deal with the whole swarm, once the hive was broken.
c. There wasn't the right protective gear, going in. There also wasn't the right resources to manage the bees, once the hive was broken up.
d. Now that the bees are swarming, some are being tame, some are dispersing, some are BITING. So you keep on taking out the biting bees with the flyswatter, and trying to get the other bees back in some type of order.
3. But you have the wrong resources. You don't have enough nets to hold the bees, you don't have the construction material to pen the bees in, until they make a new hive (and you can only hope they do it without the destructive bees, or that your flyswatter will kill enough of the bad bees - but you can't be sure, because, you know, destructive bees are hard to identify.)

But you can't just let the bees escape, because you depend on the bees for "food".

Also, when you brother pointed out all the problems AHEAD OF TIME in just simply going in and smashing the hive - well, you called him a coward, and said he didn't love his family, and with your smooth talk you convinced most of the family that you could take out the bad bees easily, and without much problem.

Now, the brother who you called a coward and not loyal to the family, has to help you deal with the bees - but all the brother can do is shake his head in frustration, but he has to help you corral the broken hive, as best he can. The family breaks it, the family buys it.

But all the irresponsible brother can do is call for a "plan of action", as bees escape, swarm, and follow their nature.

From the 1st 2000 Presidential debate:

GOV. BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interests, and that means whether or not our territory -- our territory is threatened, our people could be harmed, whether or not our alliances are -- defense alliances are threatened. Whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear; whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to -- to -- win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy.

From the 2nd 2000 Presidential Debate:

GOV BUSH: But I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious.

From the 3rd 2000 Presidential Debate:

GOV BUSH: The mission must be clear. Soldiers must understand why are we going. The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well-defined.

The Exit strategy is part of the Powell Doctrine. Remember that one? It's why we left Saddam in the first place to continue his misrule and make us look weak and ineffectual (and encouraging bin Laden).

While the analogy might be wrong, the Powell Doctrine is disastrous. It requires:

1. Overwhelming public support in the Congress, Media, and people for any military action. Sometimes extended to foreign support and the UN.

2. Clearly defined goals and very limited time frame for military action.

3. A clear exit strategy.

It was designed to avoid another Vietnam, which was the result of unique Cold War politics and won't be repeated. The Powell Doctrine would have negated our entry into WWI, WWII, Korea, Gulf War 1 (it did cause our early exit and allowed Saddam to fester on) as well as Afghanistan.

Afghanistan in particular had a lot of opposition in the Media, public opinion (particularly academics and celebrities and writers), and a substantial part of the Democrats (including Biden who called it a war crime). Anything that applies to Iraq also applies to Afghanistan. Why not just run away there too, and hand the country back over to bin Laden?

The analogy is not perhaps apt but the exit strategy idea is bunk. Our only exit strategy in WWII was unconditional surrender of our enemies. Korea and Vietnam taking place in the shadow of superpower nuclear standoff required more limited goals. That's not the case now, we should demand unconditional victory over our opponents in Iraq, which is basically bin Laden.

Repeat: the Powell Doctrine is as dead as the Cold War. It has no bearing on our current situation where if anything we are too timid and limited. Pakistan and Iran are nuclear risks that are only going to get solved by military action. The cost of NOT ACTING could be San Diego, Dallas, and Miami.

#8:

Another reason people are irate about Iraq is because it diverted troops and resources FROM Afghanistan.

Wouldn't things be better if we did catch OBL and capitulated the head of Al-Qaeda instead of capturing SH based on shakey reasons and created a great training/recruiting ground for terrorists which Iraq is now?

Do not lump the "protesters" with Afghanistan with the protesters of Iraq. There are people that supported Afghanistan that never supported Iraq.

I certainly agree that you can tell a Soldier to "put up or shut up" but you cannot force this on the American public.

How long should the American public "stay on course"? 5, 10, 15 yrs? Draft? At the expense of the US lives, economy, competiveness with China, the EU, emerging threats like Iran, N. Korea?

And WWII is a false analogy to Iraq: W. Europe was overrun, Asia was falling and uniform wearing, state-based Military actors attacked Pearl Harbor.

The GWOT cannot be won by purely military means.

Some people just kill me. It's not the WAR IN IRAQ....it's the BATTLE OF IRAQ in the WAR ON TERROR. Sheesh.

john,
How long was the Cold War? Was it won by purely non-military means? Was military force used at all?

John,

Glad you want Bin Laden. So, you propose invading Iran (Mashad is lovely this time of year)? Or maybe Pakistan? Hooookay...

"Another reason people are irate about Iraq is because it diverted troops and resources FROM Afghanistan."

This is a lie. No troops were diverted away from Afghanistan. Source plzkthx.

President Bush for all his faults has laid out an exit strategy - we will leave when the job is done, and its going to take a while and its hard work. He said this what a million times in the debates in 2004. Its not elegant prose but its the truth. Problem is Democrats like Kennedy and Kerry do not like the answer so they keep repeating thier assertion that we need to have a timetable. The administration needs to hammer these fools again and again. If we had an effective press with some kind sense of history, they would make fun of Kennedy when he says exit strategy.

#12: I personally think the Cold War is a better analogy to the GWOT.

I like the analogy since the Cold War wasn't won by pure military means. We all now the "hot wars" of the Cold War like Korea and Vietnam didn't actually contribute to victory but more indirect economic, military, and diplomatic methods did help capitulate the USSR.

Joe, I admit, I am one of those defeatists. I never supported Iraq, but I always supported Afghanistan and I am concerned to the lack of attention it has received due to Iraq. I also do not have a solution to Iran or how to goad Pakistan for us to patrol and set-up shop within their borders. What I am concerned about is that Iraq is a black hole that's just sucking up all our attention while other problems are growing due to our lack of attentiveness. If nothing else, I am a "supporter" of the terrorist fly paper theory of Iraq.

#14: Bob Woodward "Plan of attack", but I guess he's a radical anti-war liberal like Colin Powell.

john 316,
I agree that the Cold War is a better analogy, but there are some key differences, mainly with the nature of the threat and whether or not it is deterable. For example, the Soviets never had the nerve to knock down bulidings in New York. Ask yourself why that might be.

If you can't see the value of fighting in Korea then you are indeed a hopeless dove. Have you even looked at South Korea lately? Would you rather have had the wholeplace be a hell hole?

Veitnam is not as clear cut since we ultimately abandoned our allies to defeat, precipitating the deaths of millions and a huge refugee crisis. To say that it had no effect on the Cold War is not accurate though. The Soviet Union also had to bear the costs of this war, tying up assets that could have been used more fruitfully elsewhere. Think of it like a flypaper stategy, if that helps.

WRT Afghanistan. Until such time someone can tell us what more troops there would be doing, then this is just another ploitical gotcha game. Do you think Iraq is a distraction from North Korea too?

Do you think Iraq is a distraction from North Korea too?

Absolutely. This is, in my opinion, Iran and NK are the largest fallout from the whole Iraq war. Without Iraq, I don't think either Iran or NK would be going nuclear with relative impunity.

While the US could probably flatten Iran with airpower, I don't think the American populace is willing to (1) see their economy majorly disrupted from the oil shocks, and (2) fight a war that ends up killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, all because of weapons that might never be used.

NK is even more problematic, because the destruction of SK would mean as difficult economic shocks (although not as bad now that China is the engine behind the American economy), but with even more civilian casualties.

Without Iraq, the USA could have made credible (if unspoken) threats. Now, phfft.

(And no, I don't think packing up and going home at this point is a credible or ethical choice.)

Without Iraq, the USA could have made credible (if unspoken) threats. Now, phfft.

WRT to Iran. Have you ever looked at a map of the area? The US now has forces in two neigboring countries. If that's not containment then waht is? And Iraq can only be a distraction if an invasion of Iran is on the table. Are you advocating an invasion of Iran?

It's pretty naive to think we are containing Iran because we have troops in two nearby countries. For one thing the troops are very very busy in those tow countries and cleary cannot be expected to do anything about Iran. Our experience in Iraq has monopolized the troops. It has also exposed our weakness; we can't do anyting to Iran using ground troops. You can be the Iranians know it.
Also our troops are in one country, Iraq, that is busy building positive relations with Iran and will not let themselves be used as a base of operations against Iran.

Also our troops are in one country, Iraq, that is busy building positive relations with Iran and will not let themselves be used as a base of operations against Iran.

Robin..

Vapid?

To quote the great Enigo Montoya..

"You keep using that word.. I do not think it means what you think it means.."

One can disagree with the substance (what there was of it) in the comment.

But I seriously doubt you could claim it was "Lacking liveliness, animation, or interest".

I'll vote for the latter.

Matt McIntosh

Well Matt, since you are calling folks liars I'd hope you didn't require a source and new for certain already.

Apparantly not.

In the second half of March 2002, as the Bush administration mapped its next steps against al Qaeda, Deputy CIA Director John E. McLaughlin brought an unexpected message to the White House Situation Room. According to two people with firsthand knowledge, he told senior members of the president's national security team that the CIA was scaling back operations in Afghanistan.

That announcement marked a year-long drawdown of specialized military and intelligence resources from the geographic center of combat with Osama bin Laden. As jihadist enemies reorganized, slipping back and forth from Pakistan and Iran, the CIA closed forward bases in the cities of Herat, Mazar-e Sharif and Kandahar. The agency put off an $80 million plan to train and equip a friendly intelligence service for the new U.S.-installed Afghan government. Replacements did not keep pace with departures as case officers finished six-week tours. And Task Force 5 -- a covert commando team that led the hunt for bin Laden and his lieutenants in the border region -- lost more than two-thirds of its fighting strength.

The commandos, their high-tech surveillance equipment and other assets would instead surge toward Iraq through 2002 and early 2003, as President Bush prepared for the March invasion that would extend the field of battle in the nation's response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52673-2004Oct21.html

You can't swing a dead chicken over Google without finding dozens of similar articles. And keep in mind a lot of these were special forces who had months on the ground in Afghanistan, language skills, and highly developed contacts.

"Do yo mean the Iran that is shipping explosives into Iraq that are used to blow-up innocent Iraqi civilians? That's some relation building alreight."

Well, lets examine, as Don Rumsfeld says, "what we know, what we don't know, and what we don't know we don't know" shall we?

We don't know that Iran is shipping explosives to insurgents in Iraq, though it's certainly possible.

We do know that the single most popular figure in Iraq is..... Iranian.

"The vast majority of any ground troops that are ever needed in Korean will be South Koren."

Given our history in the region, especially with the ARVN, this is among the more silly comments yet.

"Given our history in the region, especially with the ARVN, this is among the more silly comments yet. "

Our history in the region is 60 years ago. As of today SK has a million man reserve and one of the finest professional armies on the planet with some of the most advanced weaponry defending a rugged mountain range with only a few gaps which happen to be the most heavilly mined patch in the history of the planet, oh and the bulk of the US pacific fleet and AF is available to pound the snot out of the starving obsolete NK army of conscripts. Short of China invading SK, the US ground force is utterly unnecessary.

here is a good summary:

http://www.g2mil.com/vedcombo.htm
"South Korea has more than twice the population, thirty times its economic power, and spends three times more on its military each year. South Korean forces are much better trained, equipped, and supplied than the rag tag conscripts in the North; who spend much of their time harvesting rice. South Korea has mined and built concrete fortifications along the mountainous DMZ to make a rapid breakthrough impossible. "

Davebo, you are slandering South Korean troops without any basis at all. They are good quality troops, South Korea has an effective indigenous arms industry and frankly would be in Pyongyang in a few weeks if unleashed. In fact, a battalion of Korean rangers served in South Vietnam, and I assure you that the NVA did not like what they experienced one bit.

Robin,

And you are, once again, ignoring the facts.

South Korea does indeed have a substantial military. And like America, it has a populace from which that military comes.

"Half of South Koreans surveyed in May 2003 by the Pew Global Attitudes Survey held an unfavorable view of the United States, up six percentage points from July 2002. Anti-Americanism has risen particularly sharply among the young. A year ago, half (51%) of the 18-29 year olds surveyed had a somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion of the United States. This year, seven-in-ten (71%) young South Koreans expressed such views."

http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=67

"South Korean disapproval of the conduct of U.S. foreign policy reflects public opposition to particular American international initiatives, including the war on terrorism and the Bush Administration's policy of preemptive military strikes against U.S. foes. Seven-in-ten South Koreans (71%) oppose U.S.-led efforts to fight terrorism. More than half (55%) of South Koreans also say that it is rarely or never justified to use military force against countries that may seriously threaten South Korea, but have not attacked it."

Or this..

"A recent online poll conducted in conjunction with one of South Korea's newest online news websites, the Frontier Times, indicates that about 20% of Koreans surveyed believe the South should ally with the North in the event of a US attack, with a further 30% not sure which side they should take. Of course, the specific phrasing of the question and the manner in which the poll was conducted can affect the efficacy; however, anecdotally, the numbers seem roughly consistent with what is felt on the ground in South Korea: most specifically, the undecided 30%."

http://atimes.com/atimes/Korea/FK24Dg03.html

Now, unlike America, S. Korea's army is made up of conscripts.

And they don't get Fox News...

I will add this qualifier.

If South Korea reached a consensus that Jong Il just had to go the country could probably accomplish that.

But if the US is seen as the driving force behind a joint invasion of N. Korea, it seems highly unlikely that we will get widespread support among S. Koreans.

But who knows, I could be totally wrong. It could be a cakewalk with the only threat being projectile roses tossed at the troops...

Davebo, playing the game of moving goal posts isn't impressive. You made a comment about military capabilities with no basis in fact, which you now want to shift to a thinly sourced claim on the opinions of the SK population.

davebo knows less about military matters than Michael Moore, and proves this every chance he gets. He's a waste of electrons.

#8:

Another reason people are irate about Iraq is because it diverted troops and resources FROM Afghanistan.

Let us review, the Soviets lost 38,000 troops in Afghanistan to Bin Laden and his pals.

Anyone stop to think on how much of Bin Ladens resources have been diverted to Iraq?

So what is the proper position?

If we leave the outcome will be no worse than Vietnam? Rawanda?

davebo,
Perhaps you missed the news of the two separate incidents where Iranian shipments of explosives destined for terrorists in Iraq were intercepted? You might want to seach the WoC archives for Dan Darling's analysis.

I'm not sure the popularity of the US in South Korea is a factor. If they wish to surrender to the North Koreans then who are we to argue. The Japan and Korean Seas make a much better defensive perimeter. Then perhaps we can save our efforts for those who appreciate it, like maybe the Japanese and Taiwanese. Let's also not forget the large pile of t-bills that we'll never have to pay off.

Can you at least arrange that they give us enough warning so we can get our troops and nationals out?

I think the exit strategy has been defined.

1. A functional government that respects all its citizens (this is going to be tough - some want a strongman type government)

2. An Iraqi Army capable of defending itself against its enemies foreign and domestic (coming along nicely if a bit slow - two to five more years).

The above seems fair if difficult.

What makes it more difficult than necessary is that a significant number of "humanist" Americans wish us out of Iraq NOW with no thought of the consequences to the Iraqi people.

So let me ask my "humanist" friends again. No worse than Saddam? No worse than the aftermath of Vietnam? How about no worse than Rawanda?

#33: you are still viewing this war in the attritionist-body-count framework. By killing a terrorist, you do not necessarily reduce the terrorist population by one (yet another Vietnam fallacy).

I understand the whole intent of the battle in Iraq is to have Iraq become a model in the middle east of democracy and freedom - and that's great.

So the next assumption is that other countries would follow suit. By internal revolts? By elections? By American involvement? Isn't this another version of the infamous domino theory?

john #37,
There is more historical evidence hat if you kill more of the enemy, then you win. You are the one pitching a dubiuyos theory: "We can't fight back. It will only make them madder." That's always a recipe for appeasment.

Domino thery? Maybe. Maybe not. But there already has been some positive ripples, if not dominos. Look at event in Libya, Lebanon, and Egypt for a start.

"Now, unlike America, S. Korea's army is made up of conscripts.

And they don't get Fox News... "

To quote the movie Big, 'I dont get it'. What are you suggesting, that SK is going to attack America, its largest trading partner? I think im missing your point.

Mark,

What I'm pointing out is that in army of conscripts it is important to consider the mood of the country.

Vietnam never gets started in 1967 wouldn't you agree?

As to the rest of the replies.

Tom has nothing to add so launches into his Michael Moore rant. My knowledge of the military however is limited to that gained in five years of active duty and 4 years of active reserve.

Robin claims I moved the goal posts which I didn't and should be obvious. But at least she confuse the meaning of any words in her post which is a nice change.

Lurker mentions two intercepted shipments of munitions that I was aware of, but he question was official Iranian involvement and that has not been even close to substantiated.

And no one dares even to touch my qualifier.

Geez, this place really is turning into one big wanna be foreign policy wonk circle jerk.

We can not convince the Iraqis to become liberal democrats. We can not convince the Iraqis to put nationhood ahead of tribal, ethnic, and sectarian loyalties. The objectives stated for an exit are impossible to achieve because we can't reprogram the culture and religion of Iraqis.

The Iraq war was never in the US national interest. The Bush Administration and the neocons lied their way into it. I was fooled. I admit they fooled me. I'm not fooled any more.

The beginning of wisdom is to admit when you have made a mistake. Time to shed your delusions. The Iraq war is not in US national interests. It is just a drain of lives and treasure. We can just leave.