I'm glad to see our men & women in uniform can still summon a sense of humor when faced with the Republican political show that sent them to Iraq on the basis of lies and for purposes still not clearly defined.

Hopefully, people with courage and integrity and a genuine concern for their well being will soon be in charge of at least one house of congress. I'm sure many of them would like to see their comrades, most of whom are running for public office as Democrats, elected next Tuesday so they can serve at home as proudly as they served in Iraq.

Isn't everyone looking forward to Andy L.'s party being in charge of the House for the next two years?

Andy L., I think the soldier's point was that they knew the situation going in, and feel quite capable of taking care of themselves without the Church Ladies' getting their buns in knots.

But thanks for caring and sharing.

Andy,
Its amusing that you can see something in that picture that plainly isn't there.

I don't know about "everybody", Mark, but certainly it's looking more and more like at least a majority of Americans are looking forward to the Democrats gaining a majority. And that's all it really takes, ain't it?

Hopefully, people with courage and integrity and a genuine concern for their well being will soon be in charge of at least one house of congress.

It's probably too much to hope for that at least one of those courageous, integrity-bearing and genuinely concerned people in charge will actually be able to tell an actual joke without muffing it.

But we all have dreams, don't we?

One of my dreams is that people will stop using "hopefully..." to mean "I hope..." or "it is to be hoped that...".

Well, a lot of people (me included) are tired of the Republicans currently running Congress. That doesn't mean I'm looking forward to Speaker Pelosi's vision of the Mommy State.

Of course, Speaker Pelosi will pretty much sew up the Presidency for the Republicans in '08. And very probably cause a deep re-think among Republicans about how Business as Usual should be conducted. So Andy, enjoy the Pyrrhic victory while the marshmallows are still toasty.

Oompa Loompa, loompa de doo,
I’ve got another bon mot for you.
Oompa Loompa, loompa dee dee,
If you are wise you’ll listen to me.

What do you get from a John Kerry “joke”?
Six days of news and a cerebral stroke.
What kind of people think this is fun?
What would have happened – if – they’d – won?

I think we’re about to find out …

Oompa Loompa, loompa de da,
If you’re not Kerry you will go far.
You will live in happiness, too,
Like Joe Lieber, Lieberman do.

Joe Katzman: "In the "too damn funny to pass up" category..."

Exactly. Normally this "story" wouldn't be worth mentioning. John F. Kerry, super-genius, strikes again. So what?

But any excuse to post that brilliant joke by the army guys is good enough. It's hilarious. :)

Yet another John Kerry joke post from the site that pretends to serious foreign policy analysis. What's that make, four now?

And yet nothing about 100,000 Iraqis fleeing their country monthly, nothing about Perle and Adelman's apostasy, nothing about the Army Times calling for Rumsfeld's head, nothing much about the fact that Muqtada al Sadr has ordered our men out of Sadr City and been obeyed, nothing about so many, many, many stories that conflict with WoC's denialism.

The meltdown of this site perfectly mirrors the meltdown in Iraq. An amazing sort of symbiosis.

How maany more posts do we'll get on John Kerry's mangled joke? Three? Four? Ten? Whatever it takes to distract from reality?

Whatever it takes to "distract from reality" eh?

Reality #1: Peace is the absence of THREAT not the absence of conflict.

Reality #2: According the the NYT the Iraq document dump was "too dangerous" to release, because:

Reality #3: It provided details demonstrating that Iraq was almost certainly ahead of Iran in its nuclear development trajectory and was quite possibly within months of a successful nuclear device as soon as the then-disintegrating sanctions were lifted. [side note. I know enough about fissile materials to perform several of the calculations in my head]

Reality #4: Saddam most definitely had a nuclear weapons program, some internal and much of it out-sourced to Libya. "Bush Lied!" is now demonstrably silly.

Reality #5: Mr. Bush has at least TRIED to address both a very real threat and some of the underlying issues. No reasonable person should expect it to unfold seamlessly -- no war ever has.

Reality #6: Few if any remaining Democrats would even try ... Zell Miller, Sam Nunn, Joe Lieberman ... oh, wait, they've been squeezed out.

Reality #7: Out-of-power parties will often cobble together bizarre positions in their drive for power. An earlier Clinton took on a sitting President by criticising him both for getting us into the war under false pretenses, and for incompetence in prosecuting the war. The War of 1812.

Reality #8: The world is a very dangerous place and becoming moreso. Wishing it were otherwise, or assuming the "inherant goodness" of human beings is not a strategy.

So okay, lefties, please tell us one situation in which you would actually use the US military for something other than Meals-on-Wheels.

Describe what you perceive as a real threat (other than Mr. Bush) and just what you would propose to, you know, actually do about it.

It seems to me that this forum has discussed these and many other realities in considerable depth. What you have been offering in 'opposition' seems to be little more than carping and condemnation. You'll have to do a lot better than that before most of us take you seriously.

Yes, yes, m tak (#9) -- this article was obviously a desperate attempt at remaining in denialism, whatever "denialism" means.

Personally I think we should give up all attempts at humor completely. Instead, perhaps you would be so kind as to educate us as to what constitutes "appropriate" content and what, in your view, is "realistic"

Maybe if we're good, you'll let us laugh from time to time. Perhaps at some Iranian Holocaust cartoons.

Now that I've dealt with the inveterate curmudgeons, I think the soldiers did a great job. Perfect timing, perfect message, and delivered exactly right. I don't hope it sways the election or anything like that, but we could all use a little more political humor. I was just reading an article from Real Clear Politics the other day about how this campaign season has been so humorless. It's a shame. If we are all fellow Americans who want the best for our country, then certainly we can laugh at ourselves a bit.

Joe, you've now broken two of Andy L's Rules of Blogging.

#1: no linking. Original content only, because if you have nothing to say, you should say nothing.

#2: No humor. There's a war on. Making fun of people who voted and made long-winded speeches in favor that war is totally unacceptable.

Mark;

Are you saying that the Fighting Dem vets are too stupid to realize who they've signed up with to bring about a positive change in the Iraq war situation?

Perhaps they recognize that the threat of a "Big Brother" state is greather than a "Mommy State" (which I presume you know is a vast misrepresentation of Democratic views).

As far as '08, we'll just have to see, won't we. I think the far greater problem is that Republican candidates are going to have to prove their distance from Bush. Starting to play the "smear Democrat" game is despicable, and your participation in it at these early stages just goes to show how bitter and angry people of your political persuasion can get when things aren't going exactly as they want them to. If you can convince me or others that Pelosi or any other Dem will be 1) incapable of representing the interests of Americans, and 2) worse than Hastert or DeLay or any number of Republicans who have only contempt for the people of America and our system of government, then perhaps you can make a contribution.

Or, like m takhallus observes, you can just continue to descend into petty bitterness like the rest of the Republican party and simply evaporate as a party and political force in the next two years.

Actually, I'm hoping for the latter. I'd prefer to see a strong Libertarian party arise from the ashes of the Republican self-immolation.

Andy -- as a Libertarian I'd like to slow you down a bit, guy.

BOTH parties like to infringe big-time on personal freedom. The Ds get their kicks by social engineering, class warfare, elimination of private property rights for environmental concerns, etc. The Rs seem to like to make moral leglislation. I've picked the Rs more than the Ds at the voting booth because, quite frankly, the Rs seem a little more inept at pandering to special interests who want to limit freedom. Instead, they like to pander to special interests that want special tax breaks, or be mean to foreigners, which also is slightly better than punishing me for making more money than the average blue collar voter.

I'd love to see a national Libertarian party that really meant something -- as long as folks know that it takes things from both the left AND the right to make good policy. But the Libertarians I've seen lack a good foundation for their political theory: instead of being a party, it all sounds like so much sloganeering claptrap. And then you throw in the real weirdos, who want nulcear weapons in everybody's basement or no nations at all, and the idea of a national party just isn't feasible. The Rs are a bunch of grumpy old white guys who love business. Yes, that's a stereotype, but it plays well to the public. People can understand it. The Ds are a bunch of left-wing, anti-Bush, whiny, tax-raising malcontents who look down their noses at those stupid Rs. People also understand that. What are the Libertarians to their foes? My point is that there's not even a bad stereotype for us Libertarians. If you don't have enough definition to be slammed, you really aren't that cohesive.

Daniel:

Yes, obviously that's my objection: I hate humor.

This is a site that has the ambition to be taken seriously on foreign policy. And at one time it deserved to be. Now the site is given over to avoiding the topic it claims to cover. Four posts on John Kerry, a little Muslim baiting for leavening, and nothing so far on a deluge of fascinating and telling foreign policy stories. The WoC seemes less and less interested in its core subject.

Why?

Because the news, the facts on the ground, now undeniably conflict with WoC's editorial stance which I'd summarize as: everything's fine, Rummy's a genius, be patient, be patient. It is now simply impossible to talk about what's actually happening while maintaining the WoC editorial stance. Rather than change their conclusions, the WoC editors simply avoid talking about the issues. Instead they talk about John Kerry and John Kerry and John Kerry and John Kerry.

That, Daniel, is denial.

Whatever it takes to distract from reality?

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein

"Reality leaves a lot to the imagination." - John Lennon

"Reality is whatever is left when I've stopped believing in it." - Philip K. Dick

"F--k reality." - Louis Ferdinard Celine

"All I was trying to do was honor the reality that people are who they are." - Senator John F. Kerry, explaining why Mary Cheney's sexuality is a n issue of national importance

> Army Times

You do know that "Army Times" is a Gannett publication, right?

In other news, the publisher of Grit wants to have Nuremburg Trials for global warming skeptics.

Johnny just ended any crazy hope he had for running in 2008. I don't think he meant to insult the troops at all, but he's still an f'in idiot.

m takahallus (#15)

I guess I just don't see it. I mean, I understand your point, but I think you are taking your political and personal values and somehow making some huge editorial judgement from them. In addition, you've got this nice psycho angle where you can use your little "denial" label on others -- presumably to keep your fragile beliefs from close criticism?

Yes, there is material for all sorts of conclusions and trends. Personally, I've yet to see my original reasons for topping Saddam to have been proven inadequate. I've yet to see really a lot more in the way of conclusive evidence about Iraq except for it is inconclusive and we are impatient. There are other ways of looking at things. Given the lack of tangible goals in Iraq right now (except "be their friend") people are left to make up their own goals. Hence views are all over the place.

Opinions and worldviews are like that, m. Things look different from different angles. I would try to explain the joke to you as well, but I'm afraid you don't seem the light-hearted kind. I'm just glad you have so much concern about the content here on WoC, which I enjoy just fine. Good to see you curmudgeons, er, fellow commenters holding the bar high. Where would we be without a little joke and some observant person such as yourself to psychoanalyze and critique the entire content and audience here? That's quite an accomplishment. I know that instead of feeling like I heard a joke, now I feel much more enlightened and chastised in my ways.

m. takhallus and friends:

_So okay, lefties, please tell us one situation in which you would actually use the US military for something other than Meals-on-Wheels.

Describe what you perceive as a real threat (other than Mr. Bush) and just what you would propose to, you know, actually do about it._

<crickets chirping. ...

#20

First, I supported the invasion of Iraq.

I'll allow that to sink in for a moment. I know it violates your presuppositions.

I also supported Afghanistan, Gulf War 1, Kosovo and Somalia. My first vote was for Richard Nixon in 1972. This despite the fact that my father, a career soldier, had just returned from his second tour in Vietnam and announced that he was voting for McGovern.

I don't like it when we start a war and then lose it. And that's what we're doing. So I'm not happy about it. And I'm frankly a little puzzled that so many rightwingers are so passive while we busily lose not one, but two wars. Fiddling while Rome burns. Pretending it's all some leftwing media conspiracy. Ignoring the fact that men like John Warner, John McCain, Chuck Hagel and Lindsay Graham are running around with their hair on fire while pompous, smug, self-satisfied ninnies keep mooing "patience . . . patience . . ."

Where do I think we can legitimately use force? As a moral question, setting aside the wisdom of doing so, or the practical considerations like the small fact that we don't have enough ground troops to do a goddamned thing? North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, I mean hell, I have a nice long list of places that could benefit from some American force. If we had the force. If we had competent leadership. If we hadn't just dug ourselves into a hole.

I'm not pissed off because we used force. I'm pissed off because we're losing. And if you don't get that we're losing it's not because you're "patient" it's because you're willfully blind to reality.

By wallowing in an increasingly ludicrous denial, people who claim to care about the use of American power for good in this world are ceding the debate to the McGovernites. Right now there are three camps: the Left, the Beleagured Realists, and the Denialists. We are headed for another 1976, another generation of Carterism, and you know what? Head-in-the-sand denial is not helpful in forestalling that.

Could you talk more specifically about what you think we're denying?

If you could put some positive propositions in neutral language, without all the asides, it might be helpful in understanding you.

Hitchens article in the WSJ addresses the troops knowledge that the Ivy League mafia ala Kerry has nothing but contempt for them.

Contempt equalled btw on the other side. The "Born Fighting" Scots-Irish of Webb's book has utter and total contempt for the John Kerry Ivy League elites.

Something that will fracture the Dem Party as the elites of Pelosi, Reid, etc. run up against Webb and so on. People like Pelosi are the natural and eternal social enemies of the middle and working class whites who still (lamentably to Dems) make up the majority of voting and working Americans.

What you are likely to see is a Jacksonian response i.e. "rubble doesn't make trouble" and the pre-emptive nuking of various nations that are "asking for it."

At a certain point average working and middle class Americans realize that the core of the Dem Party (Dean, Kerry, etc.) all hold them to be idiotic racist goons who would be better off dead.

Yes it's a class thing; Hitch is right class dominates American life and no place is without it, particularly politics. Since Dems have staked their positions as the anti-middle class, anti-American party, well you do the math.

"Ever more partisan, ever more closed minded, ever deeper into denial."

"... the crushing silence of sheer denialism."

"Let's ignore 'Fiasco' and 'Cobra II' and 'State of Denial.' "

"WoC is dying of intellectual sclerosis because it is sinking farther and farther into denial."

"But the problem with reality is that it eventually escapes the web of denial and bites you in the ass."

"Unfortunately denial outlasted the period of possible correction."

"My point was and remains that WoC is in a deep state of denial."

"Stop being in denial."

"...WoC's denialism."

"That, Daniel, is denial."

"By wallowing in an increasingly ludicrous denial ..."

"Right now there are three camps: the Left, the Beleagured Realists, and the Denialists."

"Head-in-the-sand denial is not helpful in forestalling that."

I'm counting "denialism", of course, which is a word of doubtful meaning - unless it means the obsessive-compulsive use of the word denial.

I get the idea that you want to talk about denial, so let's talk about that for a moment.

I notice that you've been beating your chest in a Republican mating display, going on about "McGovernites" and "Carterism". I myself had a happy childhood in spite of McGovern and Carter, though I realize everyone was not so lucky. But I think your pretense of conservative prowess is a way of denying your true feelings about John Kerry and the Democrats. I think you're genuinely angry at Kerry's predictament and you are projecting your aggression onto us, when we were just trying to have a little harmless fun. Your repetitive accusations indicate a high level of anger.

In short, takhallus, you are in denial.

Fortunately, your dilemma is not as serious as the one you've posed for us. For you tell us that the situation is already beyond hope (see #5 on the list of denials) so the only possible alternative to our "denial" is despair - which is not a useful point from which to proceed. So what should we do except flee, hand al Qaeda a huge Tet-like propaganda victory, and abandon Iraq even more shamefully than we did the Republic of Vietnam?

You, on the other hand, could come over to the side of hope and determination, and discover that reality holds possibilities for us, as well. If there is one grain of truth to your conservative chest-beating, you might even enjoy the fresh air out here.

Gosh, Glen, I seem to be irritating you.

First, of course I'm making a point. May, I add: duh.

Though I'm making my point less obsessively than the editor's Terribly Important point that John Kerry can't tell a joke. Given that this is a blog devoted to foreign policy, a blog that pretends to seriousness, and that I'm trying to turn the conversation to issues of actual importance -- you know, two hot wars and one cold one -- while the rest of you are obsessing over the lame joke of a man who is running for nothing at the moment, I think I'm the guy keeping his eye on the ball.

Second, I'm not a conservative. Never said I was. I am what used to be called a Scoop Jackson Democrat, although that reference may be a bit old-school nowadays.

Third, as a Democrat I welcome Kerry's latest nitwittery. It takes him out of the 2008 race which means money that might have gone to Kerry can now flow to better candidates. That's an net plus.

I'm a pretty close poll watcher. Kerry and the hysterical GOP drum-beating haven't moved the polls by a millimeter. Rove-ism doesn't seem to be working this time. The people are closely focused on the real issues -- unlike the denizens of Winds of Denial. (Ooops, there's that word again, be sure and enter that in your collection.)

Now, as to my bona fides on Iraq, I have been writing publicly on this since Spring of 2008. I believe that's when I first began publicly crying that the occupation would fail for lack of troops and a lack of determination.

But even before that first blog entry, just a month after the invasion I jetted off to Paris, Barcelona and Moscow to shoot a documentary examining what I saw then as European weak-mindedness and infantilism in refusing to back the US.

Want to go even further? I used to write the restaurant review column in Richmond Virginia and I was so pro-war on Gulf One that I managed to work it into restaurant reviews -- not the usual place for war-mongering, I'm sure you'll agree.

The problem you have Glen, is that you don't get that empty-headed boosterism and chest-thumping and denial and idiot attacks on irrelevant Democrats has dick all to do with winning a war. And you don't get that guys like you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. It's not the Lefties we need to worry about, it's the supporters of this war who don't have the intellectual honesty to admit that it has been FUBAR'ed. If guys like you had applied pressure two years ago we might have been able to salvage this disaster. Instead you played your tired partisan hand and descended into irrelevancy.

Spring of 2008+ Spring of 2004

The problem you have Glen, is that you don't get that empty-headed boosterism and chest-thumping and denial and idiot attacks on irrelevant Democrats has dick all to do with winning a war.

Really? What war college taught you that? I wish Democrats like Kerry were as irrelevant as you say they are. Fighting defeatism has everything to do with winning wars. A real insurgent, Robert E. Lee, made public opinion his major target from the day he took command. It is, and long has been, our weak spot. (I don't know if they ever told you guys in Richmond this, but Lee lost.)

Besides, you think we're going to lose just because somebody makes fun of John Kerry?

If guys like you had applied pressure two years ago we might have been able to salvage this disaster. Instead you played your tired partisan hand and descended into irrelevancy.

Pressured them to do what two years ago? Pour troops into Iraq, like Johnson did in Vietnam in 1965? Never mind, I don't even want to hear it. It's too late and we're doomed, you keep saying, so what difference does it make? In fact, everybody is irrelevant except you, so why are even bothering to tell us this?

Some Scoop Jackson Democrat you are. The Scoop Jackson who inspired neoconservatives like Wolfowitz, Wattenberg, and Perle? You're not a Jackson, you're a McClellan at best. A Vallandigham, even.

M. Takhallus: We're losing in Iraq? When did this start happening?

I know (via a friend) the pubblic relations dude for this unit. Let's just say that this has made his job muy complicated at the moment, but that so many people love what they've done that the soldiers are likely to skate by having broken regs making it.

I'd like to remind people that patience is a good thing! Maybe we loose a couple of thousand a year for twenty years. Is the price worth it or not? I thought so before we went into Iraq, and I still think so. So overall, yes, if you decide to go to war you should at least be moral about it. Things aren't looking like you wanted? Well gee, why did you expect it to be so simple? Do you only want easy wars? Wars with people who like us? I guess that makes me somebody "pompous, smug, self-satisfied ninnies keep mooing".

So Moo already.

War is too serious a thing for me to allow a bunch of losers with suicide vests to change my commitment. Change strategy or tactics, sure, but not commitment.

That doesn't mean that we should stay in another twenty years, only that people who are ready to bail out had better be doing so for good reasons, not BS reasons. I think, m, that my problem in understanding you is that you don't have a clear set of what you want and how you expect to get it. I don't blame you -- the administration has given us little as well. "Staying the course", while being very much common sense, does not give the average Joe something to look forward to in order to determine whether we are winning or losing. That's just the principles of leadership and project management -- no clearly defined goals means no structure (and little chance of perceived success)

So people are free to make their own goals (wait till Saddam dies, split the country up, another 3 years, pull out at end of 07, etc)

Since everybody has different concrete measurable goals, words like "winning" and "losing" are totally nonsensical. So if you're going to dump all over a thread about a joke with "let's talk about what's serious" then you owe the rest of us a pretty clear description of your goals and measurement criteria. Otherwise, it's just so much nonsense.

Let's see. We've been in Germany, Italy and Japan for better than 60 years. Exit strategy?

Korea -- better than 55 years. Exit strategy?

Well at least Yugoslavia was just a one year engagement... oh, wait a minute.

The first place we invaded after Pearl Harbor was (what?) Morocco. They never attacked us, never had WMD, etc. etc. And we had to fight the French to get in.

The logic of war is quite different from that of civilian life, especially in peacetime. Long-story-short: in Iraq we are learning how to invade and occupy an Arab country. It will come in handy later.

Sub-text: Bush et al. are more than happy to let the lefties focus on Iraq because it draws their attention away from all the serious stuff we're doing in sub-Saharan Africa (often with the French, BTW) and elsewhere.

I'll be content to read about most of it in the history books. If that requires "patience," so be it.

Dear Lord

Thank God George Bush can not run again and murder more of our soldiers because of his blatant incompetence.

#27
I'd respond but no matter how many times I reread your rant, I don't see that you actually said anything.

#28
It started when Rummy said "stuff happens." Or at least that was the visible manifestation.

#29
"Staying the course" is just an evasion. What we need is a strategy. We've hand "stand up, stand down," and we've had "Clear, hold and build."

Stand up, stand down suffers from the problem of being an exit strategy, not a plan for anything like victory. It explains how we're going to leave, it doesn't explain how we're going to achieve our strategic goal. And it suffers further from the fact that while we've "stood up" 300,00 Iraqis, we didn't stand down anyone. On the contrary: as they stood up, we stood up more.

As for "Clear, Hold and Build," it's a good strategy -- if you have enough men. We don't. Further, we've burned through all our reconstruction money, and we aren't budgeting any additional. So we clear, then we fail to hold because there aren't enough of our guys and the Iraqis are unreliable, and we make no plans to build.

How are either of the above a strategy for victory?

And if we do not have a strategy for victory, to what end are we to remain patient?

In point of fact we're now stalling until the midterms are over so we can adopt some version of the Baker-Hamilton commission's leaked recommendations. Baker-Hamilton aren't talking victory, they're talking exit strategy. They're talking about outtreach to one of the other members of the Axis of Evil, Iran, and an adjunct Axis member, Syria. Does that smell like victory?

We've abandoned reconstruction. We've articulated no strategy that can actually be implemented. We're relying on an Iraqi government that takes orders from Muqtada al Sadr. Worse yet, by far, is the fact that the Maliki government has shown zero interest in reaching a deal with the Sunnis.

If there's no deal between Sunnis and the Maliki government there's no Iraqi government. There's just a Shia government and a Sunni insurgency, and the Iraqi army will remain nothing more than a sectarian militia-in-waiting.

So again, for what, precisely, are we waiting? We urge Maliki to make a deal with Sunnis and he tells us to go jump. If he won't deal, and we are committed to his "government" and the Iraqi army won't be a true army until there is a genuine national government, for what are we waiting? What is it we think is going to happen? What is it you think is going to happen in five years or ten or twenty?

I am really at a loss to explain why anyone cannot laugh at the troop's response to idiot Kerry. It is perfect. Lighten up.

Second, I cannot see how we are losing in Iraq. I see much hysteria and political hype aimed at creating a rush for the exits. We could lose the war and our credibility, but this would be the result of internal domestic politics before anything else. This might happen if the left values political power more than national security. If?

The war has become a political litmus test for the left. As another poster noted Democrats supporting the war: Zell Miller, Sam Nunn, Joe Lieberman, have been banished in the wilderness. I have respect for these men. I have none for Kerry, Gore, or Clinton. I would rather have a sister in a whorehouse than a Democrat of their ilk in the Whitehouse.

When is Iran going to test a nuke? I live in the People's Republic of California and can testify Nancy Pelosi is a raving idiot, completely unprepared to run a daycare, let alone the House.

m tak (#32)

"How are either of the above a strategy for victory?"

Please. Please. Please. Will you please define what you mean by the word "victory"? I'm not trying to be picky or give you a hard time. I really don't know.

Iraq is a sovreign country: they have an elected government and a constitution. It is not "our" operation there any more, as much as our force and power overwhelms them. It's still their country. If they don't want hold and clear, or if they want Al-Sadr, or if they want to get in bed with the Iranians -- they are in charge now. Of course, we can and should take military and political action if necessary, but get a grip.

So our mission in Iraq right now is to support a weak ally with serious internal problems. Just the same as if this were Saudi Arabia, we have some choices to make. If the force protection bothers you, fine. Let's talk about pulling back to bases some. If you don't think we're supporting our ally enough, fine, let's send more troops. But geesh! Can we stop already with the winning and losing? Is our national goal to control Iraq? Or to let them vote and make mistakes on their own? I kind of thought it was the latter.

Sounds like you are doing a bunch of hand-wrining over internal Iraqi politics. I know we're over there with our kids, but get a hold of yourself. The conquest of Iraq is over. We didn't do it like Japan. End of story.

I believe you ask a good question "what are we waiting for?" This is the same question I ask when I ask you to define victory. I can provide some suggestions, but that's just me, not national policy.

I'd like to see the populace make a decision on splitting the country up. I think the answer is going to be "yes". So that means we move into phase 2 where we help them self-segregate. The goals of that would be do segrate as peacefully as possible and setting up controlled borders. Perhaps encouraging them to share the oil wealth. But once again, the days of us dictating goals to the Iraqis are long gone. Maybe they don't want any of that. If so, then we should make that public and perhaps take our leave to some degree.

But "what are you waiting for" can be applied to a lot of places, m. What are we waiting for in NK? What are we waiting for in Germany? In England? What are we waiting for in Japan? Or does "what are we waiting for" only apply when kids are getting killed, not when they are under threat of immediate attack (terrorist or otherwise) So would you stop asking if we stayed in our bases in Iraq? You really think national policy in the world of nuclear weapons should be dominated by this amount of loss of life? Personally, I think that attitude is much more immoral than supporting the war in the first place.

I'm not happy at all by not having clear, definable national goals in Iraq. But in all fairness, it's not like we have them anywhere else we are deployed.

Daniel:

So your theory is that we invaded Iraq in order to let them decide for themselves? In other words, if they decided to spring Saddam from jail and re-install him, that'd be fine by you? How about if they decide they want an Iran-allied theocracy? Also fine? Genocidal civil war okay too?

We set the goal of establishing a democracy in Iraq that would protect minorities and act as a model for the middle east. That's the president's goal. If that's no longer why we're there, just why did we bother to invade?

We didn't invade Iraq for the sake of Iraq. We invaded because 1) we thought they had WMD's, 2) because we hoped to reshuffle the deck by establishing a much hotter Vermont right there next to Iran. We all agree #1 proved chimerical, and so we're left with #2.

Now you tell me, ah, to hell with #2. Let 'em do what they want, none of our business. We started a war, launched an invasion, carried out an occupation at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, 3,000 US lives, 10,000 seriously wounded, shattered alliances and a strained army so that at the end of the day we could step back and say "You kids have a good time with that civil war now, see you later!"

And you think that in pursuit of this goal, we should spend more lives? Brilliant. You're my pick for our next Secretary of State.

Second, I cannot see how we are losing in Iraq. I see much hysteria and political hype aimed at creating a rush for the exits. We could lose the war and our credibility, but this would be the result of internal domestic politics before anything else. This might happen if the left values political power more than national security. If?

"So your theory is that we invaded Iraq in order to let them decide for themselves? In other words, if they decided to spring Saddam from jail and re-install him, that'd be fine by you? How about if they decide they want an Iran-allied theocracy? Also fine? Genocidal civil war okay too?" -- Could be time to switch to decaf, m.

The national policy of this country, as voted by Congress in 1998, was to overthrow Saddam Hussein. This was accomplished by our military. Our president, in his infinite wisdom, pointed out that a democratic Iraq will help the region pacify -- a theory that I agree with, but acknolwedge that there might be a lot of bloodshed first.

What I would or would not accept politically from Iraq is a separate question than whether they have the right to decide. They are not our children. Some decisions they might choose could involve renewed armed conflict with the United States. Surely you can see that, can't you? What would you have us do? Make Iraq some kind of client state as the Soviets did with Eastern Europe? No thanks. If you want to drag domestic Iraqi politics into our political life, fine. But I'm not an Iraqi voting for Iraqi politicians. I am an American. Like I said, if you think we should pull out from an ally, say so. If you think we should do more about force protection, say so.

Nobody is saying everything is fine in Iraq. What I'm saying is that the Iraqis have a right to have a screwed up country. In addition, by our arguing about it over here, we presume to somehow be their parents or overseers. I find such presumption insulting. I'm sure the Iraqis do as well. It sucks in Iraq, for sure. Maybe we can help them most by planning on withdrawing. Sounds kind of silly, but it makes some sense -- we might have reached the point where the government is ineffective and non-responsive due to leaning on us too much. I can see that point of view. I wouldn't completely abandon an ally, that's stupid, but I could see curtailing operations.

We invaded Iraq, in my opinion, because the status quo was unacceptable. If we wanted to hold nations accountable for supporting terrorists, that meant that binding UNSEC resolutions had to mean something. Iraq was not only unstable and using resources, it was a direct diplomatic block for continuing the GWOT. Read the 1998 resolution. Yes the WMDs didn't pan out like some thought. If you were counting on WMDs, in my opinion you wanted war for a slogan. Sometimes slogans don't work out. Next time put a little more thought into what you know and what you don't. I'm happy with my support.

At some point, the president starting mentioning democracy. Everybody I saw on TV said that it would look nothing like our democracy, we just wanted the people to have the ability to decide things on thier own. Somehow this was misunderstood as creating some kind of Vermont or Switzerland in the ME. Why? Because people wanted to exaggerate early on so they could declare failure later perhaps? It's the only thing that makes sense to me, and I've seen it several times in this conflict.

I didn't say (or mean) that whatever the Iraqis do is completely none of our business. I said that they have a right to decide, not us. You are waving your hands around and figuratively yelling, talking about the price paid and the potential for them to make decisions we don't like. Well guess what, m? There are no guarantees in life. At some point, no matter what your plan, the Iraqis will get to make all those decisions anyway, unless you plan on having the vote, but then running everything by us once to make sure we like their decisions. I know I didn't sign up for that. Countries are our allies for their own self-interested reasons, not because we control their governments.

The reason I supported spending all of that money, and those lives, was not so that I could sit in my comfy chair and play politics with Iraqi lives. I thought (and still do) that there was going to be a nuclear war in the ME that would involve the deaths of millions. To me, the lesser evil was giving some of those populations the chance to decide first, before any of that happened. You would take that away from them. I never thought we could somehow make it all nice in the region --- what are you smoking, anyway? It's a tribal region that the European powers arbitrarily spilt into countries. Democrcacy means they're on the road towards peace. Might take a hundred years, and there might be a lot of new countries. Did you think this was like Burger King, where we place our order and world peace is ready in 5 minutes or less?

If you want to say the cost is too high, fine. I can agree with the idea that the cost far outstrips our return in terms of operations. The way this thing is financed is a crime. We should have moved a couple of divisions permanently to Iraq. We should have made operations part of the normal budget. We should have staffed up on trainers in 1992. We should have added light and medium infantry starting in 1992. There are a lot of operational screw-ups -- the ones that make me the maddest aren't the day-to-day stuff, it's the strategic stuff that we should have seen coming a mile away. Or the rip-off stuff where DoD keeps coming back to the trough with emergency spending requests.

By all means, wave your hands, moan, wring your hands, yell -- whatever makes you feel good. But when you get tired of that, reality is still reality, and getting impatient and quitting is still quitting.

Mark;

Are you saying that the Fighting Dem vets are too stupid to realize who they've signed up with to bring about a positive change in the Iraq war situation?

Perhaps they recognize that the threat of a "Big Brother" state is greather than a "Mommy State" (which I presume you know is a vast misrepresentation of Democratic views).

And no, I haven't stopped beating my wife yet.

It's a pretty big leap from being pissed off about an over-regulating, moralising, oligarchic, and ultimately parasitic federal government (which pretty much describes both major parties' view of the role of government in society) to being worried about some Orwellian dystopia.

And they say the Left has no sense of humor...

#36, AJL, thanks for the free psychiatric advice. I am glad to be projecting, rather than "in denial". In fact, I deny being in denial.

bq Nothing about the situation on the ground in Iraq. Everything about repudiating the "left" (which, on Iraq, is 70 percent of the US). As far as valuing political power more than national security, that's what the shrinks call "projection".

It is what the left calls foreign policy. Oh, fantasy polls and numbers to back up..what? Which reality "on the ground" do you wish to harp on? There are many, running the gamut from good to bad.

Read Bart Hall's excellent post #10 if the trail of bread crumbs seems to peter out in this thread.

I'm not above a cheapshot, the inspiration for which I lay squarely at the feet of Mark Poling in post #38:

bq And they say the Left has no sense of humor...

Actually, I say the left has no sense of honor...

Go ahead, lay it at my feet.

I have a Rottweiler, and am always equiped with special bags for just such emergencies.....

Moles and trolls, moles and trolls. Work, work, work, work, work.

I was going to extensively comment here, but there is so much nonsense that it is making my head swirl. Plus, it would have taken me about 17 hours to compile all the data necessary to prove the obvious: m. takhallus is an idiot. Not just any kind of idiot, but the drooling, short-bus, stick-a-pencil-up-your-nose sort of boob.

The one thing I can add is that the mid-term elections are 100% not a referendum on Iraq. These elections are completely about whether or not the democrats can effectively control the media enough to sway the public to vote their way. Don't believe me? Check this out:

http://www.cmpa.com/documents/06.10.31.Bad.news.pdf

By the way, the aforementioned boob is welcome on my site any time. I could use some idiots to help make my point for me.

I think the above picture sums up nicely how soldiers really feel

As an active member of the United States Army, I would like to thank everybody out there for your support on the Iraq issue. I especially want to thank all of you that are positive that you know what is best for ME. How many people really know what's going on in Iraq. Does all of your information come from CNN, The New York Times, or Fox News? Almost everybody that I have spoken with hasn't the foggiest idea what is really going on, or how the average soldier feels about deploying. So, until you CHOSE to to lace up your combat boots and come out and play with the big boys, I highly recommend that you do some research and talk to some actual soldiers before you decide what is best for them.

#42 SSG Stew, accurate information on what is happening in Iraq is difficult to find and is even harder to assess without "being there". Most posters at WOC make an effort to understand. Many of my sources of information are soldiers with recent or current service in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is there any particular policy that is wrong in your experience? I would be glad to hear anything you might have to say.

I sense a little bitterness, maybe just because war is a lousy business however one looks at it. Not to sound flip, or disrespectful of your service, the discussion is not about what is best for you , or soldiers in general, but for the nation. As you know, soldiers can and often do get the short end of the stick. I would like to minimize this in any way that is consistent with the national interest. Your thoughts?

Oh yeah - speaking of denial: Nancy Pelosi claims that if democrats don't win big today, then Republicans will have cheated.

In other news, the media has upped their election coverage five-fold with 77 percent pro-democrat and 88 percent anti-Republican stories.

In New Jersey, Republican Tom Kean Jr.'s campaign office was reportedly vandalized. A chain and padlock was placed on the front door and keys were broken off in the locks at the side entrances. His opponent, Bob Menendez (seeking “re-election” after being appointed by Jon Corzine) is currently under federal criminal investigation.

Also in New Jersey, voters in at least seven jurisdictions attempting to vote for Republican Kean and found their machines "locked" for Menendez, according to GOP Committee attorney Mark Sheridan, who called it a "disturbing and developing trend" emerging at the polls.

Graffiti that included a Communist-style hammer and sickle along with the name of Republican Curt Weldon, was spray-painted on an overpass and a department store outside Springfield, PA.

In Michigan, the website for Republican Mike Bouchard was shut down after being hacked.

Man, those Republicans will cheat any way they can...er...never mind the man behind the curtain!