« Bush-Blair Press Conference | Main | Infamy »

New York Post's Characterization of ISG: Surrender Monkeys

monkeys.jpg


They're right on and I'm glad they're not afraid to say it. I also call the ISG the Iraq Surrender Group.

Here's the Post's news story. The first paragraph right out of the gate summarizes the uselessness of the report:

WASHINGTON - The Iraq Study Group report delivered to President Bush yesterday contains 79 separate recommendations - but not one that explains how American forces can defeat the terrorist insurgents, only ways to bring the troops home.

Hence the appropriate "Surrender Monkeys" lede.

Ralph Peters, in his NY Post column today titled "Frankly Incensed: Unwise Men Bear Gifts for the Butchers," also correctly describes the ISG's report as unacceptable:

THE difference between the child-killers in the Middle East 2,000 years ago and those today is that Herod's men rode into Bethlehem to preserve a threatened political system, while the terrorists we face in Iraq seek to destroy a government in their god's name.


The Iraq Study Group doesn't get it.

Today's butchers are far more merciless, indiscriminate and dangerous. For Herod's henchmen, killing was a job. For today's faith-fueled fanatics, slaughtering the innocents is doing Allah's will. Our modern magis' negotiations won't fix Iraq, no matter what gifts they bring.

Former Secretary of State James Baker and his panelists are trying to shore up the failing regional system that their generation designed. Released yesterday, their report doesn't offer "a new way forward." Its recommendations echo past failures. And it shows no sense of how gravely the world has changed.

The report doesn't offer a plan, but a muddle of truisms and truly bad ideas.

How sad that on the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor we are facing the realization that some of our country's leaders simply no longer have any faith in our ability to defeat our enemies. Instead they have reverted to the Jimmy Carter school of warfare which states that we aren't to defeat those who want to destroy us but instead appease them.

And before the rest of you surrender monkeys clamor to the comments section and declare "we can't defeat an enemy that can't be identified," "its just a civil war now," "it's another Vietnam," or "the war is a disaster," let me say this: not one of those platitudes means we should turn tail and run. If we do that, we may as well put up a neon sign in New York City that says "Come on over, terrorists, and attack us! We won't fight back. We promise."

Instead, we need to become as stealthy as our enemies have. We have to completely redefine how we conduct this war, and getting the hell out of Dodge isn't it, people.

Update: I saw this at Hot Air. The jihadis, our enemy, like the ISG report. Of course they do because, to them, it's our white flag of surrender.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New York Post's Characterization of ISG: Surrender Monkeys:

» Church and State linked with Comparison of Terrorists to Liberals

» Sensible Mom linked with The Iraq Study Group Report

» Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense linked with A Question of Intergrity

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Iraq Panel Report Gets Varied Reaction

» Stop The ACLU linked with An Arab Failure, Not Bush’s Failure

» Joust The Facts linked with ISG Selection Bias

» Mensa Barbie Welcomes You linked with Iraqi: ISG (withdrawl) & Ameri-phobia

» Leaning Straight Up linked with My look at the Iraq Study Group report

Comments (65)

Another good example showin... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Another good example showing how desperately disenfranchised conservatives are today -- resorting to stories like this which vilify their fellow Americans like this.

The Republican angst has been ratcheting up ever since election day. Poor, poor baby conservatives wost the widdle election, and now that act out like widdle children.

Even George W is turning his back on you now -- booting out Rumsfeld and drop-kicking Bolton. What's next?

Well said Kim. Was just goi... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Well said Kim. Was just going to say that you could bet that old "pucker puss" (lee lee)(#1 kos kiddie) would be the next to post but he already has.Another "ditto" post.
Poor little "screw them" smoocher.

Ya gotta love the Photoshop... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Ya gotta love the Photoshop work! LOL

Other than that, the headline sums the report up well.

Lee,Conservatives ... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Lee,

Conservatives do not corner the market on vilifying fellow Americans.

As far as losing the election. Yes, we did...and I can say with some confidence the the reaction has been generally pretty good...ie., the losers not complaining about diebold and stolen elections for years after.

Interesting how those machines only work as intended when the Democrats win.

As a final note, what does losing the election have have to do with the ISG report?

A line of the summary opini... (Below threshold)
waddayknow:

A line of the summary opinion gave me pause.

"...they have reverted to the Jimmy Carter school of warfare which states that we aren't to defeat those who want to destroy us but instead appease them..."

Speaking of appeasement, in the same era, wasn't there a whole scandal connected to drugs, money, guns and both Iran and the Contras that, also coincidently paid off Iran to have Hezbollah release some prisoners. Appeasement? Jimmy Carter is a man of peace. Perhaps being a true person of abiding faith is out of place in the Oval Office, perhaps not. But Ronnie's crew did the appeasing through drug trafficing, illegal sale of arms, and a web of lies that continues to get propped up by those who either conveniently forgot Ollie North or are too young to remember how that Republican administriation screwed the pooch and paved the way for the next years of Democratic Party dominance.

Pishaw on the whole middle east murderers past and present theme. Our soldiers and Marines are in this and don't need to be stuck out to die so the national theatre of the political absurd can brand the Deciderer as the "most out of it politician" since Pontious Pilate.

BTW, who's idea was it, really, to send our folks to Iraq? The proprietors of the "military-industrial complex" or the oil interests?

That's the thing that jumpe... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

That's the thing that jumped out at me: no discussion about our ability to win, the fact that we have the power, should we wish to exercise it, to defeat this enemy, anytime and anywhere.

I believe the unspoken assumption is that it's not worth winning, which is absurd. It's incredibly important that we win.

Can you imagine Churchill coming out and saying, "well, we have this committee, and they think we should talk to Italy and Japan about the problems in Germany, and we really are sinking down a hole, etc . . ."

Breathtakingly lacking in leadership and vision.

Heralder spoketh: "As a ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Heralder spoketh: "As a final note, what does losing the election have have to do with the ISG report?"

I can't believe you asked that question.

The ISG report was written by a bi-partisan group - Republicans and Democrats, and It is obvious that the Republicans no longer speaking for conservatives to the extent they had previously -- the conservative viewpoint on Iraq is apparently not represented in the ISG report at all - and it is a bipartisan report.

This Republican shift away from the conservative view of the world was evident immediately following the November 7 election. Bush booted Rumsfeld the morning after. Subsequently, Bolton was shown the door. The ISG report - another example.

Conservatives are now, to a greater and greater extent every day, losing their voice in American politics. This is a significant shift, and the shift began November 7th. Some of you will figure it out next week, others will take a few months, and some - like jhow66 -- will never figure it out.... but that's how the hard-core conservative mind works. It's a singular view that excludes all others (and reality) -- just wish that we had a good reason to invade Iraq and the conservative mind makes up reasons why we should do exactly -- ignoring reality in the process.

And now conservatives are ignoring the reality that they are quickly becoming a third party, and no longer have a voice in Republican policy-making. Bush and company have to salvage what they can for the next election, and as a result conservatives are out in the cold.

"As a final note, what does losing the election have have to do with the ISG report?"

That eviction notice was nailed to the front door of the conservative movement on November 7th. The ISDG report proves it.

Heralder,The machi... (Below threshold)
Robert:

Heralder,

The machines were "fixed".
The fact the Dems won shouldn't make that fact go away. (Can you imagine 49% of the voters in VA voting for Allen? Be serious!)
The Dems should investigate the voting machines even though they won.

As for the Iraq War: It's over. The US lost.
I'd suggest the rest of you blind idiots wake up and smell the defeat.

Lee chooses to conveniently... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Lee chooses to conveniently ignore the fact that many of the democrats who won last month did so because they ran as conservatives. It may have been a loss for the Republicans, but it was far from a loss for conservatives.

Unless of course the bluedog democrats were lying, and we'll know whether or not that was the case shortly.

Whoa there Mitchell. "...t... (Below threshold)
waddayknow:

Whoa there Mitchell. "...the thing that jumped out at me: no discussion about our ability to win, the fact that we have the power, should we wish to exercise it, to defeat this enemy, anytime and anywhere...." You are not getting the message here. Taking a war to that arena, an area of the world where bearing arms is almost manditory, and even hallucinating that a conventional war can be 'won' (or even managed)on that turf without a massive build up and huge multilateral committments by some overwhelming majority of Earth's nations, is just plain stupid. How can it be important to "win" a hoked-up "war" when it is apparantly not important to dig around behind the scenes and see where the fix went in. Face it, the pooch is screwed, the administration warmongers bit off more than they could chew and have been lying about their "success" and chances of "winning" since the very beginning of this disasterous conflict.

I would say that I am almost resigned to there being a need for maintaining a military presence in Iraq for several years, perhaps a decade or more. It doesn't look like the US will be able to install an effective puppet government (nee. Shah of Iran-ish)during the current conflict. Ipso facto... we are going to have to talk our way out of this mess. Guns, drugs, lawyers, and lots of money, anyone????

Robert, I assume the charac... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Robert, I assume the characterization of blind idiot because I do not accept yet that the Iraq war is lost. On the other hand, if we left and the Sunnis and Shias starting beating the crap out of each other there (maybe Iran and Saudi Arabia jousting for hegemony) one would probably finally be seeing the Middle East for what it is: an area of the world with a dysfunctional religion that actually sanctions the concept of a Muslim killing a Muslim for the sake of Islam. And they would no longer be able to use the corrupt West as a scapegoat. Who knows, maybe Bush didn't realize it, but maybe that's also an unspoken yet successful outcome in the eyes of the cabal of neoconservatives.

We can win the war, but for... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

We can win the war, but for our mushy, soft 50% of the electorate that can't bear the losses that are mere small fractions of what we lost in every other major war.

That's the issue. The will to win, not the means. waddyaknow and co. don't know there is a difference and would have similarly tossed in the towel after Dunkirk, we can safely assume.

Know what happened at Dunkirk, waddya?

And on this day, as 911, we... (Below threshold)
robert the original:

And on this day, as 911, we resolve to remain strong and vigilant against the forces that would destroy us.

And to thank again those that stand on that wall.

If I were an Iraqi, I'd be ... (Below threshold)
letters from reality:

If I were an Iraqi, I'd be fighting the occupiers, too.

As for the Iraq War: It'... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

As for the Iraq War: It's over. The US lost.

You're actually enjoying this, aren't you. You take delight in seeing your country (if, indeed, you are a US citizen) lose no matter what the cost might be as long you stick it to the neocons that's all that matters.

What a waste of oxygen you are.

Lee,I see your rea... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Lee,

I see your reasoning, but I disagree. A bi-partisan report advising we we give up all hope does not in itself constitute a broader Republican change of view. Time will tell on that one, you may be mistaking your hopes with reality.

But hey, good news, the report is on sale at Barnes & Noble and Amazon!

Predictably:

BAGHDAD, 7 December (IRIN) - Insurgents and militias in Iraq on Thursday welcomed the recommendations made in a report by the Iraq Study Group that indicated that US policy in Iraq was not working and that its troops should be pulled out earlier than current projections suggest.

Yay! Oh wait, again our enemies are agreeing with us.

Next up, Congress approves funding for additional body armor for our troops...this will be worn primarily on the back to help mitigate our casualties as we run away.


Allow our troops to fight ... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

Allow our troops to fight and win, as we did in WWII, etc, not this pussified liberal lets be kind kind of war the left believes in.

Wonder how these libtards will react when Muslims attack a lib city such as SanFran, or statr to execute all of the flamers on the eft.

will they finally grow a set, or will they continue to want to 'talk' about it, like Nick Berg did.

"Time will tell on that ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Time will tell on that one, you may be mistaking your hopes with reality."

That what I heard time and time again as I predicted a Democratic Party win in the months leading up to the November 7 election.... only usually the statement included the words "asshat", "moron", terrorist sympathizer" and the like. I appreciate your civility, Heralder - if there was more of that around here I'd respond in kind.

..civility....if there w... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

..civility....if there was more of that around here I'd respond in kind.

"like jhow66 -- will never figure it out."

"I love watching Bush make fools of the conservative right-wing nutcakes...."

"You frightened children see boogey-men..."

"America needs to now just how damaged you chaps and chappettes are."

Yes, Lee, you've spoken with a true air civility.

/sarcasm tag off

Um, yeah Kim, The Post real... (Below threshold)
MyPetGloat:

Um, yeah Kim, The Post really has guts..

-But no profits

-Or brains.

ASSociated (with terrorists... (Below threshold)
Firefighter 16:

ASSociated (with terrorists) Press reporters hole in in the green zone and buy their 'war stories' from the terrorists (61 stories from the same terrorists,over 20 from another). Truth in reporting, according to the enemy. LMAO

The Iraqi Stupid group visited Iraq and holed up in the green zone. Never once ventured out to talk to the people or see what progress has been made. Did they buy their 'opinions' from the same terrorist used by the AP? Looks that way.

The New York Post has it right and the lefies are in a panic. Two big shocks in a row. (1) A group of has beens assignted to a study group get shot down by facts. (2) They elected a group of turncoats that have now proven to hold loyalty to no one, not they're country , nor they're voters. They have already broken almost all, if not all of the campaign promises made to the mental retards to get their votes. Known suckers are easy to sucker. Even Huff and Puff and The big ugly fat white guy have seen the writing on the walls. The dimmi's really are traitors. What was the threat, 'We'll come after you (dimmi's) worse than we went after the republicans'? ROFL

More comedy from the lefties in the future. So far it has been several laughs per day, provided by the 'winners'.

"Yes, Lee, you've spoken... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Yes, Lee, you've spoken with a true air civility."

As I said, Peter, I respond in kind.

Wow!! There's water on Mar... (Below threshold)
moseby:

Wow!! There's water on Mars!! Simply Amazing!

We can win the war, but ... (Below threshold)
Marine Gunner:

We can win the war, but for our mushy, soft 50% of the electorate that can't bear the losses that are mere small fractions of what we lost in every other major war.
That's the issue. The will to win, not the means. waddyaknow and co. don't know there is a difference and would have similarly tossed in the towel after Dunkirk, we can safely assume.
Know what happened at Dunkirk, waddya?
Posted by: Mitchell


Soft electorate and a lack of will to win.

I tell you what, Mitchell, let's you and I head down to the local recruiter's office and get going; I'll reenlist in the Marine Corps [infantry] and you can lose all that fat and get a cushy job in some rear echelon post, kicking boxes around, picking your nose and masturbating in the john gaining all the weight you lost in some poor excuse for a bootcamp. Even if you're currently serving or have served, I seriously doubt you are/were in the dirt with us grunts. I've heard and seen your kind all over the military: talking trash and attempting to feel good about yourself because you're in close proximity to the guys doing the fighting. Pathetic.

I'm sure you've got the will, Mitchell. The will to push your buddy in the path of a bus if it will save your own neck.

And I know exactly what happened at Dunkirk.

Alright, Marine Gunner. Lo... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Alright, Marine Gunner. Lot's of emotion in that post, not much info.

I don't know what your beef is, but there are plenty of people who wished we'd gone in with more troops and overwhelming force, which we didn't, and did this the right way.

However, we didn't, and now we've got to figure out whether we lose, or win. Sorry to get on your fragile nerves, but that has to be decided. If we lose, we lose much more than Iraq.

Can you debate the merits, or are you just up for a good rant. No harm in that, but it'd be nice to hear more than a "chickenhawk" type of argument.

Take a breath, Jeez.

While the left is busy prai... (Below threshold)

While the left is busy praising the "76 ways to leave Iraq", our military is still doing their job. Over the last couple days they sent 14 insurgents to their virgins in Ramadi losing 1 coalition member, they nabbed 7 "insurgents" yesterday in Abdan, they nabbed another sniper in Bayji, picked up 6 more terrorists south of Baghdad, etc.

Oyester:Great info... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Oyester:

Great info, thanks!

But you forget the Golden Rule of Modern Journalism "if it doesn't bleed--especially if it's American blood or doesn't condemn America in some way shape or form--it doesn't lead."

Allow our troops to figh... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

Allow our troops to fight and win, as we did in WWII, etc, not this pussified liberal lets be kind kind of war the left believes in. Wonder how these libtards will react when Muslims attack a lib city such as SanFran, or statr to execute all of the flamers on the left.

Oooh, Gianni! I'm soooo scared!!!!

So, every liberal MUST be gay, is that what you're saying? Really hard to define WHAT you're saying since half of your words are mushmouthed. Who taught you to write english? Scooby-Doo?

You're probably one of these scared little piglet people who build bomb shelters when A Current Affair says aliens are invading your state.

For those who live in the real world, the threat of muslim radicals is real, but we're also brave enough not have a kneejerk reaction to every little bit of fear-based propaganda this administration throws at us. You obviously scream, "The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming!" everytime someone on Fox News pulls your pud.

And, you know, even though these crazies are planning and scheming, I'm not going to be a scared little chicken and give up my dignity, freedoms and way of American life so someone in this administration can give me a metaphoric blanket.

By the way, when was our last orange alert? Hmm. Guess it's not so important when it can't be used as some distraction to a mistake or as fodder for an upcoming election.

And I'm not from San Fran, nor am I gay, but since you seem so homophobic I wonder if you've just discovered something about yourself you're not willing to admit.

Ask yourself if the followi... (Below threshold)

Ask yourself if the following two quotes from this blog, both written in the last few days, logically match:

1. In this post, the blog author writes that the situation is so desperate that "We have to completely redefine how we conduct this war."

2. In the Robert Gates post, the blog author writes, "according to the Senate, criticizing the war in Iraq and announcing that we are not winning appear to be the only job requirements to be Secretary of Defense."

In other words, the military will have to totally change its approach to "win" ie it is currently not winning. And second, there's the implication that the military is in fact winning.

Explosively unique, indeed.

What ever happened to the g... (Below threshold)
Fran:

What ever happened to the good ol days during 2004 and 05, when the situation as described in Iraq, could be blamed on the media.

Iraq is a disaster due to the policy choices/non-choices of Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney.

Their choices of Generals and the policy they implemented have stirred the pot in the Mideast and brewed up just what they were trying to destroy.

Our country, (Democrats are dying there also), will need to bear the brunt of their ill conceived plan.

If this war is as important as Bush says it is why:

-is there a huge equipment backup at repair depots?

-have we not significantly increased the size of the army to deal with the GWOT?

-does the DoD significantly under report the violence that exists in Iraq? See ISG Report.

-if we are supposed to stand down as they stand up, why aren't we or Iraq properly equipping the Iraq army?

Bush thinks the only way that we lose is if we leave. Iraqi's are leaving their country at the rate of 100,000 per month. These are the middle class and up. Approx 1.8 million have already left.

Bush can lose this war by being stubborn. Denial of the insurgency, insurgency in their last throws, of course we're winning. All of these comments from Bush or Cheney represent denial.

what is the definition of civil war? Look it up.

The United States of America is at war and our Commander in Chief is a nitwit.

I don't want to speak for K... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

I don't want to speak for Kimi--soemone cleverly disguised as Iraq War timeline--but you make a poor assumptive leap:

In other words, the military will have to totally change its approach to "win" ie it is currently not winning.

1 does not equal 3, IWT. When Kim states "We have to completely redefine how we conduct this war." she is referring to military tactics; the statement says nothing nor implies anything about the military not winning (and our military rountinely wins decisively when jihadists are stupid enough to engage it directly). Moreover, tactics change all the time in war, even when one is winning tactics must change and adapt to current situations.

Mitchell. What a gasbag. ... (Below threshold)
waddayaknow:

Mitchell. What a gasbag. You are such a wuss and blot on the memory of every person who has ever served and/or given their life for our way of life through military service. This conflict was lost before the first troops his the ground. Doomed. Doom on you for not seeing it for the elephant in the room. Could it be that you simply a pussy who does not have the insight to understand that you are following the chickenhawk meme faithfully. Otherwise you would be able to comprehend that war, at best, is hell for all who are in it. Rather than taking the "armchair general/dingbat/fanatic" point of view that there is something in this "war" with Iraq that can be won. It isn't about getting out or "winning" (ie. installing a true representative government that reflects the values and culture of the region without being a puppet for either the US, Saudi Arabia, or Iran. We, US troops, are stuck in that mire for the next few years thanks to the Cheny/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/etc opium eaters. Their illusions of military/political grandure have cost us dearly. Time for you to take Gunny up on his offer and go see for yourself in full combat gear....

Don't forget to write....

One would think that with p... (Below threshold)
Lee:

One would think that with people like sad-lee would have greater and worthier causes than coming here day in day out trolling for the attention his flameboy doesnt give him.

He acts as if he is always right. Arent perfect people always busy? Should we take a bet on just what his lifes work is? Welfare? Rich kid? Dropout? Parolee? HIV Donee? what?

some of our country's le... (Below threshold)
Brian:

some of our country's leaders simply no longer have any faith in our ability to defeat our enemies

This has nothing to do with our "ability" to defeat our enemies. It has to do with "the plan" to defeat our enemies. Show us a plan that has even a remote chance of success, and we might get behind it. But so far the only plan has been to set up a puppet government inside the Green Zone, while allowing the rest of the country to decay into shambles. If Bush has another plan for success, he's not shared it with the American people.

The fact that the ISG didn't come up with a plan to win would indicate not that we don't have the ability to carry out such a plan, but that in fact a plan for winning is no longer possible.

Mitchell:Geez, it'... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Mitchell:

Geez, it's be nice to hear something more than the "mushy, soft 50% of the electorate" agreement. Geez, lots of emotion and not much of substance in that argument Mitchell.

Can you debate the merits once in a while rather than ranting about folks who disagree with you?

Take a time out. Geez.


While the left is busy p... (Below threshold)
Brian:

While the left is busy praising the "76 ways to leave Iraq", our military is still doing their job. Over the last couple days they sent 14 insurgents to their virgins in Ramadi losing 1 coalition member, they nabbed 7 "insurgents" yesterday in Abdan, they nabbed another sniper in Bayji, picked up 6 more terrorists south of Baghdad, etc.

Nice rosy assessment you came up with. How about this one?

The U.S. military on Thursday confirmed 11 U.S. soldiers were killed this week in one of the worst days suffered by U.S. forces
@Mitchell"Fragile ... (Below threshold)
Marine Gunner:

@Mitchell

"Fragile nerves"?

Let's see. I served 8 years in the Marines with a lot of good guys. I decide to get out and use my GI Bill benefits to go to college. I received my Bachelor of Science degree from a university that's routinely denounced by turds like Mike S. Adams. I then get a good job with a decent wage. I'm engaged to be married.

Then I hear a good buddy of mine who stayed in, made Gunny, is coming home with his left leg gone. Fragile nerves?!

Mitchell, people like you, calling for "Total War," don't know what that means. You don't know what it will do to you, your family, your country. All you do is talk because, at the end of the day, nothing that personally affects you in a negative way will prevent you from going home and sitting comfortably in front of the TV. You're in the same boat as those cowards calling for the nuking of Iran and North Korea, or celebrate entire regions of the world descending into chaos.

Because you believe it won't affect you.

How the hell can dropping nuclear weapons on other countries not affect us Americans?! The effect of a nuclear weapon is far greater than all those spectacular movies you see on YouTube. What about our allies in those regions? Will they be cool with nuclear fallout and mass movements of hundreds of thousands, millions of refugees? What about your way of life, when the labor and resources and transportation in these regions are disrupted, the effect rippling across the world, driving your iPod prices up? Did you know many of our allies do business with Syria and Iran and North Korea and Venezuela? Do we shun everyone, accuse dissenters of cowardice or appeasing the enemy?

When does this nonsense stop? Viewing everything in the abstract because you've never been anywhere else in the world, getting all your information from Limbaugh and the Internet.

I've marched in the Balkans with my rifle, dodging sniper fire, with orders not to engage. War sucks. I've also been able to visit other countries (like France--shocking), without noticing how "liberal" and "leftist" they are, according to you fine people. Funny how you get to see how human the rest of the world is when you get a backbone.

I don't know. I guess my point is that a lot of you talk too much and fail to grasp just how serious Iraq is, how much war is a terrible thing to inflict upon anyone, regardless of what name they call God or the color of their skin or the language they speak. Unless you've carried a rifle, lost a good buddy, you probably won't understand.

I've said my piece, and I'm sure you fine, upstanding folks will sh*t on me when the mood suits you, relieving the ennui of your mediocre lives.

Lee, so you guys won an ele... (Below threshold)
jo:

Lee, so you guys won an election finally. You should have won them long ago. How many times did we hear "We're gonna win big this time?" since 2000?

Historical precedence. No mandate. Unless you want to count the fact that it took conservative democrats running to beat a republican. lol.

It took far right conservat... (Below threshold)
Lee:

It took far right conservatives, like the Wiznuts around here, to push centrist Republicans into the Democratic camp November 7th. As a democrat I say THANKS!

My theory has proven itself out again. Engage the conservatives in a dialog, and once you hear their wacky beliefs everyone figures it out on their own that the wingnuts have a screw or two loose.

Let's keep the dialog up, conservatives. ENGAGE!

Boy, the Angry Liberal Mob(... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Boy, the Angry Liberal Mob(tm) is out in force today.

If they string together enough disjointed opinions, it might resemble a debate on the merits of the war.

Thread Hijackers all.

Wow, Brian! You mean this ... (Below threshold)

Wow, Brian! You mean this is a war? Where there's actual fighting and people from both sides get killed?

Yes, I'm well aware that we have casualties. EVERYONE is. It can't be escaped. It's drummed into our heads day in and day out. And all you do is keep repeating what's reported over and over in every publication.

The difference is that our casualties are reported with much fanfare and waving of arms and it's hard to find out what casualties the other side is suffering. To read the day to day drudgery of the major news outlets, you'd think we were being slaughtered. Your side, Brian - you know, the side that keeps a running count of every US casualty rarely mentioning, if ever, that the enemy ISN'T WINNING EITHER - won't accept any good news without a big "BUT..."

Gotta have that balance as long as yours is the last and most spoken word, eh?

For once, would it be so hard to say, "That's good news." ?

Peter F.,Robert he... (Below threshold)
Robert:

Peter F.,

Robert here. Wanted to let you know that 1+1=2.

But you know me. Always been a big fan of 2. I LOOOOOVVVVEEEE 2. President of the 2 Fan Club.
Waving my 2 flag over here.
Will you support my resolution for a holiday commemorating the number 2, and all it has done for us?

Just kidding.

1+1=2. It's just reality.

so you guys won an elect... (Below threshold)
Brian:

so you guys won an election finally. You should have won them long ago. How many times did we hear "We're gonna win big this time?" since 2000?

Umm, not as often as we heard that from you guys from 1954-1994. I'm much happier to have won an election "finally" after 12 years than 40 years, like you guys.

Historical precedence.

UNprecedented failure to win even a single opposition seat. I'll agree that's "historical".

No mandate.

Winning by a larger margin than Bush. If he had a mandate, it's not even a close call for Democrats.

Unless you want to count the fact that it took conservative democrats running to beat a republican. lol.

That's called "the majority of the country", of which you right-wing fringe wackos are not a part. I'll gladly take conservative Democrats over Republicans, who don't even pretend to stand for anything anymore, much less conservatism. At the end of the day, you've still been tossed out on your asses (or into prison), and you're still losers.

Oh yeah... lol.

The difference is that o... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The difference is that our casualties are reported with much fanfare and waving of arms and it's hard to find out what casualties the other side is suffering.

Are you kidding? 600K, 350K, 100K, ... take your pick of what you believe. The numbers are all over the place.

To read the day to day drudgery of the major news outlets, you'd think we were being slaughtered.

Nope, it's just the innocent Iraqis who are being slaughtered. Al-Qaeda is still safe in their caves.

Your side, Brian - you know, the side that keeps a running count of every US casualty

Yes, the side that finds value in the life of each and every service member killed for a mistake. The side that believes no single life should be omitted by rounding and hand-waving. Compared to your side - you know, the side that tries to make us forget that we are losing Americans for no good reason.

Gotta have that balance as long as yours is the last and most spoken word, eh?

Here's your balance. 12 American soldiers dead. Versus, by your count, 14 Iraqis dead, 14 nabbed.

Is that good balance?

For once, would it be so hard to say, "That's good news." ?

Show me some. 12 Americans dying for every 14 dead Iraqis isn't good news. If you believe so, you are quite warped in your delusions.

Robert:Other than ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Robert:

Other than my typo, in which I stupidly ommited the other "1", what in your post proves me wrong, exactly? Go ahead, thrill me with your acumen this time.

Wave that bloody shirt, Bri... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Wave that bloody shirt, Brian. Wave it with all your might.

Are you kidding? 600K, 3... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Are you kidding? 600K, 350K, 100K, ... take your pick of what you believe. The numbers are all over the place.....Is that good balance?...12 Americans dying for every 14 dead Iraqis isn't good news.

OK, I'll play. Just for the sake of round and easy numbers, let's say 250,000 people (including innocents and terrorists/insurgents/Baathists) have been killed since the war began. And again, for the sake of round rumbers, let's give you that 150,000 innocents have been killed. That leaves 100,000 dead terrorists/insurgents/Baathists. Giving us a 33 to 1 ratio (which is HUGE in military terms) in terms of enemy killed and US lives lost. I'm not being callous or dismissive of the lives we have lost and continue to lose. All I'm saying is that it is an extradorinary and historic ratio for a war, and it proves just how successful our military has been in taking out the enemy.

Moreover, you are comparing the horrific events of day which is flatly disengenuous in the scheme of the overall war.

Compared to your side - you know, the side that tries to make us forget that we are losing Americans for no good reason.

So we evil neocons who are accused of so cowardly running around with those "Support our Troops" magnets on our gas-guzzling SUVs are trying to make America forget our fallen soldiers? Gosh, you're right about one thing: we ARE doing a horrible job of making people forget...

All I'm saying is that i... (Below threshold)
Brian:

All I'm saying is that it is an extradorinary and historic ratio for a war, and it proves just how successful our military has been in taking out the enemy.

You are contradicting yourself. If we are so successful taking out the enemy with such a "historic" ratio, how can there still be an enemy? And one that, by the Pentagon's own accounts, has grown larger than before we started killing them? Tell me... if we had the same ratio in WWII, would the war been longer or shorter?

Brian,No, I am not... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Brian,

No, I am not contradicting myself at all.

how can there still be an enemy? And one that, by the Pentagon's own accounts, has grown larger than before we started killing them?

Good first question. Ask Iran. Ask Syria. Ask the Sunni insurgents. Ask Moqtada al-Sadr. Ask the Baathist hangers-on. You want to talk about feeding guys into a meatgrinder? These groups repeatedly throw suicide volunteer after suicide volunteer up against our troops and they do it ad nauseum. In general, I think your question is silly; there are enemies constantly whose will to fight is not yet broken. (Will their will ever be broken? Not if we give in to them, that will only embolden them to commit more atrocities.)

As for the number of enemy increasing, I won't deny it, that would be silly. Certainly, it's grown. Yet to bring this up as if to prove that, well, if we weren't there in Iraq, then none of these enemies would exist, is patently silly. They would exist, they just wouldn't be fighting because they'd have no one to fight against. (I'm sure they would find some other outlet as Mohammad Atta did.) Their blind hatred for America and Israel and whoever else would still exist. Let's also remember that the focus of a majority of these fighters, and particularly in the last year's violence, is sectarian in nature. The largest reason (which our media failed to point out) for the large number of American casualties in October, is that our troops were in the field conducting searches and engaging the enemy--as they have done routinely during every Ramadan since the GWOT began. Some of our greatest losses have during the holy month. Finally, let's also keep in mind that these types of coordinated attacks generally require formal military training, the likes of which is being provided by Iran, Syria, criminal organizations within Iraq (think: their version of the Crips and Bloods, only more violent) and other anti-Coalition, anti-demcoracy groups.

And yes, in the short term (and that is very un-definiable), we will encounter and create more of the enemy. But that's the short term. Long term, if we have the will to break their will, those numbers will decrease. (And since our nattion does not seem to have the will or fortitude to break their will, indeed this very important battle in the GWOT may be lost. And that is terrible, terrible thing.)

Tell me... if we had the same ratio in WWII, would the war been longer or shorter?

The hypothetical number I cited says nothing about the duration of this or any war, and would be nothing but pure speculative and circular nonsense. (I do know that WWII Pacific Theater military planners spoke in terms of number of potential American lives lost had we had a land invasion of Japan and not dropped the Bomb--but I'm not sure what that ratio was or if they even had one.)

P.S. I'm outta here on a bu... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

P.S. I'm outta here on a business trip, so I won't be responding any time soon.

All the wise men here, Mari... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

All the wise men here, Marine Gunner, Brian, Pee, etc., tell me what your list of things to talk about is with Syria, Iran, NoKo, etc.

If talking is what you want, you have to have something that both parties can discuss, no? Otherwise it's a girl's pajama party; that's not what you had in mind, is it?

If you don't want to and don't think we can win in Iraq, then what happens after we give up and leave? What do you propose to do about it.

I have a feeling I will not get even one reasonable response, if any, to this post.

It's easy to follow the anti-war bandwagon when you don't have anything else to offer, I guess.

Instead, we need t... (Below threshold)
Instead, we need to become as stealthy as our enemies have. We have to completely redefine how we conduct this war,

Right on Kim! But how do you propose to do that?

Do you think having our Marines race around Anbar province dodging IEDs with huge targets painted on their Humvees is the way to do it?

How exactly do you propose that we "redefine how we conduct of this war" as you put it?

Wave that bloody shirt, ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Wave that bloody shirt, Brian. Wave it with all your might.

As long as you keep bloodying it, I'll keep waving it.

Little Man Mitchell, with y... (Below threshold)
Marine Gunner:

Little Man Mitchell, with your false bravado, hiding behind the Internet, pissing in the wind. Point the finger, accuse, say "anti-war" as if it's an insult, a mark of shame, something that makes you less of a man. Pretend to be a f**kin' somebody, harping away, setting up straw men for hollow groundless arguments. Circular logic, simulacra exponentially reproducing themselves into swirls of nothingness.

You want a "solution" for Iraq, Syria, North Korea and "etc." Let's examine your careless "etc." since you're dead set on parroting the naïve and reckless bullsh*t vomited from these scum in their own little circle of Hell. What are we to do about China and Russia? China and Russia, with their veto power in the UN, love to toss the wrench in the works just to get us all riled up. We Americans are quite vocal about facing the nefarious powers and they in turn embrace the role of Bad Guy and we won't do a thing about it because we need them to keep our consumer society afloat.

We're too caught up in ourselves to learn about the rest of the world, filtering it instead through vacuous outlets like Wikipedia and media morons like Coulter, Olbermann and O'Reilly (they're two sides of the same damned coin). If we're not busy finding evil amongst ourselves, we find comfort in cute TV, trained to be instantly offended when some animator or dumbass director presents us with his/her take on how the world works--because we know better because Tucker, Beck or Hannity tells us we do. You probably know more about Britney and Paris than you do about the China Hands, the Banana Wars and the White Army. France is bad. Asia is that place with funny writing and martial arts, where people bow n' stuff. Africa is just this place full of black people slaughtering each other over tribal vendettas.

It's entertainment, pure and simple. And so is this blog, and the thousands like it. You don't want "solutions." You're told to act as you do, just like me. We've been conditioned to demand evidence and proof for the record, as if we'd know it if it slapped us in the face with a sledgehammer.

This is the norm. One big quagmire, an impasse for the ages until someone commits to your dream of Total War. Let's slaughter each other for dominance of the planet. It'd make a great video game or movie, hunh?

It's easy to follow the ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

It's easy to follow the anti-war bandwagon when you don't have anything else to offer, I guess.

It's Bush who doesn't have anything else to offer. If he did, we might not be in this mess.

What's sad is that there wo... (Below threshold)
jh:

What's sad is that there would be no "surrender monkeys" if you righties weren't such a bunch of pansies and retards.

You leader sold you a bill of goods. He lied about Saddam and 9/11 and waved the flag and you morons jumped off the cliff when he said "boo".

Now when it all goes south (like we knew it would) you're all go off banging away at your keyboards in impotent rage at the people who tried to warn you. Brilliant.

Oh, and your solution to the problem? Fight harder! Send more troops! Win! But none of you want to fight. Oh no. You're to busy yapping - too afraid to put your money where your mouth is. Jesus you're vile.

Worthless. Every single one of you. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves but cowards never are.


Marine Gunner-- Fir... (Below threshold)
Knightbrigade:

Marine Gunner--
First thing ...thank you for serving your country!

That being said, enough of the shit blaming Mitchell or anyone else here for expressing their opinion if it involves military action on Iraq, Iran, NK or any other world problems.
(ex: Like one can only coach football if one played) SORRY --ask Notre Dame about THAT theory!!

You can blame America and praise all the other wonderful countries and regions all you want that's YOUR opinion.

To assume that you are ABOVE anyone here that does not have military training, is pathetic.

9/11 happened...and responses were implemented right or wrong.
Maybe we will be attacked again, then what?
Lets say we lose a city or two, and the aftermath makes Katrina look like a tea party.
Rioting....etc. etc. Do you think only you military guys have the monopoly on dealing with such events? You'll get a big surprise if that's the case.

"Mitchell, people like you, calling for "Total War," don't know what that means. You don't know what it will do to you, your family, your country. All you do is talk because, at the end of the day, nothing that personally affects you in a negative way will prevent you from going home and sitting comfortably in front of the TV. You're in the same boat as those cowards calling for the nuking of Iran and North Korea, or celebrate entire regions of the world descending into chaos."

"Because you believe it won't affect you."

Many call for harsh responses because WE DO know we will lose our way of life to our enemies if WE do NOTHING.
A dirty bomb, or biological weapon will tend to have a "NEGATIVE" impact on TV watching as you put it. That's WHY we post and express our concern for DEALING with (wonderful countries and radical parts of religions that want to destroy us.)

I wonder where your problem is Gunner. With the WAY (WE) want America DEAL with people who want to destroy us, or the fact that you think (WE) don't even have a reason to deal with ANYONE?!

Well said Knight'.... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Well said Knight'.

Yes, well said 'Knight. He... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Yes, well said 'Knight. He's all rant and no substance.

I've met very few veterans with this attitude, by the way. One of my dearest friends is retired Lt. Col. Marine aviator, saw combat in Vietnam, GWI, and some other places that were "off-plan," and he shares my view. As a matter of fact, I often inquire as to his views on the war.

Just because you served doesn't make you a military expert, although I'm always interested in what military folks are thinking.

I guess there will always be those who seek to avoid war at all costs, even if the ultimate costs are quite high, maybe even higher than those of the moment.

Mitchell:I see tha... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Mitchell:

I see that you remain, as usual, a horse's ass. Since when have you been of any "substance", and other than a snot with an attitude?

It's true that having served does not make one a military "expert" just as it is true that being a right wing wingnut does not make one an "expert" either. but you'd never know it on this site.

Kim,Since you are ... (Below threshold)
ryan:

Kim,

Since you are so clearly against the findings of the ISG Report, I will assume that you have already read it and thoroughly torn it apart point-by-point.

I would be interested in hearing specifically what aspects you most disagree with.

I mean, it's nice that you quoted the New York Post and a few other websites, but I would really like to hear more of your well-informed political insight.

I havent read the report as of yet, but I think I'll do that tonight of tomorrow. I look forward to your responses.

Knight:9/11 hap... (Below threshold)
ryan:

Knight:

9/11 happened...and responses were implemented right or wrong.
Maybe we will be attacked again, then what?
Lets say we lose a city or two, and the aftermath makes Katrina look like a tea party.
Rioting....etc. etc. Do you think only you military guys have the monopoly on dealing with such events? You'll get a big surprise if that's the case.

Yes, 9/11 happened, and we need to do wake up and realize that we are vulnerable, like the rest of the world. And we need to be alert, prepared, and smart about protecting ourselves. I agree with that.

But the war in Iraq is a different issue; I do not connect it to 9/11 the way that so many on here do. Sorry, but I dont.

You seem to think that the whole country is overrun with "insurgents" and "terrorists." But what seems to be happening is that factions are fighting for power--they are fighting each other, and they are fighting us. Labeling anyone who fights against us as a terrorist is far too simplistic. Think.

It's a lot more complicated than what Rush spits out on the radio.

With the WAY (WE) want America DEAL with people who want to destroy us, or the fact that you think (WE) don't even have a reason to deal with ANYONE?!

First of all, WHO are you talking about? What group or groups are you referring to that want to destroy us?

Of course we have the right to defend ourselves, and our allies. Of course we have the right, and the reason, to deal with individuals and nations who would attempt to attack us.

But the war in Iraq isn't just some black and white good vs. evil thing. There are terrorists there, yes. There are people who want to work with us, yes. There are others who are against us, for various reasons, yes. There are multiple groups competing for power over there. We're stuck in the middle, trying to get a result that we find acceptable.

But "winning" in Iraq is about a lot more than just killing and destroying everything in sight. What we don't want to do is alienate the entire nation so that they hate us for ever stepping foot there. Winning means doing all that we can to avoid that, and it involves a lot more than just military decisions. These people need homes, water, food, security.

It's more complicated than you seem to think.

Mitchell asked:... (Below threshold)
ryan:

Mitchell asked:

If you don't want to and don't think we can win in Iraq, then what happens after we give up and leave? What do you propose to do about it.

Well, first of all, I dont think that Iraq is ours to win. It's not like we're over there fighting some defined enemy, like Nazi Germany was in WW II. We are in the middle of old rivalries, trying to control the fallout from the ousting of Hussein.

We are fighting people on multiple fronts. We are clearly fighting some foreign fighters, who want to keep US influence out of the region. And we are also fighting a huge number of Iraqis who dont want us there. And hell, it IS their country after all.

Many people want to believe that this is some fight against terrorism, and I think that's way too narrow minded. Sure, that's an easy answer and a justification for us being there, but it's probably not whats going on.

Nobody wants to be occupied. Iraqis are no exception. And many of them are fighting tooth and nail to keep us out. They hated Saddam, but that doesnt mean they want to be told what to do by us. If someone invaded us here in the states and tried to control us, I have no doubt that we as Americans would fight that to the last person. We would defend our homes, just as many Iraqis probably feel that they are defending theirs.

I do not support the idea of taking over and reshaping Iraq into a nation that we like. Sorry, but I dont. We cant impose democracy; it has to come from within.

Ryan--As far as th... (Below threshold)
Knightbrigade:

Ryan--

As far as the WHO that wants to destroy us, they are radical Muslims. Sorry that I was not clear in my earlier post.

You do not connect the Iraq war and 9/11, that's cool. I respect that.

My opinion is Iraq may not be directly tied to 9/11, but it was a growing threat to feed terrorist at any chance they could to attack us in the future. As such, an offensive strike to get rid of Saddam, and pressure terror cells to run instead of planning more attacks was called for.

As far the global war on terror, Iraq is only part of that. I agree with you Ryan, you make good points about the Iraq people wanting us OUT, but WE/USA want to get out also. It is also correct that the situation is not a simple black and white or good and evil. It is a complicated and difficult situation. But packing up leaving would be a big mistake.

We have to come up with a way that doesn't have them collapse on themselves. We have to keep all sides taking and working on a new government, while the troublemakers keep blowing shit up and making all sides wanting to fight. That can't happen if we just pack up and leave.

WE/USA (WINS) if they/Iraq stay civil and live fairly peaceful lives.

Hey Knightbrigade:... (Below threshold)
ryan:

Hey Knightbrigade:

Radical Muslims, ok. But remember that even a term like that is a pretty large generalization. Yes, there are groups of radical or fundamentalist Muslims who want nothing more than to attack us again. So the difficult job is finding those specific groups and dealing with them, while at the same time avoiding the pitfalls of lumping ALL Muslims into that category.

Hmmm, I can understand your take on why we went into Iraq, but I think I see things a little differently. Hussein talked plenty of trash after Gulf War I, but I dont think he had much bite at all. And I think we went in there because we pretty much knew that we could topple him pretty quickly...amazingly, he fell even easier than we had imagined (we being the US military and govt).

From what I've read, we (the USA) wanted a foothold in the Middle East, and Iraq seemed to be the best option. 9/11 scared the shit out of the American people, and allowed for the entry into Iraq, since it was sold as being about the War on Terror--even though that may not have really been the case.

We went there to protect our interests--both military and economic--that's what I think. And I understand the logic and reasoning, even if I dont necessarily agree with the decision to do it, let alone the way that we did it.

I agree with you that packing up and leaving would be a big mistake. The whole country would probably completely explode into unbelievable war, and surrounding countries could get involved. It would be--or could be--a serious disaster.

I dont know how the hell we're going to get the three main groups to come to any peace. They have been at each other's throats for decades and decades. And it's not like they really have any allegiance to one another--the identity of being "Iraqi" isnt as strong as being Shiite, Sunni, Kurd, etc. Honestly, I dont see how they can actually get along and maintain a functioning nation, not with the way they keep killing each other. It's a pretty damn old feud that we're mixed up in there.

Remember, Iraq was a nation that was created aftre WW I. Lines were drawn on a map for logistical and managerial reasons, and a "nation" was created, even though the people who were inside those lines didnt want to be together. And here we are some 80 years later dealing with the same basic problem.

I would like to see things come out well, as you do. I hope that they can. I agree with you that a civil Iraq, a peaceful Iraq, would be a HUGE victory for the US. I hope that we can figure something out, somehow.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy