Those who CAN remember the past are condemned to live among idiots repeating it.

Steve Setzer

Who the hell says Saddam never had WMDs? I haven't seen anyone serious dispute that he gassed the Kurds. The question was whether he still had WMDs when we invaded, and whether we had reason to think he did, and whether it was worth invading over. Nice way to distort the other side's arguments.

By the way, I think it's a bit soon to declare that the surge is showing signs of success. Don't you guys ever learn?

The Kurds are right to be leary of any promises the U.S. makes that aren't immediately backed up with action. We have failed them before and politics being what they are, will likely fail them again.

I think the Kurds are hedging their bets this time around and making sure that whatever happens in non-Kurdish Iraq, they survive as a people and as a country. The best the U.S. can do is make sure other countries (Turkey, Syria, Iran) leave them alone to make it on their own.

I have not heard anyone of note suggest that we should abandon Iraqi Kurdistan, even if suggesting that we withdraw completely from the rest of Iraq.

I'm not saying that no one has put that forth, but that I haven't heard it. Can anyone provide a link?

thousands and thousands of Kurds gassed to death by the Butcher of Baghdad. and what was the Reagan administration view of Saddam's tactics during that time in the early eighties Outrage? no, they not only turned a blind eye, but encouraged him among other measures, by sending special envoy Rumsfeld to Baghdad in 1983, to facilitate supplying Saddam with the chemical weapons he needed, with only a mild cautionary note to Aziz, the foreign minister. .You may have a good point about what will happen to the Kurds, now Jay, but when they were victims of American realpolitic and geopolitical concerns and the American chemical munitions interests what was the conservative response? This is the history that repeats: if they are not in our strategic or economic interests..they are not really our friends.

Why should the Kurds trust the Bush administration? Bush completely flip-flopped on Korea. He said he would not support the status quo in Lebanon, and then did. Bush today said fighting in Afghanistan will be the worst of the war. His had picked commander to run war in Iraq said that troop levels by the end of 2006 would down to 5,000.

Bush has a history of being wrong, selling out the country and incompetence.

(1) Those who want the U.S. to fail in Iraq not only will not acknoledge that the surge is showing signs of success, but will declare it a failure even if it turns out to be an overwhelming success.

(2) The U.S. did not supply Iraq with chemical weapons no matter how many morons suggest that we did.

You see Jay, if we abandon the Kurds, its all Reagan's... err... Bush's fault.

1) Those who want the U.S. to fail in Iraq not only will not acknoledge that the surge is showing signs of success, but will declare it a failure even if it turns out to be an overwhelming success.

PB, does that apply to to the troops on the ground?
Not one of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen or Marines I interviewed told me that they wanted more U.S. boots on the ground. In fact, nearly all expressed just the opposite: "We don't need more American troops, we need more Iraqi troops," was a common refrain. They are right by Oliver North

Barney,

(1) When was the Ollie North Quote from? 2003? 2004?

(2) Even if it was current, which I doubt, that does not adress my comment. Saying that you don't think more troops are needed is not the same as denying the success of the effort.

I'm not calling the surge a failure, I'm saying it's too early to declare it a success, or that it's even showing signs of success. As has been stated before, the insurgents have reacted in the past the same way they are reacting now. Lay low until the temporary offensive is over. The fact that they aren't marching into public squares to fight ther Americans head on isn't a surprise. That's not how they fight.

You know, the propensity of many of you on this board to declare that any criticism of the Iraq war effort stems from a desire to see the US lose is symptomatic of the mindset that created this disaster. Just follow without criticizing or asking questions, out of fear of being unpatriotic. Look at how many Republican politicians and conservative activists are now turned against our involvement in this war. These are the same people who were too intimidated to speak out when their words might have meant something. Putting your hands over your ears and shouting "I can't hear you" is hardly a recipe for success, not to mention reflecting the extremely anti-American ideals so many of you possess.

Not one of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen or Marines I interviewed told me that they wanted more U.S. boots on the ground. In fact, nearly all expressed just the opposite: "We don't need more American troops, we need more Iraqi troops," was a common refrain. They are right by Oliver North

You keep trotting out that quote BG2K. It's unfortunate because it doesn't paint the entire picture. Who were these troops? When did he talk to them? Were they the same troops that responded to the Military Times straw poll?

Almost half of those responding think we need more troops in Iraq than we have there now. A surpris ing 13 percent said we should have no troops there. As for Afghanistan force levels, 39 per cent think we need more troops there. But while they want more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly three-quarters of the re spondents think today's military is stretched too thin to be effective.

The fact is - it's way too early to see how effective The Surge(tm) will be. Gen. Patreaus predicts that results won't be known until the summer. As Bill Roggio notes:

The mere announcement of the security plan has already and an affect on the security situation. On a positive note, the death squad activity has dramatically decreased in Baghdad. The near daily reports of bodies being found bound, mutilated and murdered have significantly decreased. A major reason for this is Muqtada al-Sadr has ordered his fighters to go to ground and not confront U.S. and Iraqi forces. His senior militia leaders are thought to have fled Baghdad.

On a negative note, al-Qaeda has stepped up its car and suicide bombing campaign, attacking soft targets in the city such as markets, pet shops, and mosques, with deadly results. While Al-Qaeda is said to have pulled out of Baghdad, an American intelligence official informs us al-Qaeda has largely withdrawn to Diyala province, and is ferrying in suicide bombers into the city. Al-Qaeda is stepping up its bombing campaign in an effort to both discredit the security operations and incite sectarian attacks. It is vital the currier network of bombers and the bombmaking cells be dismantled to reduce the effectiveness of al-Qaeda's operations in the capital. Further concurrent operations must also be conducted in Diyala to disrupt al-Qaeda's ability to maintain an intensive bombing campaign.

Dan, thanks for the link. Here is a juice quote:

The American military -- once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war -- has grown in creasingly pessimistic about chances for victory.

For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president's han dling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, ac cording to the 2006 Military Times Poll.

I thought the US troops were 100% behind the President, and it was the media that was causing a decline in moral among the troops? It looks to me that Congress is just expressing the will of the troops.

Lay low until the temporary offensive is over. The fact that they aren't marching into public squares to fight ther Americans head on isn't a surprise. That's not how they fight.

Which is exactly why the change in tactics was necessary ChrisO. Three times we went in an eliminated insurgent strongholds. All three times the anti-Iraqi forces simply waited us out. This time Gen. Patreaus wants to hold the ground. We've gone in and are going to provide overwatch security until the Iraqis can do it themselves. And now Congress wants to prevent the additional troops that will make this possible. War is a science yes but it isn't an exact science. We havn't altered our tactics fast enough and our top leaders are to blame. We need to stop repeating recent history and go back to what we are good at: setting up stable, thriving countries (see : Germany, Japan and S. Korea).

Not hard to tell who wants us to lose here. Oh don't give me that BS that just because I hate Bush I want us to lose. You don't want us to win because it would make Bush right in his actions. And you are a liar if you say differant. If not, then quit your bitching and get behind everything he is trying to do. If your pick gets elected in 2008, then is the time to change things your way. So if it fails it will be on your back. Oh no . We want it to fail now so we can blame Bush and not on us libbies.Sheeze you people gall my ass.

only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president's approval rating among the military is only slight ly higher than for the population as a whole.

All it proves BG2K is that the Military is a cross section of the American populace. The POTUS isn't vary popular right now. That doesn't mean that the soldiers are going to revolt. Thankfully our armed forces are above partisan bickering. They may disapprove of the way he's handling the war but they won't start calling for his impeachment or rant about how Bushmonkeyhaliburtonhitler is killing them. They have too much class for that - which is more than I can say for those anti-war.

They don't have to say it Dan? They just did! If you lose the confidence of the fighting troops, you have lost the war.

They don't have to say it Dan? They just did! If you lose the confidence of the fighting troops, you have lost the war.

I'd have to disagree. They don't like the way he is handling it. I didn't like the way Clinton handled the Balkans Conflict while I was in the service. This is a far cry from being not being confident of a victory.

BG if you believe that you are dumber that most think.

Right now, Western Civilization, however much many of its members may refuse to admit it, is involved in a world war. No, it has seen no entire cities destroyed; no trenchlines have drawn their scars across entire continents. It is a world war all the same. Moreover, it is a world war that is putting to the test every notion of individual liberty, freedom of conscience and rule of law that West prizes. And should we lose we will see or our grandchildren will, the erasure of all that is good in Western Civilization.

We cannot afford to lose.

Yet winning will have its price, too. Just as the invasion by the Berbers changed the face of Almoravid Spain to what it is today, this current world war will change us. Because side by side with the virtues of Western Civilization are the paired the vices that may destroy us: a narrow legalistic mindset, and emphasis of form over substance, and an unwillingness to do the ruthless and violent things we must if we are to survive. This list is not exhaustive by any means. Perhaps worse than these things, however, the West has nurtured at its own breast a set of execrable, vile, treacherous and treasonous villains that seek at every opportunity to do all they can to ensure its destruction.

BG if you believe that you are dumber that most think. by jhow.

No, I do not think that most think. Do you?

You guys wanted to know where I lifted the Olly quote, so I posted the link below. Now beware, I know the commentary was on a leftwing Rag, but what do expect from Olly? Based on his total lack of morals, as demonstrated by his total lack of respect of the Constitution (see Iran/Contra) he may have been paid off?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18797
Here is another from the same article:
A "surge" or "targeted increase in U.S. troop strength" or whatever the politicians want to call dispatching more combat troops to Iraq isn't the answer. Adding more trainers and helping the Iraqis to help themselves, is. Sending more U.S. combat troops is simply sending more targets.

What will the troops thinks when they read that article, and know that Olly has lost faith, and is providing comfort to the terrorists?

The problem I have with Olly (well .. the most current) is that he isn't privy to upper level planning. We are changing our stratedy in Iraq. The General in charge has determined that the change requires additional troops to help reinforce the Iraqi troops that form the bulk of the forces in Bagdhad.

I also agree with the troops Olly is quoting. It's been known for some time, at least from the milblogs I read, that it won't be until the IA and INP can stand on their own legs that things will settle down. This won't happen anytime soon. We have to counter generations of corruption and oppression. That's not to say it isn't happening - the process is slow but improves daily.

In the meantime, the Sunni Triangle and the Shia south need to be pacified (Kurdish N. Iraq is Eden compared to the rest of Iraq). The Shia issue is pretty much forced what with Mooky running to Iraq (should have taken him out the first time). The central area needs stability and a command presence which is what The Surge(TM) is intended to provide. Again - it's way too early to see how this will pan out.

Don't get me wrong BG2K - I don't have my rose-tinted glasses on - I just don't subscribe to the idea that we are loosing. Side note: You notice Olly talking about Al Anbar province and the improvements there? Wonder why Sunni are suddenly joining the police en masse? It's because of the deal brokered by the tribal leaders and the local goverment. Also of note - the police are known to be more corrupt than the IA. I'm not saying these guys are going to hinder our progress, what I'm saying is there is more going on behind the scenes than what Olly portrays in his op-ed. He is correct in his assesment (shared by the troops) that we need to teach the Iraqis to fend for themselves (which is happening but will take longer than most politicians are willing to commit too ) but in the short term we need to provide a secure environment so that Iraq doesn't devolve into a despotic region (think Balkans and Somalia).

BarneyG2000:

What in the world is what the troops think got to do with anything? If you take the King's shilling, you fight where and when you are told to. My son is headed back to Iraq next month, and he isn't happy about it, but he will do his duty like all the rest of the troops. We don't let the prisoners run the jails, and we don't let the troops decide national policy.

So far all I hear from "your side"(what ever the hell that means), is a bunch of let's do it my way. As I said before, it's easy to rant and rave about how things should have been done and should be done in the future, but it is the presidents responsibility to secure our safety. In two years, if the American public dont like how he has handled things they can elect some one who has a different idea. However, in the mean time we will all be far better off to support him in his efforts to secure a lasting peace in the midle east, and forget about political gains at the expense of the nation as a whole.

Thanks for the link Barney. And I stand corrected.

Still, a big difference between Oliver North and you (and most lefty commenters I've read on this blog) is that Oliver North wants the US to succeed in Iraq. The tone of the article you linked to is a lot differnt than the tone of most of the leftist comments on this blog. There is a big difference between opposing the "surge" and backing that with well thought out, intelligent arguments and simply opposing the "surge" because it was the President's decision.

Personally, I think we should wait and see, while hoping and praying that it helps. And I am willing to acknowledge that there are signs that it is helping.

Good post USMC. My sentiments exactly.

I am willing to acknowledge that there are signs that it is helping.

Amen.

"What in the world is what the troops think got to do with anything? " by USMC (Herald by extension)

Do you really feel that way? Did you voice this opinion when the righties said "opposition to the presidents' policies were aiding the terrorists, and undermining the moral of the troops? Or, is it only treason when liberal do it?

I doubt it, so who you crapping?

Barney: Just out of curiosity--do you want the surge to succeed?

USMC Pilot writes;

However, in the mean time we will all be far better off to support him in his efforts to secure a lasting peace in the midle east,....

Will we?

You're got to admit that he had great support when he went off on his big adventure 3 years ago... The administration tried to paint any criticism of it's policy as being "unpaitriotic", or "not supporting the troops", or "being with the terrorists".

So 3 years later, what did we get?

Well, those that tried to ask questions or speak out got slimed, from the Dixie Chicks to Joseph Wilson.

10 Billion dollars went missing in Iraq, due to mismanagement.

Somewhere between 300 and 500 Billion dollars in total has been spent on this war.

International terrorism has increaced since 9-11.

The situation in the Middle East has deteriorated, Iran wants to go nuclear, Israel went to war with Syria, things are generaly more, not less tense...

The situation in Iraq, in spite of all the money spent has gotten worse. More attacks month by month. Infrastructure like power and water are worse than prewar levels, universities, hospitals ransacked, random shootings, bombings, terror. For those people, we've brought them a living hell, even if it was done with the best of intentions.

Right now, in Iraq we don't even have a clearly defined enemy. We can only attempt to stop secterian violence and civil war. Right now, or only tool is our military which is designed primarily to "kill people, and blow things up".

By the time this is all said and done, we'll have sunk something like 2,000 Billion dollars (2 Trillion) into Iraq. Much of that will have been borrowed. We'll be paying for Dubya's adventure for generations.

So, no... In the past, we have NOT been better off to support him in his efforts. I don't have any expectation that his future efforts will turn out any better, based on past experience. Additionaly, I'm very concerned that the administration is ramping up for war with Iran... Sure they SAY they're not, but they also denied that they were planning on going to war with Iraq, which as we know from things like the Downing Street memo, were a lie.

Yeah, I'm worried. This administration has NOT done a good job for us, and more of the same won't be any better.

Barney,

Opposition to the war in and of itself does not aid the terrorists.

Major politicians calling the President a liar, while saying disingenuous things like: "War for oil", "there was no WMD", American soldiers are like natzi's, etc. does aid the terrrorists.

Major media organizations focusing soley on the successes of the terrorist and pretty much ignoring the successes of the US & Allied Forces does aid the terrorists.

Major media organizations blowing a few minor, but negative incidents involving the US military forces WAY OUT OF PROPORTION does aid the terrorists.

And an idiot running for President who calls the second largest coalition of nations in the history of the human race "going it alone" does aid the terrorists.

It is not unpatriotic to oppose the war, it is unpatriotic to not want the US to succeed since the decision was made.

Nikie, is that some kind of gotcha question? Barney don't play that game!

I will tell you this. Just about every semi sane expert/pundit predicts the surge will not work without a political solution even the NRO (see today's comments). Only Bush disagrees.

We now know that Iran made overtures to the US and either nobody in the administration bothered to follow-up or Condi is lying out of her ass. This looks like another colossal mistake by Bush.

In my opinion, the surge will result in the US leaving Iraq sooner than any Dem proposal. Bush said that this is the last best chance, there are no back-up plans, and our patient's is not limitless. Let's see if Bush sticks to his word, or flip/flops again.

d'ja ever notice that when you ask a lefty "do you want the US to win", or "do you want this plan to succeed" they refuse to answer?

I wonder why... Well actually I don't.

OK PB, here is the deal. I want US to succeed in Iraq, Iran, Korea, Afghanistan, and the Middle East as a whole.

Now, based on your earlier comment "Opposition to the war in and of itself does not aid the terrorists." Are you wiling to step-up and say that the non binding resolution against the surge and the persons that vote yea, are not anti-american, terrorist appeasers?

BarneyG,
It has never been clear to me why some feel that simply because Iran made an overture it was Bush's "colossal" mistake not to follow up. It is clear that their public call for Israel's destruction differs with the current administration's stance on Israel. That and their weird Holocaust denial stance labels the Iranian government simply weird in my mind. That alone would seem a reason why the Bush administration has no desire to accord the current Iranian government any credibility in this important diplomatic effort. The current Iraqi government also seems to wish to establish stability without Iranian help. So what's the fuss?