« Gotcha! | Main | Mahmoud Abbas Dissolves Palestinian Government, Declares Emergency »

Signs of Progress

General Petraeus (yes the same one Harry Reid has called a liar and most recently incompetent) gives a report from Iraq. Most Democrats, and almost all the media, don't understand this, but the way to measure progress there is not in daily U.S. military death counts.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Signs of Progress:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Reid challenges military leadership

Comments (103)

Countdown until the wackos ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Countdown until the wackos start to whine 10-9-8------

If General Petraeus is inco... (Below threshold)
TR19667:

If General Petraeus is incompetent, what does that say about you Harry? You couldn't carry his piss bucket you sniviling little partison coward. Nevada should be embarrassed they elected such a pasty little whiner. Recent poll #'s should tell you about America's perspective on your competence.

I think that, no matter how... (Below threshold)

I think that, no matter how well (or how badly, to be fair) the troop surge fared, Harry & Nancy were going to play it as the failure of all failures. I don't care how you want to spin that, but you can't take that course of action and continue to say "we support the troops". to do so is to show yourself to be psychotic, completely unhinged from reality (not to mention common sense).

About 5,000 police deser... (Below threshold)
Read it all:

About 5,000 police deserted the force in the 18 months before January, Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey said at a Pentagon news conference Wednesday. Another 7,000 or 8,000 police officers are unaccounted for.

"I have great concerns about the police," Lynch says. "There are large areas in (central Iraq) where there are no police. And in areas where we do have police, we have corrupt police."

Well, Read it all, if you'r... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Well, Read it all, if you're going to play that game...:

•Sectarian violence. The number of unidentified bodies found in Baghdad -- an indicator of sectarian violence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims -- dropped from a high of 1,782 in October to 411 in April, according to an Interior Ministry official who declined to be named because he is not authorized to speak to the media.

The body count spiked to 726 in May. So far this month, the numbers are again on a "downward trend," Petraeus says. Although the bombing Wednesday of a major Shiite shrine in Samarra raises the risk of a new outbreak of sectarian violence, he says.

Indeed, Read it all...

"but the way to measure pro... (Below threshold)
Eugene:

"but the way to measure progress there is not in daily U.S. military death counts."

I wonder if Mrs. Lorie Byrd has gone to a single funeral of a service member that has died in Iraq?

"I don't know the person" is just an excuse.

Good point, Eugene. It's a... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

Good point, Eugene. It's a legitimate standard of the war to ask ourselves whether or not the desired outcome is worth the cost in blood. The bar just keeps getting lower and lower about what we hope to accomplish while the death toll keeps rising, and I believe that we long ago passed the point where the end does not justify the slaughter.

And the slaughter will magi... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

And the slaughter will magically subside if we packed up and went home?

I have to question this num... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

I have to question this number given by an anonymous
member of the Iraqi govt of 411 deaths in April..
As neither the US or Iraqi govts believe Iraqi deaths are not worth keeping track of...conservitive estimates are higher..check out April here
http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

To call what's happening "s... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

To call what's happening "slaughter" is outright laughable at best and lying at worst. Look up "slaughter", usually when you're "slaughtered" that means that more of you died than your attackers. Many more. We're "slaughtering" jihadis by the boatloads. Next up, "Our children are dying over there." while talking about Marines.

And one more, I don't mean to pick on you Paul, but that comment is full of inanities.
while the death toll keeps rising

It's a war, people die in wars. Now, if the death toll were lowering (i.e. there were fewer people dead from the war today than yesterday), that would be news. You see, people die in wars. As they die, the "death toll" rises. The only way it wouldn't rise if if it stayed the same, i.e. nobody dies.

And what lefties refuse to admit, is that the war in Iraq is doing what it's designed to do: Kill Jihadis. Remember "Bring it on"?

Here's a question for our resident military geniuses on the left.
You're in a war with people who avoid military confrontation while trying to maximize civilian casualties. You've tried to fight them in a "criminal investigation" way and all it got you was some lower level operatives in jail with the masterminds not being touched and a huge hole in the ground where two of your largest and most important buildings stood.
So... How do you convince them to fight your military? You invade a country that they will have to fight for and thereby get them to fight your military instead of your civilians.

Now, as long as you admit we are fighting terrorists (mostly Islamo-wacko types, but North Korea is out there on the horizon), you have to admit that we're fighting terrorists by the boatload in Iraq and not in America. Of course, I don't expect the intellectually dishonest types like Lee or Barney to admit that, they can whine and fling all the poo they want, but the adults can see the truth.

Rather than attending a fun... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Rather than attending a funeral..everyone should visit their local V.A. Hospital....

•Sectarian violence. The... (Below threshold)
Keep Reading:

•Sectarian violence. The number of unidentified bodiesw found in Baghdad -- an indicator of sectarian violence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims -- dropped from a high of 1,782 in October to 411 in April, according to an Interior Ministry official who declined to be named because he is not authorized to speak to the media.

The body count spiked to 726 in May. So far this month, the numbers are again on a "downward trend," Petraeus says. Although the bombing Wednesday of a major Shiite shrine in Samarra raises the risk of a new outbreak of sectarian violence, he says.

Is Harry Reid's goal to get... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Is Harry Reid's goal to get his approval numbers in the single digits? What a pathetic, miserable human being.

This is not a war...it is a... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

This is not a war...it is an occupation in place until the Iraqi govt can show it's competency and ability to provide security...
A war is between nations..it was a war when we invaded and defeated the Iraqi Army under Saddam...
Those killing us and those we are killing are no longer in that category...
If we are at war in Iraq...whom is the enemy?(other than civilians who are killing us)

Looks like "Read it All" do... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Looks like "Read it All" doesn't want to read it all.

Lol. Typical.

Things are going great! Bet... (Below threshold)
jim:

Things are going great! Better than planned! Success is just around the corner! Clap louder!!

Is Harry Reid's goal to... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Is Harry Reid's goal to get his approval numbers in the single digits?

Bwhahahahaa...

No Jim,You're conf... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

No Jim,

You're confused. Your response should be:

Things are all wrong, there is nothing good happening, we should give up now and everything will be fine! Cry louder!

We lost this "war" on oil t... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

We lost this "war" on oil the minute we invaded another sovereign country for their resources, selected a president that refuses to ask the oil junkies to sacrifice a thing, claims it was for fear of our own lives while allowing the actual terrorists to roam free, and encouraged the Christian fundy militarists to support his pre-emptive aggression based on the fact that he talks to God. (he and Tom DeLay)

The only fear that is operative in Iraq is the fear that Exxon and Halliburton won't get their PSA's operational before the whole country disintegrates.
No amount of surging is going to change the fact that this was a false flag operation of the highest caliber.

You got to give them credit. The troops were just a means to an end for the plutocrats to assemble their fortress to occupy the region for the next millennium. Of course there is no reason to measure progress in deaths. They are just expendable chattel.

Having brought just another form of death and terror into the lives of the Iraqi's for some gives them reason to continue the slaughter in the name of past sacrifice. At this point the reasons to leave far outweigh continued occupation.

Heralder: No the slaughter... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

Heralder: No the slaughter will not stop. That die was cast the moment we invaded. But the question for *us* becomes whether or not the slaughter of *our* men and women is justified by the best likely outcome from our perspective. I believe that it is not.

Veeshir: Slaughter is slaughter. Rather than just comparing the toll of US troops to terrorists, maybe you should compare the toll of innocent Iraqis to terrorists. Clearly by that count, the good guys are losing badly.

And you asked how we can get the terrorists to fight our troops instead of killing civilians. The answer is that we CAN'T. Once civil authority was eliminated and we failed to take their place, the enemy have defined the terms of engagement. That was the great flaw in this entire war -- we simply had no concept that the people of Iraq wouldn't throw flowers and build statues to Bush. When you have that sort of naivety at the top, there's very little that the grunts on the ground can do.

And I don't believe that stuff about "fighting them there" for a minute. The insurgents in Iraq don't want to take over the US, they just want the US to get out of their way so they can take over *Iraq* for their own faction.

Hey, civil behavior -- you ... (Below threshold)

Hey, civil behavior -- you forgot to call Bush "Chimpy McHitlerburton." That one always cracks me up because of it's subtle wit.

Are you aware that we lost approximately 10,000 troops in Germany in the 4 years after they surrendered? Should we given up and let the Nazis come back to power? My uncle trained fighter pilots in WWII and only saw action after the war in the Berlin airlift. He would return from flights with a plane full of holes. Once he got part of a wing shot off and barely made it back to West Germany.

Study some history and you'll find that the war against terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan has had an unusually low number of US casualties. Study what's going on in the Middle East today and you'll realize that if we don't fight the war over there, they'll bring the war here so that we will be fighting on American soil.

>>we lost approximately 10,... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

>>we lost approximately 10,000 troops in Germany in the 4 years after they surrendered?

Michael, could you cite a source for this, please.

And it doesn't matter if the casualties are "low." If they are lives lost for no good cause, even a single death is too many.

What should a successful wa... (Below threshold)

What should a successful war or successful occupation look like?

A Democratic war is apparently one where the enemy doesn't get a vote. One side acts while the other is passive. And every plan survives contact with the enemy.

The rhetoric from the doom-sayers here is alternately hysterical and horrific. Only American deaths count... each one a horror. No wait! The horror experienced by the Iraqis is evil we should... leave. Or should have never gone. Because then life would be nice for them, eh? Or do Iraqi deaths only count *if we're there*?

Much better to ignore the bad stuff all over, let the tyrant reign and gas his own people and whatever he needs to do to keep himself in power. Oh, wait! No, that's not true. We should *do* something. Who the heck knows *what* but it shouldn't involve a single US military death, whatever it is.

Oh! Oh! Oh! I know! We should put sanctions on the tyrant so that the tyranny can continue for the next 20 years unabated. Because then we'd be *doing* something and could feel all good and self-righteous about ourselves. Better yet, the Europeans would *like* us! Win-win.

Face the facts. Iraq goes well, Democrats lose.

They are the ones who set themselves up that way. They could have complained about Bush and the way he ran the war while *supporting* victory. Using their brains and resources to work for a good end of things and then they could claim responsibility when it went well, or at least claimed "we tried our best" if it didn't. But they *chose*, or let their nutroots choose for them, to attach themselves politically to failure in Iraq.

We *must* fail in Iraq and we must fail before the elections in 2008. If we don't the Republicans will look good. The Republicans will get credit and lord knows people like winners rather than whiners.

As much as anyone wants to claim that the calls for failure from the very beginning were just telling the truth, the Democrats will win if we lose and lose if we win. It's as simple as that.

In any other situation this would be considered a severe conflict of interests and lead us not to put our trust in the objectivity of those in that position.

Paul Hamilton throws the bs... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Paul Hamilton throws the bs around with little fact. The citizens of Iraq are not fighting each other. External forces make up about 70% of the insurgency. Al Queda is there in full force. I guess to follow the democrat procedure they did in Somolia, run.

Now if you want to talk about the Iraq government doing more and moving somethings along faster? Then I am willing. I am proud of our troops and proud of what they did. Since you never wanted the US to go to Iraq, you don't want any success. Just human nature, I guess. ww

Paul wrote:The ... (Below threshold)

Paul wrote:

The insurgents in Iraq don't want to take over the US, they just want the US to get out of their way so they can take over *Iraq* for their own faction.

Er, have you by any chance been reading the news over the past 6 years? Why did al Qaeda attack the WTC if all it wanted was to live in peace in the Middle East? Have you read the al Qaeda manifesto? Here's a quote: "We vow by the name of God that we are determined to destroy the American empire...."

They want to destroy us. Get that?

The left is so out of touch with a reality that I seriously wonder how you guys can hold down jobs and function in society.

>>External forces make up a... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

>>External forces make up about 70% of the insurgency.

Source, please, Wild Willie.

Why did AQ attack the US? ... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

Why did AQ attack the US? Bin Laden himself said the reason was because infidel armies had profaned the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia. As for the manifesto, I don't *care* about the ravings of lunatics. AQ in Iraq is rejected even by the Iraqi terrorists they seek to inflitrate, so let's give them the credence they deserve -- none.

When we made significant pr... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

When we made significant progress in Iraq, the terrorists will blow up more women/children/mosques and their allies in Congress (eg. Reid/Pelosi) and liberal media/blogs are coming to proclaim the war is lost again. Reid had strong words for our generals but couldn't find strong words for the terrorists.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28745

BTW, Michael, since you see... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

BTW, Michael, since you seem to be so concerned about al Qaeda taking over the United States, please explain to all of us exactly how they would accomplish this. Don't tell me about manifestos and propaganda, tell me about the means by which they would militarily or politically take over.

Why did AQ attack the US? B... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Why did AQ attack the US? Bin Laden himself said the reason was because infidel armies had profaned the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia
------------------------------------------------
Bin Laden also said that Somalia shows that the US is a paper tiger who would run at the fist sight of casualties. So liberals would do exactly what Bin Laden wants. That 's why liberals are so anxious to surrender in Iraq?

LAI, your posting is self-c... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

LAI, your posting is self-contradictory. The only valid measure of "progress" in Iraq would be the reduction of the terrorists' ability to maintain chaos in the country. If they still can kill and destroy at will, then there is no progress, and the surge has done nothing in that regard since the level of violence is twice what it was last year.

Paul, why don't you tell me... (Below threshold)
Tony:

Paul, why don't you tell me why human beings should (or even why they possibly would) be forming groups with written goals like 'destroy America'? That's a far more serious and relevant question.

Oh and when did Bin Laden become the head of Saudi Arabia? So he doesn't want us there. Well screw him, the Saudi government wants us there. Why do you give such legitimacy to Bin Laden? That's another, better question for you to answer.

LAI, Somalia was 1998. Sin... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

LAI, Somalia was 1998. Since then we've retaliated against Afghanistan and invaded Iraq - that's hardly running, is it? We've spent more time in Iraq than we did fighting WW2 and now we've come to the point where further involvement is beyond the point of diminishing returns.

Don't you think that there's nothing bin Laden would like more than to see us tied up indefinately in a war we had no hope of winning? Isn't that exactly the strategy he and the Mujahadeen used against the Soviets?

Maybe the better question would be why should we play right into his hands.

And what I mean by the firs... (Below threshold)
Tony:

And what I mean by the first question is: don't you think that it's bad that human beings form large groups with the goal of hurting other human beings? Don't you have a feeling on that one way or the other?

I reread what I wrote and it sounds very accusatory, but it shouldn't. I'm genuinely asking you, Paul.

And you asked how we can... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

And you asked how we can get the terrorists to fight our troops instead of killing civilians. The answer is that we CAN'T.

So, who's slaughtering our soldiers then?

And yes, words have meanings. You saying "slaughter" in that context is like me saying "military-genius" when talking about you. Neither fits.

As for the laughable assertion that leaving Iraq would do any good, that's absolutely hysterical (in more than one sense of the word).

They use the Crusades and lost Andalusia to justify attacking us, things that happened before there was a United States.
And we were in Saudi Arabia protecting the holy cities of Mecca and Medina from Saddam. But maybe you're right, we should have allowed Saddam to keep Kuwait and invade then the Arabian peninsula and then, he might have been strong enough to take out Iran and then, peace, love and understanding would have flowed.

I bet you think we trained bin Laden in Afghanistan too, huh?

Tony, the Saudi government ... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

Tony, the Saudi government asked us to leave. And we did.

As for why they'd write stuff like that, it's obvious. The people in Iraq don't approve of the American occupation. They were playing on the anger of the Iraqi people to score political points. But it didn't work -- the Iraqi insurgents, and the population in general, continue to reject al Qaeda.

Thanks for the follow-up no... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

Thanks for the follow-up note, Tony. I don't take anything on discussion boards personally. I just get on here to exchange ideas.

Right on Paul. Well I goog... (Below threshold)
Tony:

Right on Paul. Well I googled composition iraq insurgency', and 'composition iraq insurgency foreign' and came up with a bunch of pages that said that the insurgency is indeed a diverse mix of groups, but none cited any numbers to say how that breaks down. The pages also acknowledged that 51 percent are against the coalition, but they also said that 90% of the Sunni pop was who voted that way. So there is no real clear picture of what the US is facing there, only simple and anecdotal stuff. WE should all be pissed that years into this shit, we still don't know much at all about it, yet we'll argue anyway...

LAI, Somalia was 1998. Sinc... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

LAI, Somalia was 1998. Since then we've retaliated against Afghanistan and invaded Iraq - that's hardly running, is it? We've spent more time in Iraq than we did fighting WW2 and now we've come to the point where further involvement is beyond the point of diminishing returns.
------------------------------------------------
I may be missing sth. We fought the war from 1941-1945. Then we spent several years occupying both Japan and Germany. And we still have troops stationed in both Germany and Japan up until now.

Liberals are so anxious for Iraq to fail now? Looks like liberals want another Gaza for Iraq. Forgot that liberals always want to have VN all over again.


Paul, I don't believe you a... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Paul, I don't believe you are exchanging ideas. You are stating you know the hearts and minds of the Iraq's. You know they reject AQ but don't follow up with AQ doesn't care if they want them. Unfortunately in war, the idea is to make more of the bad guys die then the good guys. So far, I think that is happening. Anyway, you sold this war out the day we went in. If you never bought in, why should we listen to you? ww

Veeshir, *both* sides in th... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

Veeshir, *both* sides in this conflict target US forces to some degree, but the objective of that isn't to "defeat" the US, because that's out of their reach. What they want is to get us to leave so they can settle things between themselves to determine who will run things in the new Iraq. I still think that when all is said and done, Iraq will split into independent ethnic regions just like Yugoslavia did following the death of Tito.

And you're right about us leaving Iraq really not doing any good. The truth of the matter is that events were set in motion by our invasion which will absolutely end up badly. And we do not have the ability to stop it. So all our presence is doing is slowing -- or dragging out -- the inevitable and killing our troops who have no dog in this fight. NEITHER side in this civil war is our friend!

And yes, I know that the Saudi government accepted our offer to defend SA after Saddam took over Kuwait. But Osama bin Laden had offered the assistance of al Qaeda to do the same thing and was rejected. It's believed that this rejection was what triggered his insane rage against both his own home country and the United States.

And yeah, we certainly enabled bin Laden in his efforts against the Soviet invaders in Afghanistan. "Enemy of our enemy" and all that good stuff. We also supported Saddam's Iraq against Iran for the same reason. Maybe we need to re-think our policy of supporting dictators and terrorists just because of who they happen to be fighting at the moment...

"Are you aware that we l... (Below threshold)
putting food on your family:

"Are you aware that we lost approximately 10,000 troops in Germany in the 4 years after they surrendered?" Michael McCullogh

Well Prof. McCullogh, you must be one of them thar history profs at at ole Falwell's skule of higher learning, or is it perhaps at Robertson U?

Prof. Marcuse at UCSB points out:

"Daniel Benjamin in _Slate_ as far back as August 29, 2003 (see "Condi's Phony History," http://slate.msn.com/id/2087768/, in which Benjamin points out, among other things, that there were no post-surrender American combat casualties in Germany or Japan"

McCullogh, I hope you're limited to home schooling which will ensure that your level of ignorance "stays in the family."

And yeah, we certainly enab... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

And yeah, we certainly enabled bin Laden in his efforts against the Soviet invaders in Afghanistan. "Enemy of our enemy" and all that good stuff. We also supported Saddam's Iraq against Iran for the same reason. Maybe we need to re-think our policy of supporting dictators and terrorists just because of who they happen to be fighting at the moment...
--------------------------------------------------
Using liberal logic, FDR should have fought against both Stalin and Hitler at the same time during WW2? Iran attacked us at Beirut, so that 's why we fought them back via Iraq without involving our troops to inflame the Arab world at the time. So blaming Reagan for Beirut and then blame him again for getting back to Iran (the source of Beirut attack)? Is that double-speak?

So Reid/Pelosi and the liberal left are trying to enable AlQuaeda in Iraq to fight against what enemies now?

Paul wrote:BTW,... (Below threshold)

Paul wrote:

BTW, Michael, since you seem to be so concerned about al Qaeda taking over the United States, please explain to all of us exactly how they would accomplish this. Don't tell me about manifestos and propaganda, tell me about the means by which they would militarily or politically take over.

I never said that they want to take us over militarily or politically -- I said that they wanted to destroy us. There's a big difference.

The 9/11 attack exerted a heavy toll on the US economy. Imagine what would happen if dirty bombs smuggled across the Mexican border (or even real nukes, if Iran isn't stopped) are blown up on the same day in the downtown districts of 5 major cities? Tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans dead or suffering radioactive poisoning. It would send our economy into a nosedive and our days as a world superpower would be over for many, many years.

I'll get back to you on the deaths in Germany after WWII. I read it last week but haven't found the source.

Wild Willie, if our body co... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

Wild Willie, if our body counts from Vietnam were to be believed, we killed 10 NVA and VC for every soldier we lost. And that's not even counting the civilian losses, which numbered in the millions.

So even if you can run up massive casualties on the enemy, that doesn't matter. When a nation is fighting in some other country, the decision of whether or not the war is worth it comes down to weighing what we have to gain against the cost in blood and treasure. Eventually, we came to the point in Vietnam that there was no outcome that was worth the dying. Our military did not have the power to create what we wanted to happen and the people of Vietnam didn't support our agenda.

And the exact same thing is happening in Iraq. That's why "hearts and minds" is so important. You cannot just go into to some other country with history and traditions vastly different than our own and expect them to become democratic by force of arms. Iraq had an election but it didn't change things because most people were more anxious to see their own side prevail one way or the other than to respect the outcome of the election. And our military can't impose the needed respect for democracy to make it work.

And unless you can come up with some miraculous means to make this happen, I just don't see how we can achieve our stated objectives.

Either neither side is our ... (Below threshold)

Either neither side is our friend or both are.

Seriously.

I don't think we've got a fight of any sort against either Shia or Sunni people. Real people, just like here in the States. With "Joe-sixpack" concerns about life. Just like in the States.

Why are you so convinced that something better isn't possible for people?

Or is it the multi-cultural believe in cultural permanence that is leading to these conclusions? Not criticizing culture sort of goes with believing that different cultures are static, sacrosanct, and by definition, correct... what you believe is true for you, etc.

It's pretty much a cardboard box full of elephant dung labeled "frozen meat" when all is said and done.

Reid/Pelosi: American gener... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Reid/Pelosi: American generals are liars and incompetent. Terrorists are competent in killing more women/children. That 's why the terrorists are successful and the US military is failing.

Yup, that 's my translation of the left 's message.

but the way to measure p... (Below threshold)

but the way to measure progress there is not in daily U.S. military death counts.

In a protracted guerrilla war that's exactly the metric you should consider.

The other metric is the number of troops in theater.

If we we're winning both these metrics would be going down. Instead they're both going up.

This isn't a "battle of the bulge" where we are beating back one last offensive from the Nazi war machine. What we're doing right now in Iraq is exactly what we've been doing for the last 4 years: entering neighborhoods, chasing down bad guys, and clearing the area so the Iraqi police can step in. Then, we leave, move to another area of Iraq and do the exact same thing all over again. In fact, there are many areas that we have cleared multiple times in the same way.

And what exactly would you expect Petraeus to say right now? That the plan isn't working? Of course not. He's going to give a positive assessment because generals always publicly support the policies given to them by their civilian leadership. This isn't Petraeus' war plan that's being fought here in Iraq; it's Bush's plan. He's commander-in-chief. He decides the level of troops and the overall strategy. Let's stop pretending the generals are running this war. That's not the way it works in this country. The civilian leadership is in charge as it should be. Bush is the one who should be held accountable for what's happening right now. Petraeus is just doing his best with what Bush gave him.


Oh, and if no outcome in Vi... (Below threshold)

Oh, and if no outcome in Vietnam was worth the dying... why did people continue to die when we left and it was "over"?

Paul, I think that as far a... (Below threshold)
Tony:

Paul, I think that as far as tying us into an unwinnable war... we're the first group of people to actually try to make equitable, sustainable, and real progress in that part of the world for a damn long time. Yeah Saddam had his secularism and his modernization, but I don't see any rape rooms in my neighborhood and I"m pretty sure there's a reason why. I think that someone has to try and make good out there, and I think that we have plenty more money and resources than anyone else on the planet to do so. Then you've got the problem of us aready being there and if even we can't help it, what happens out there next?

I read this article and appears that the russians had a piss poor military in reality. That we matched their military using only 5% of our GDP is freakin' crazy, but they could indeed have nuked us to oblivion. Point is, we can definitely stay there and kill jihadis in the hundreds and thousands while taking tens of ours for a long time. The math of it is grim, but the underlying reason why is a sad statement on human beings.

"The bar just keeps getting... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

"The bar just keeps getting lower and lower about what we hope to accomplish while the death toll keeps rising, and I believe that we long ago passed the point where the end does not justify the slaughter."

"And it doesn't matter if the casualties are "low." If they are lives lost for no good cause, even a single death is too many"

So, Paul, which is it? Did we pass a threshold where losing lives in Iraq was worth it, or was it never worth it? You can't argue for both. Well, a rational person couldn't, anyway.

It's also instructional that you have a certain point past which self defense and liberation cease to become worthwhile to you.

Larkin, the way it works wi... (Below threshold)

Larkin, the way it works with Generals isn't that they carry out someone elses plan. That's stupid. The COC picks a General, out of all the Generals, who either convinces the COC that the General's plan will work or who is reasonably close to what the COC thinks needs to be done.

All this time we've been hearing about the Generals who say we need more people on the ground there. So now we have one of those Generals and we're putting more people on the ground there.

"It's also instructional th... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

"It's also instructional that you have a certain point past which self defense and liberation cease to become worthwhile to you"

Yeesh, that's atrocious. I meant "cease to be worthwhile to you."

Guess there's something to be said for the Preview button after all...

LAI said:>>FDR shoul... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

LAI said:
>>FDR should have fought against both Stalin and Hitler at the same time during WW2?

Or maybe we should have let Hitler and Stalin bleed themselves to death against each other. It was obvious after the winter of 1940 that Hitler had no realistic chance of winning in Russia. The only question was how much damage would the Soviets take in throwing the Nazis back. Certainly our assistance to them made the war end quicker, but it also made them stronger and thus able to capture all of eastern Europe before the surrender.

Who knows. Maybe if we'd have left them alone, we could have had an earlier D-Day and prevented the Soviet juggernaut from rolling Germany back so far before the war ended.

But that's just speculation...

But yes, it's Bush's plan.<... (Below threshold)

But yes, it's Bush's plan.

Which is why when the plan changed, the General changed.

Found this post on postwar ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Found this post on postwar Germany with quotes from the NYT. Fortunately, we didn' have Rep leaders as dishonorable as Reid/Pelosi to hold press conferences to proclaim the war is lost!

http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200406011433.asp
"Loss of Victory in Germany Through U.S. Policy Feared," November 18, 1945

....
According to a military government official, this is finding expression in the organization of numerous local anti-American organizations throughout the zone and in a rapid increase in the number of attacks on American soldiers. There were more such attacks in the first week of October than in the preceding five months of the occupation, this source declared.

Synova: Further deaths in ... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

Synova: Further deaths in Vietname weren't worth it *to the United States." It was worth it to the other groups in the region because any time there's massive warfare for many years and that fighting ends, there will be a new political equilibrium. Everybody still over there was fighting to gain as much for themselves as they could in the wake of our departure and the general unrest that followed.

Or maybe we should have let... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Or maybe we should have let Hitler and Stalin bleed themselves to death against each other. It was obvious after the winter of 1940 that Hitler had no realistic chance of winning in Russia. The only question was how much damage would the Soviets take in throwing the Nazis back. Certainly our assistance to them made the war end quicker, but it also made them stronger and thus able to capture all of eastern Europe before the surrender.

Who knows. Maybe if we'd have left them alone, we could have had an earlier D-Day and prevented the Soviet juggernaut from rolling Germany back so far before the war ended.
--------------------------------------------------
Good point. FDR made a HUGE mistake in WW2. He didn't adequately plan for WW2. He shouldn't have attacked Germany who didn't attack us. He should have focused on Japan who attacked us. And we should have withdraw immediately instead of occupying Germany and Japan. That 's the liberal logic. If the whole Europe become fascists or communists, it is up to them. Using the same logic, wonder why liberals could support Clinton 's adventure in ZBalkans!

Michael said:>>Imagi... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

Michael said:
>>Imagine what would happen if dirty bombs smuggled across the Mexican border...

That's why I think we need to disengage from Iraq, which is no more than a distraction in the TRUE fight against international terrorists, and get serious about defending ourselves here. Imagine if all the money we're spending in Iraq was dedicated to improving domestic security.

Synova: Further deaths in V... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Synova: Further deaths in Vietname weren't worth it *to the United States." It was worth it to the other groups in the region because any time there's massive warfare for many years and that fighting ends, there will be a new political equilibrium. Everybody still over there was fighting to gain as much for themselves as they could in the wake of our departure and the general unrest that followed.
-------------------------------------------------
3-5 million deaths can be directly attributed to this attitude. So liberals can claim now that they are fine with 3-5million deaths post-VN. That 's why liberals proudly invoke VN over and over again.

Fortunately, the US was in South VN long enough to allow other nascent democracies in the region to develop (eg. Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia etc...). Whenever liberal policies succeeded, death and misery surely follows: VietNam, Iran, Zimbabwe, now Gaza/Palestine.

That's why I think we need ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

That's why I think we need to disengage from Iraq, which is no more than a distraction in the TRUE fight against international terrorists, and get serious about defending ourselves here. Imagine if all the money we're spending in Iraq was dedicated to improving domestic security.
-------------------------------------------------
How many trillions of dollars you are willing to spend to defend every mall/schools etc ... in the US. Remember a long shooter could paralyze the whole DC area. Are you ready to make the US a police state?

So you basically don't want to fight AlQuaeda then. They are in Iraq now, so you want to run from AlQ basically?

Tony said:>>we're th... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

Tony said:
>>we're the first group of people to actually try to make equitable, sustainable, and real progress in that part of the world

You may be right, but even if you assume our objectives in the region are purely benevolent -- which I do not -- you've got the issue of us IMPOSING "progress" on them by means of an invasion. Now maybe if we had actually accomplished what Rummy and Wolfowitz thought we'd do, it might have been great, but I still believe that we were undermanned, underequipped and totally without a plan. Given those realities, a bad outcome was just about inevitable and when you're talking about invasions, a bad occupation is usually much worse than no invasion at all. Saddam was bad, but the current chaos is much worse for both the US and for the entire mideast. And eliminating Iraq from the geopolitical equation has only served to make Iran stronger.

Brainy asked:>>Did w... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

Brainy asked:
>>Did we pass a threshold where losing lives in Iraq was worth it, or was it never worth it?

To me, it was never worth it. But as time passes, deaths increase and the bar keeps getting lowered, more and more Americans are reaching the conclusion that it's not worth it to them and that's why the war is becoming politically untenable.

Reid did NOT say any genera... (Below threshold)
Sig:

Reid did NOT say any general was incompetant. You are basing this on the Politio piece today, which doesnt have a direct quote from Reid using that word at all, just a typical heresay attribution, and three of the bloggers on the conference call did not hear him say that word once.

"The Politico story, which was written by John Bresnahan, only attributes the claim that Reid disparaged the generals to "several sources familiar with the interview," without saying whether these sources were on the call. It contains no direct quote of Reid beyond the one word "incompetent." It goes on to say that Reid "made similar disparaging remarks" about Petraeus, without quoting or paraphrasing any.

Bresnahan declined to comment on the bloggers' assertions and declined to comment on the question of whether he'd spoken to anyone who was actually on the conference call."


B-b-b-but we all know Reid hates the troops, duh, because Drudge said so.


My nephew just returned fro... (Below threshold)
Ran:

My nephew just returned from his 3rd tour in Iraq. He says that publicly, many of them say they want the US to leave. Behind closed doors, they openly admit they want us to stay, but MUST POSTURE our leaving because they are CONVINCED we are going to leave, and don't want to be thrown off a building after our "Re-deployment". Now where do ya suppose those people got the idea we were "Redeploying"?.. hmmm..yes.. Dems are invested in defeat, and it's working better in Iraq then the "Freedom fighters" are.

LAI said:>>3-5 milli... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

LAI said:
>>3-5 million deaths [in SE Asia] can be directly attributed to this attitude.

And since we were losing ground all the time despite massive numbers of troops and equipment involved, how would our staying there have changed anything? Maybe the golden rule for overseas warfare should be to weigh the price of our involvement against the cost of staying home. We got involved in Vietnam on the basis of two lies -- the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the domino theory. That's a lot of dead Americans for those lies, let alone all the Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians, etc.

And once again, we leapt before we looked in Iraq, upset the applecart completely and once again, people are dying for lies.

Once you start the war, it's often too late to avoid a bad outcome. That's why you should never rush to war as we did in 2003.

Paul I agree with you. I ju... (Below threshold)
Tony:

Paul I agree with you. I just have two things. 1) I would say that parts of our objectives aren't benevolent, but our goals are more better than worse :)

2)About imposing...I'd have to say that they don't really have a choice. If we pull out, I would fear Israel, India, Russia, or even Europe would just start nuking if something went down out there. I may be a crazy, but even Chirac said he'd nuke Iran if he had to, so I don't know...

Paul, The key quest... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Paul,
The key question for you is whether you want to fight AlQuaeda or not. AlQ is in Iraq now and they claimed that Iraq is their central battle. So basically you don't want to fight AlQ since you want to run from Iraq, right?

Good point, Tony. I think ... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

Good point, Tony. I think that we need to recognize that our stated objectives probably are not realistic and we need to get others involved in working out a workable division of power in Iraq. As I said above, I think that eventually Iraq will go the way of Yugoslavia and be divided into its long-standing ethnic regions. When we can get the Sunnis and Shia to quit shooting at each other (and us) and can secure the Kurds from Turkish invasion, then things can settle down and, together with the local and regional governmental groups, work to get rid of any outside terrorists. The current situation is, indeed, a powderkeg and it's got to be resolved before something really terrible happens.

LAI, they can CLAIM whateve... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

LAI, they can CLAIM whatever they want. As I said in the note to Tony above, the solution to terrorism is to recognize the ethnic and political realities of the region and work toward stability. Our current goal of "a democratic Iraq" is going nowhere and contributing to the threat of terrorists more than solving it.

And keep in mind that NONE of the warring parties likes al Qaeda -- they only continue to operate because of the chaos.

LAI, they can CLAIM whateve... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

LAI, they can CLAIM whatever they want. As I said in the note to Tony above, the solution to terrorism is to recognize the ethnic and political realities of the region and work toward stability. Our current goal of "a democratic Iraq" is going nowhere and contributing to the threat of terrorists more than solving it.
And keep in mind that NONE of the warring parties likes al Qaeda -- they only continue to operate because of the chaos.
--------------------------------------------------
These warring parties have started fighting AlQ already and they also asked the US to stay and help them to fight AlQ.

Looks like only liberals like you don't want to fight AlQ now.

>>These warring parties hav... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

>>These warring parties have started fighting AlQ already and they also asked the US to stay and help them to fight AlQ.

Maybe they realize that mentioning AQ will trigger a kneejerk response in some Americans. But I have a very difficult time justifying helping someone who is shooting at us and blowing us up at the same time. Neither side has shown a thing to indicate they are really our friends -- all they want is for us to do some of their fighting for them.

Gotta go, guys -- it's been fun discussing but the real world is calling... :)

From the same USA today art... (Below threshold)
Sig:

From the same USA today article which Lorie quoted

"However, U.S. military casualties have jumped to record-high levels as more troops are put in harm's way. Violence has surged in some areas outside the capital. Iraq's government has yet to pass any of the major legislative changes that Bush said were necessary for an enduring peace between the Sunni and Shiite sects."

Loire writes 'Most Democrats, and almost all the media, don't understand this, but the way to measure progress there is not in daily U.S. military death counts.'

So do tell Lorie, how do we measure success in Iraq? Are you going to do the TOny Snow lie, that the more violence that happens means more progress is being made?

How many schools got painted today?


Sig, YOurs is a typ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Sig,
YOurs is a typical liberal cherry picking (at the same time liberals can claim that Bush cherry picked intelligence). In the article (USA Today is a liberal newspaper), they have both areas of progress and areas of concern (pros/cons). Looks like liberals are only interested in excuses not to fight AlQuaeda.

This may be another reason ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

This may be another reason why Pelosi took it out on the troops.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dod-braces-for-a-fight-with-pelosi-2007-06-14.html

DoD braces for a fight with Pelosi
By Mike Soraghan
June 14, 2007
Pentagon officials are bracing for a fight with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) over her desire to allow lawmakers' adult children to tag along on taxpayer-funded travel for free

"Daniel Benjamin in _Sla... (Below threshold)

"Daniel Benjamin in _Slate_ as far back as August 29, 2003 (see "Condi's Phony History," http://slate.msn.com/id/2087768/, in which Benjamin points out, among other things, that there were no post-surrender American combat casualties in Germany or Japan"

McCullogh, I hope you're limited to home schooling which will ensure that your level of ignorance "stays in the family."

NO post-war casualties? Really? And you learned that from that paradigm of truth Slate Magazine? The only contributor with full mental capacity is Camille Paglia and, even though I disagree with her on many issues, I can't understand why someone with a first-rate mind like hers would write for that third-rate rag.

Try this link for a history Japanese fighting after World War II. No huge American casualties, I'll grant, but the postwar days were not as rosy as Benjamin imagines them to have been.

My dad arrived at Guam a couple of weeks after the war was over. For the next year, they endured regular sniper fire, occasional mortar attacks, and even the destruction of an American ammo depot by the Japanese. American troops were killed.

I appreciate your concern about my level of ignorance but I would suggest that you address your own ignorance first.

Hey Love america Ignorant, ... (Below threshold)
Sig:

Hey Love america Ignorant, perhaps you should have quoted the second line in the Hill article

"Pelosi wants them to be able to fill the role of lawmakers' spouses when the latter are unable to make a trip because of health issues or work commitments."

In other words, only in cases when the spouse cant come along, in other words, rare cases, i.e. not all the time.

But since your so blinded by your slobbering rage against anything Democrat, it figures you always look before you leap and always end up looking like a complete fool in the process.


And Micheal Mcloligh said

"Are you aware that we lost approximately 10,000 troops in Germany in the 4 years after they surrendered?"

Please cite proof of this assertion.

Sig, YOu simply can... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Sig,
YOu simply cannot be honest. You are now willing to support the liberal culture of corruption by Pelosi. Even try to excuse her to make new perks for members of congress. So much for your concern about the culture of corruption. You will defend it as long as it is a liberal corruption. Looks like liberals like you are not surprised but will defend it at any cost. You can be proud of your liberal culture of corruption.

In the same article

But taxpayer watchdog groups and ethics advocates said they were surprised Pelosi would seek more perks for members.
"One of the things she was praised for when she came in was her sweeping reforms on gifts and travel," said Craig Holman of Public Citizen. "It is very disheartening if she is, in fact, backsliding on this."

That's why you should ne... (Below threshold)

That's why you should never rush to war as we did in 2003.

Paul, you're a smart guy and the only anti-war poster to this thread for whom I have intellectual respect. However, you're quite wrong on the issue of us rushing to war. Almost 2 years elapsed from 9/11 to the allies launching the war against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Do you not remember the endless debates, the UN resolutions, the repeated inspections, and Iraq shooting at US jets over the no-fly zones?

Here's a link to quotes about Iraq from prominent Democrats in the 1990s and early 2000s. Funny how neither they nor the mainstream media seem to remember those quotes now. Also check out this 1992 video of Al Gore chastising President George H. W. Bush for not acknowledging the ties between Saddam and terrorists. Watch for the next Gore interviewer/admirer to ask him about this speech -- when pigs fly.

The question you need to be asking is why Democrats and their buddies in the mainstream media so bent on re-writing history.

"And Micheal Mcloligh said<... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"And Micheal Mcloligh said

"Are you aware that we lost approximately 10,000 troops in Germany in the 4 years after they surrendered?"

Please cite proof of this assertion."

WHY?

Do you ask the same of your Traitorous Coward Leadership?

Did you ever attend school or are you just a victim of democrats dumming down the flock?

Rob, I know you are one of ... (Below threshold)
Sig:

Rob, I know you are one of the more dim-witted posters here, but let me type really slowly and see if you can understand.

If you make a wild assertion that over 10000 US troops died after the official end of WW2, that demands proof.

If I said the same thing, you and every other slobbering moron would be screaming their fat heads off.

'Do you ask the same of your Traitorous Coward Leadership?'

Do you actually make this stuff up or do you get it somewhere else? Are all lonely bitter single men as dumb as you, at least in LA?

"Please cite proof of th... (Below threshold)
Rob Should Be A Lawyer:

"Please cite proof of this assertion."

WHY?

Looks like the liberals are... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Looks like the liberals are trying to find a distraction from the terrorist-cheering rhetoric of Reid/Pelosi and their liberal culture of corruption.

Reid can call our generals liars and imcompetent. Yet he didn't seem to have any strong words for the terrorists. These people are a joke and liberals on this thread still defend them at any cost.

Hey Love American Ignoramus... (Below threshold)
Sig:

Hey Love American Ignoramus, the story cited by Lorie is a lie, fake, not true, etc.

Even Tony Snow couldn't admit it was true today, and every single blogger who was on that conference call did not hear Reid say that.

But you are the base that loves the red meat. You don't care if it's true or not, it just gives idiots like you another chance to bleat something stupid, like Reid hates the troops, duhhhhhh.

Maybe you need some remedial English reading comprehension or something.

Michael said:>>Do yo... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

Michael said:
>>Do you not remember the endless debates, the UN resolutions, the repeated inspections, and Iraq shooting at US jets over the no-fly zones?

The debates were one-sided and totally dominated by the White House. UN resolutions, yes, but certainly nothing that endorsed our invasion. Inspections -- absolutely! They were ongoing and revealed nothing sinister. The only reasons the inspectors left was because the invasion was imminent. And shooting at our planes, no. I know they "lit up" our planes with radar, for which we retaliated by blowing up the installations, but I don't recall any actual shooting. I might have forgotten, though, so if you have something, I'd be glad to see it.

And yeah, I know all about the subservient attitudes of the Dems toward any whim of Bush after the 9-11 attacks. It was absolutely shameful how they just surrendered their responsibility for oversight and reasonable opposition. Those were days when Bush was completely untouchable politically and as a result, he got a free pass on just about everything. I didn't believe at the time and still don't believe today that any rational justification existed for us to invade. Saddam allowed inspectors in and they were doing their jobs. Saddam wasn't threatening anybody in any way. And most importantly of all, Saddam had ZIP to do with 9-11.

The truth is that there is ample evidence that Bush spoke about attacking Iraq starting in 1998 and surrounded himself with a cadre of like-thinkers on the subject. On September 11, 2001, Rummy started talking about attacking Iraq even though it was obvious that the attack came from al Qaeda, which was based in Afghanistan.

And so I believe that 9-11 was simply the excuse Bush needed to go ahead with plans he'd already made and it's to the Democrats' eternal shame that they allowed him to get away with it.

Incidentally, I lost all respect for my own senator, Evan Bayh, when he made sure he was standing right next to Bush during one of his Rose Garden pep talks in the days leading up to the war. Like so many of his compatriots, he's now AGAINST the war, but lacked the courage to even expect that proper justification be required back then.

Hey SIG:Time for you... (Below threshold)
Thomas Jackson:

Hey SIG:
Time for you to goose step to your Koskiddies marching tune because Reid has said it on television but whom should we believe you or our lying eyes?

You can always count of the fifth column to advocate pre emptive surrender and watch as these chickens consign millions to death camps while they cheer on the dictator of the month.

Whoever heard of a leftwing patriot? Oops I forgot fighting John Murtha, the arab bank runner and mighty John Kerry the scourge of badly wounded VC everywhere or McGovern who loved dropping bombs on civilian targets and my all time favorite JFK, the only man in history to have his PT boat rammed and sunk. A man so derelict in his duties he escaped court martial only due to the intervention of his father and cronies.

Some things never change. Like the dhimmiecrats moral compass.

"Rob, I know you are one of... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"Rob, I know you are one of the more dim-witted posters here, but let me type really slowly and see if you can understand."

I BELIEVE YOU BELIEVE THAT.


"Do you actually make this stuff up or do you get it somewhere else?"

Neither. Could it be that that is how you opperate? Why do you ask?
Are you just a run of the mill democrat idiot?

"But since your so blinded by your slobbering rage against anything Democrat, it figures you always look before you leap and always end up looking like a complete fool in the process."

Say what? You are supposed to LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP. Are you confused or what because "your" showing signs of mental fatigue or is it OMG! he got BDS, run for lives.

You think LAI is blinded and full of rage against anything Democrat? LOL that is hilarious. Pull your head out of your ass a little more cause you haven't read shit. Oh and by the way , I am still registered democratic.

Are feeling ok ? need a time out? more time to respond? Just asking because I care.

"Imagine if all the money w... (Below threshold)

"Imagine if all the money we're spending in Iraq was dedicated to improving domestic security."

We've *got* the money. We've got more than enough money. We've got all the money we could possibly need to turn this into a totally secure police state.

Yes, Paul, I can imagine that.

We need to address the root causes, the reasons that radical religionists are attacking civilians throughout the world, trains and subways or discos, gassing marketplaces and blowing up mosques. We have enough money to do that, too.

Since I don't want to live in a police state and the reality of a truly global economy and community makes a bunker-nation doubly unpleasant, I prefer we solve the problems instead of just going into defensive mode, hiding at home, hoping they don't hurt us while they slaughter all of those other people elsewhere.

Side note of a curious natu... (Below threshold)

Side note of a curious nature...

Why is "red meat" considered an insult? Beef, darling, red in the middle, right off the grill. What about this is negative?

Why is a strong, manly, father figure considered an insult? What is negative about masculinity?

Hamilton, you made a statem... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Hamilton, you made a statement up above here that said the goal in Viet Nam was not worth any more American lives. It was not costing American lives when the Democrats pull support of the South Vietnamese government out from under them. Without that support the South was not able to continue a fight they were holding there own in. South Vietnam fell in 1975. Well after the last US Troop had departed. The loyal democrats did not want a Republican plan to work. Nothing changes does it?

"The question you need t... (Below threshold)
putting food on your family:

"The question you need to be asking is why Democrats and their buddies in the mainstream media so bent on re-writing history" Michael McCullogh

I almost choked as I read the above from Mr. History who avowed earlier today that there were 10,000 Americans killed in the post-war German occupation.

It would appear that you, Michael, are the past master at history rewrites.

"I appreciate your conce... (Below threshold)
putting food on your family:

"I appreciate your concern about my level of ignorance but I would suggest that you address your own ignorance first." Michael McCullogh

You are the one who claimed 10K American deaths in post-war Germany. What I cited above was from a UCSB professor's pre-course reading abouth the issue that you made up out of whole clothe in your original post.

Attacking a reference to Slate mag is just a BS response. You didn't respond to the professor's outline. You illogically attacked one of his cited sources.

People like you are dumb enough to be Republicans because you simply dismiss whatever doesn't
already fit the level of ignorance that you want to maintain.

If human learning and advancement had depended on know-nothings like you, we would still be knuckle-walking and communicating in grunts. Have you upgraded your cave-dwelling lately?


Oh, and Lorie, here are som... (Below threshold)
putting food on your family:

Oh, and Lorie, here are some more signs of progress(?) from the Pentagon Report issued Wednesday.

"Three months into the new U.S. military strategy that has sent of tens of thousands of additional troops into Iraq, overall levels of violence in the country have not decreased..."

Check the link above if you're ready to read & weeap. But it is from the Smirker's very own DoD.

"People like you are dumb e... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"People like you are dumb enough to be Republicans because you simply dismiss whatever doesn't
already fit the level of ignorance that you want to maintain."

Why do you dumb democrats always accuse Republicans of doing what in fact democrats are doing or being in fact what most democrats are , ignorant and stupid?

Do you need someone else to aswer that question for you? Will you call your local democrat Rep for a response? Or is your comune going to have to vote on the best response to this question?

"In Baghdad, a majority of ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"In Baghdad, a majority of residents report that militias act in the best interests of the Iraqi people,"

"In Anbar, attacks dropped by about a third, compared with the previous three months, as Sunni tribes have organized against entrenched fighters from Al-Qaida in Iraq, the report said."

"Sectarian killings and attacks dropped sharply from February to Apri"

" Violence fell in Baghdad and Anbar provinces, where the bulk of the 28,700 more U.S. troops are located, but escalated in eastern and northern Iraq."

I can play that game too you whiny fraud .

You should call yourself "putting poison in your food". You are shameless democrat hack. You are a liar, the link from the Pentagon Report issued Wednesday that you claimed is nothing but an opinion piece from the Wash Post. Unlike your idiot bretheren we can read and don't need a democrat hack to tell us their version of what we can read for ourselves.

Your stupid leaders do not even bother to attend the Briefings given by the Commanders. They should be taken out and shot in the head for all I care. They are not doing anything for my Coutry at all , they have proven incapable of protecting this Country and so far anything they said they would if they were put in power in the Mid term.

We knew it was a lie then and like Murtha says: "there's no question about it" now. democrats lied smeared and deceived their way into power once again. That is what they do , rewrite history , lie , put on show trials to transform republicans into democrat criminals then say see they are worse than us. You know the democrats have reached are at the lowest most despicable point in their existence when all the have left is "Transference". Accusing Republicans of what in fact they are engaged in along with relentless lies and smears.

I hearby declare democrats the enemy of the United States of America. Why don't you cowards come out and fight for what you think belongs to only you or STFU. Stupid criminal frauds.

The inmates in LA have been... (Below threshold)
putting food on your family:

The inmates in LA have been let out of their padded cells again.

The liberals surely do not ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

The liberals surely do not disappoint. They are either dumb or dishonest. The liberals on this thread simply want the US to fail. As I said, the liberals encouraged the terrorists to blow up more women/children. Just increase the killing the women and children anywhere in Iraq (avoid the US and Iraq military). Just find defenseless women/children and kill as many as they can. The liberals are ready to assist the terrorists in proclaiming that the war is lost.

One thing we know for sure that liberals don't want to fight AlQueada. Since AlQ is in Iraq now, so liberals had to run from Iraq. But it seems like liberals are wishing for AlQ to succedd in Iraq. What a despicable sewage!

<a href="http://stickerpatc... (Below threshold)
La Mano:
Free Frank Warner wa... (Below threshold)
George:
Paul,First, I cann... (Below threshold)

Paul,

First, I cannot verify the number of allied deaths in Germany after World War II. All I can verify is that some Americans were killed after the war in Germany (also here)and in formerly Japanese-held territories after the war (link provided earlier). I now believe that the 10,000 deaths that I read about last week was greatly exaggerated and I apologize.

Thank you for holding my feet to the fire. I demand accuracy from myself no less than I do from the mainstream media. In fact, I had a small but important role in the phony Dan Rather documents story some 6 months before the story broke nationally. If the Dallas Morning News had listened to me and done their fact-checking, Dan Rather would still be employed today. Sorry that my blog is broken but I'm far too busy now to fix it.

As for your question whether US planes were fired upon in the no-fly zone prior to the Iraq war, it is true that they were fired upon and not just lit up by radar.

Regarding the UN, the reason they weren't behind the US-led invasion is because UN leaders were skimming money off the top for themselves. Even more reason as to why we should not have gone to the UN in the first place and why we should get out of the UN now. France, Russia, and China also benefitted financially from the program, as did Saddam himself. Why go to our supposed allies to obtain support for the war when they would benefit financially by avoiding war?

As far the UN Inspectors, they left Iraq in 1998 before President Clinton began bombing what he believed to be facilities used to produce WMDs. They were only let into Iraq again between November 2002 and March 2003. During both stays in Iraq, they were continuously misled, harassed, hampered, and lied to by the Iraqis.

Check out the repository of captured Iraqi documents. Read some and then ask yourself why this information has not been reported in the mainstream media. The answer, of course, is that such a thing would go against their "prime agenda" of discrediting Bush no matter how many lies they have to tell.

Remember that President Clinton gained approval from NATO but not the UN when he led the country into the war in Bosnia. If Clinton didn't have to gain UN approval to go to war, why should Bush have had to gain UN approval to go to war? That's a double standard -- something which the Democrats and the mainstream media don't seem to mind at all.

Finally, regarding the quotes of Democrats on Iraq prior to WWII which I posted earlier, please go back and read the dates. Note that many of the comments were made in the 1990s. We have 3 logical possibilities as to why they made those comments long before Bush was president:

1. The evil Bush, Cheney, and Rove somehow convinced the Clinton Administration that the Iraqis had WMDs and posed a threat.

2. The Iraqis never possessed WMDs in the 1990s, even though they had already used them against their own people and claimed to inspectors that they had destroyed some.

3. President Cinton's WMD intelligence was correct -- as was President Bush's intelligence -- and the Iraqis really did possess WMDs. Note that Clinton signed a piece of legislation in 1998 holding that regime change in Iraq was the official policy of the United States.

I choose Door #3. Now the question everyone ought to be asking is where did the WMDs go before the war? The mainstream media has conveniently ignored the book and speeches by Georges Sada, one of Saddam's top generals, who claims that the WMD were transferred to Syria before the war.

I think that it's likely that Israel will engage in war with Syria and possibly Iran, even if by proxy, sometime this summer. If Damascus is in dire straits, we may see some of those WMDs used against Israel.

Best regards,

-Mike

Thanks Mike. That... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

Thanks Mike.

That article about leaflets was very lengthy. I didn't see where it said we were fired on, but I'll take your word for it. In any case, I'll agree that tracking our planes could be considered a hostile act since it greatly reduces the amount of time a pilot would have to react and save himself if they pushed the "fire" button.

It's true that the inspectors left in 1998 but it's also true they returned and were doing their jobs without interference from Saddam. It bugs me that the defenders of the invasion often say that even if the inspectors couldn't find any evidence of WMDs, it still wasn't good enough because Iraq was supposed to provide proof of their destruction. But considering that we bombed all the places where such records would have been kept as well as many of the facilities themselves, that was just about an impossible standard. I'm sure that Bush was aware of that and kept it back as a trump card in case nothing turned up.

Regarding the corruption in the oil-for-food program, you'll get no argument from me. But if you want to talk about other nations profiting from Saddam's regime -- and again, no argument from me -- you must also agree that it gave *us* a motive to invade as well. I heard the argument early on that this was going to be a "free invasion" since the oil Iraq produced would cover our military costs.

I didn't support our actions in Bosnia either. For the record, the only military action our country has been involved in in my adult life (which goes back to the late 60s) was Afghanistan, and instead of going in and cleaning house the way we should have, we just half-assed around and used unreliable proxy forces.

Regarding Saddam's WMDs, you are correct that he HAD them at one point, but Desert Storm put that operation out of business. Iraq became a the sort of easy political target that folks in Washington love. You can pass resolutions that they're terrible people and it makes you look tough. So it's not surprising that Democrats were lining up right along with the Republicans to take their shots at Saddam. But there's a big difference between kicking a political football and getting ourselves involved in a poorly-planned, unilateral invasion and occupation. Although I didn't like it at the time, Desert Storm was the perfect way to handle someone like Saddam. We had the whole world, and especially Saddam's neighbors, behind us and we went in with a specific mission and enough forces to do that job. It was a huge success, even more than the public realized because it turned out to have totally destroyed Saddam's ability to wage offensive war or produce WMDs, even a dozen years later.

I dont buy the argument that Saddam still had WMDs after 1991 and transferred them anywhere. Something like that would have been spotted and we had the tightest surveillance on him of any nation on earth. Besides that, all the facilities where such devices could have been manufactured or maintained -- and they DO require ongoing maintenance -- were inspected and found to have been unused since Desert Storm. To me, the bottom line is that the first Gulf War was a resounding success. We not only got his forces out of Kuwait, but our bombing campaign in Iraq destroyed his ability to menace anyone else.

Regarding wars against other countries in the region, I think that will be very unlikely. For now, we're tied up in Iraq. I'm sure Bush *thought* that this would be a cakewalk and allow us to set up a secure military presence in the region as a stepping stone for further adventures later on, but obviously that has not happened. Iran is not a hollow shell like Iraq was and attacking them would be a complete disaster. I find it odd that we would think about attacking Syria when they have been one of the nations we sent prisoners to to be tortured. I think the visit by the Dems and by Condi mark a recognition of political reality that even if we don't LIKE what's going on, we can't do anything about it, at least until we disengage from Iraq and rebuild our forces. Even then, like Vietnam did a couple generations ago, I hope the American people will realize that war is not something to be entered into lightly. We need to ask what it is about Syria that would justify our starting a war with them, and I think the bar would be set very high. That's a GOOD thing.

And finally, we need to remember that a lot of the hubbub in the mideast is not even directed against the United States -- it's fighting within the Islamic community, of which the current mess in Gaza as well as the fighting in Iraq are perfect examples. Sometimes there are geopolitical shifts. I believe this one started about 1980 with the rise of Ayatollah Khomeni (sp?) and the formation of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. Fundamental Islam is seeking it's place in the order of things, but rather than seeing it as a global threat, as most hard line conservatives do, I see them trying to gain power within states which are already Islamic. And our ability to control the outcome is limited. IMHO, the best thing we can do is not give the radicals more fuel for the fire. We should HELP moderate Islamic states economically and work with them to control any radical terrorists within their borders. Actions such as the invasion of Iraq only plays into the hand of the nuts by handing them propaganda victories and destabling the whole region.

So we need to learn how to deal with this just as we have learned to deal with other changes in the past. And I'm sure we'll do it so long as we think things out and make rational choices.

General Petraeus (yes th... (Below threshold)
Brian:

General Petraeus (yes the same one Harry Reid has called a liar and most recently incompetent)

Oh no! Another right-wing feeding frenzy is shown to be a lie. That's what you get for continuing to believe Drudge. But I guess you can't help yourselves.

Please sign petition to She... (Below threshold)

Please sign petition to Shell to stop doing business with terrorist regime of Iran!
http://www.terrorfreeoil.org/projects/petition_shell.php

If you have a website, please feel free to post the petition.




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