In Sistani We Trust.
=========

In the end, Iraq was a victory, but it remains to be seen to what degree.

Move those goalposts further. This will be the new GOP slogan...We won, we're just not sure what...yet

I agree we should work towards a drawdown in troops, but only as the Iraqis are able to defend their own territory.

To set an arbitrary date would be to give the terrorists hope that all they must do is hold out until that date and then they can go on a rampage again.

To withdraw prematurely, either by an arbitrary date or through the actions of a Congress with a wide yellow streak down its back, would be to become implicit in genocide. Even the NY Slimes admits that genocide is what would happen if we left early.

The current strategy, of which the "Troop Surge" is only the first phase, is predicated on both clearing an area for the Iraqi forces to take over as the primary (but not only) armed forces in the that area. This permits more of the American forces to clear another area, as well as giving the Iraqi troops actual combat experience, something many of them are sorely lacking.

Once a few Iraqi units have been "blooded" and have shown that they are able to control an area, even the US troops that were there as backup can move on. Eventually, the Iraqi troops will be holding the entire country and we can bring our boys home, victorious! (Of course, the lefties want nothing less than victorious soldiers coming home, because the lefties see an American victory as a loss for their worldview... and besides, those soldiers might think they were actually worthwhile people, which all lefties know is untrue--to a lefty, a soldier is automatically a rapist and murderer. But enough of channeling a lefty.)

That's how you do a drawdown. Not "We're gonna pull them out 1 April 2008 no matter what."

It may take one year, it may take 5, it may take 10. But if we want to avoid genocide, it must be done.

Good post, not to be picky, but it is:

Office of the Iraq Programme
Oil-for-Food

Not Food-for Oil.
DKK

AS you are aware..today Republicans voted against cloture on a Webb/Hagel bill that supported our troops and their families.
This bill was simple...regular troops should be given the same time months away from Iraq as they spend in Iraq. It also required time away from Iraq for the Reserves.

Don't ever let me hear "We support the troops" from anyone who voted against this. Don't ever let me hear "We support the troops" from any here who support this action by Republicans...

This measure was a simple recognition that we are sending our brave men and women back to combat without rest. Without contact with their families...I am sure all here over 50 supporting our troops served during Viet Nam You know combat war limited to one tour unless volunteer.
For those here under 42? Join up! You all(what now 30% of America?)believe in this this...put your ass where your rhetoric is...
Where is your sacrifice?...We are now spending 12 Billion $$ a month. Where is your call to pay more taxes to support this?
I can understand your fear in not joining..but you are not willing to pay higher taxes?
These men here who served there showed more courage by going...and more courage after they came home than any of you
Denver...July 4th
http://picasaweb.google.com/cblikeshikes/OperationFirstCasualtyDenver/photo#s5083489327493585186

Every day...the first place you should visit is
http://icasualties.org/oif/

Forget Dan Rather...Bush could have done like hundreds of thousands of us did and go to Viet Nam...he was trained but never volunteered...
But as least he served...unlike the coward Cheney...unlike so many here...who would probably not make it through boot camp...
We will leave because America demands it...but each day of delay brings more unnecessary dead

For those here under 42? Join up! You all(what now 30% of America?)believe in this this...put your ass where your rhetoric is...

I am medically ineligible for service due to a genetic disability (hemophilia, if you must know). I learned when I tried to sign up for the Navy (sorry, Matt, not the Marine Corps).

Does that make me a coward in your book, Nogo?

Does that mean I can't comment on wars?

Should we only permit those who have served to vote on when we start and end a war, Nogo? I know at least one Senator from New York wouldn't be eligible under that, and possibly both.

Ya gotta think through all the possible ramifications of a concept before you put fingers to keyboard, Nogo.

Nogo

Your chicken hawk argument is an intentional attempt to

A) Distract from DJ's very well written post and,

B) Diminish the efficacy of the civilian argument, that is to say that CIVILIANS determine military policy in this country and always have.

Some of those civilians have prior military experience; some do not. And to put the foundation of your entire polemic on the former is to bet your hand against the combined and considered judgment of our Founders.

Of course not...I don't expect anyone to join...but this is a very expensive endeavor. It has to be paid for. We should have a "War Tax" ..an additional tax to pay for this..
If our brave men and women can put their life on the line...we can surely pony up a few bucks to support them

Nogo, I will support a war tax if you anti-war folks will agree to stop saying negative things about our men and women in uniform.

Is that a deal?

Oh, and am I a coward in your book, Nogo?

War Tax?

Let's make that a revenue neutral War Tax. Should we offset it with carbon credits or earmarks?

"I would suggest as I begin, that in my experience few people on the Left are willing to test their own assumptions..."

Ummm...we have had no choice but to actually watch the slow motion train wreck. It tested our assumptions with American lives.

I have never said anything negative about my fellow vets...but as Bush/Cheney do not wear a uniform...nor the Republicans who voted against supporting our troops and their families by their vote today do not wear a uniform I will criticize them...
Point of information in supporting the troops...Did you know a troop who is given a medical discharge due to injuries sustained in combat has to forfeit a % of their college funds because they did not fulfill their 4 year obligation?
True fact...

Nogo, has there ever been a President or Vice President who wore the uniform while in office?

Spin, Nogo, spin!

I am sure all here over 50 supporting our troops served during Viet Nam You know combat war limited to one tour unless volunteer.

Not going to bite on that nogo for reasons stated above.

I do know that my late father sailed on a ship in January 1942 and returned in 1946. There was much discussion of multiple tours then, but a ready acceptance of duty, and I am forever grateful for his sacrifice. Our men and women serving today are making a similar sacrifice and they have my gratitude. They choose to accomplish the goal, complete the mission and I would never insult their legacy by abandonong them now.

From the Paper of Pelosi, I found this interesting:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/08/25/MNGTI8DG0R17.DTL

"I learned when I tried to sign up for the Navy (sorry, Matt, not the Marine Corps)."

You should be.

"Move those goalposts further. This will be the new GOP slogan...We won, we're just not sure what...yet"

I ask this question yet again. Do you actually serve, or do you criticize from the sidelines like everyone else?

Hey, Nogo, some more Presidential questions:

It's fairly well known that Lincoln was a captain in the Illinois militia... did he ever see combat?

Did Woodrow Wilson, our President during World War I, ever serve in the military?

Did FDR, our President during World War II, ever serve in the military?

Yes, we've had Presidents with military service, some, like Harry Truman, even oversaw wars. But it is by no means necessary, since some of our finest wartime Presidents have had no military experience at all. (As a war-fighter, I have to give FDR his due, he knew what he was doing. I still disagree with his domestic programs, tho.)

Matt, you've seen pics of me... can you see me as a Marine with a crewcut?

A sailor I might have been able to pull off, tho.

To me, it's all very simple. Victory in Iraq can be defined by two standards: Is the region more politically-stable than it was before the invasion and was the threat of terrorists reduced.

By both standards, the war is a failure.

If those heh heh Eye-rackee folks know what's good for them heh heh they'll sign that Oil Revenue Sharing Agreement muy pronto -- we wouldn't anyone to get heh heh . . . hurt.

Paul, we're not done yet.

One does not declare victory or defeat until all nine innings have been played.

If you truly want a defeat, you pull your team out before the last out of the ninth inning.

If you want a victory, you stay in there.

Even a Little Leaguer knows that. Why don't you?

Interesting comments everyone though listening to Hugh Hewitt's show tonight which featured a lot of people who had served or were serving in Iraq now, the people over there still don't see the same politicized picture on Iraq that the rest of us do. Some people really need to take a deep breath on all this.

Nogo, why do you post so much brazenly false information in your comments? Bush did volunteer for Vietnam. Mapes, the one who pushed the forged memos about Bush's service, actually found out that Bush had volunteered to be deployed to Vietnam with the unit of F102's sent there, but she deliberately withheld that information as part of the Democrat-sponsored libel campaign against Bush by CBS.

Repeating false slanders as you only shows your lack of credibility.

That's a fair question, CCG. My answer is that when we invaded without adequate forces or a proper plan, we were irretrievably set on a course that would end in failure. When we removed Saddam and his power structure with no means to provide stability in its place, the certain result was chaos and civil war between the rival religious groups that make up the majority of the country. And we simply don't have the power to significantly affect the outcome of such a conflict. So we can either be collateral damage in the fighting between the Shia and the Sunnis, or we can get out. Either way, the fighting will continue until a political equilibrium is reached.

Regarding the issue of the terrorists, I'm sure you've read the reports today that al Qaeda is pretty much back to it's pre-9-11 strength in Afghanistan, and the reason is because the troops who should be over there establishing a proper government and rooting out the terrorists is tied up and worn out from what I believe to be a pointless effort in Iraq. Osama could not possibly ask for a better situation. Not only is his former base of operations returning to it's tribal state, our resolve to deal with the terrorists has been stretched to it's very limits in a war which was sold to the public as being about the terrorists but turned out to have no beneficial effect on that campaign at all.

It's really a shame. We had both national and global unity to go in and transform Afghanistan and Bush decided that meant we should invade Iraq.

Paul -

Well, well said.

Interesting comments everyone though listening to Hugh Hewitt's show tonight which featured a lot of people who had served or were serving in Iraq now

I heard Hugh last night also. All the callers related that they were still supporting victory in Iraq, except the last caller who thought we should leave now. Though, I didn't think he was very enthusiastic about it.

The proof in the insanity in this post is the strength of al Queda, now back to pre 9-11 levels. Consequences of Bushs 7th grade level incompetence in battling fundamentalist cults and submissive supporters or should I say "prison bitches" like Mr. Drummond, who although eloquent, is dead dead wrong.

It's really a shame. We had both national and global unity to go in and transform Afghanistan and Bush decided that meant we should invade Iraq.

Actually, a number of the people complaining about Iraq have slipped up and admitted that they would want us out of Afghanistan also. If we had left Saddam in power in Iraq we would not have to worry about Afghanistan because the terrorist now infecting "Waziristan" on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border would have had safe haven in Iraq.

It is funny that the left likes to pretend that they would be for fighting in Afghanistan when all their statements of what they really want to do militate against it.

DJ, I agree with most of your thesis. Except the liberals NEVER wanted this mission to succeed. When we entered Iraq, we prevailed and there was a lull in the action then the looting started. At that point, the left came out in force. "It's a quagmire", "we're killing people for oil", "Cheney wants to fatten Halliburtons wallet", "Bush lied people died", etc. This is almost from the start. Now they are acting like they have been patient and are now only saying we lost this war. The liberals wanted to lose this war. They hate GW so much, anything he touches they don't want. The full damage from the liberals actions will not be immediately known for years to come, but suffice it to say that future actions will be severely hampered because both parties will not want to get involved. It is pathetic to watch the liberals on this site act as if they are deliberative and reasoned about Iraq when they have demonstrated just the opposite for years. I will say mainstream democrats and republicans would do well to listen to one another. Good ideas are being floated.

If the insurgents know if they reduce the violence we will leave. Why won't they? Because they don't hate us as much as democracy. We all know our leaving will result in thousand upon thousands of deaths. I put all those deaths on the hands of the liberals. They asked for it, they got it.

And another point, I am tired of hearing how the liberals support our troops. They never have and never will. They are just quoting a bumper sticker. ww

Mr. Hamilton, since you did me the honor of replying in a cordial tone, I shall return the honor.

You say we did not go in with a "plan." This leads me to ask several questions in order to achieve a historical overview of past successes and failures. (The Socratic method, if you will.)

Did we have a "plan" in the Revolutionary War? If so, what was it?

Did we have a "plan" in the War of 1812? If so, what was it?

Did we have a "plan" in the Civil War (either side)? If so, what was it (or were they)?

Did we have a "plan" in World War I? If so, what was it?

Did we have a "plan" in World War II? If so, what was it?

Did we have a "plan" in Korea? If so, what was it?

In point of fact, the only war in which we had a "plan" other than "win" was Vietnam. In that war, as in none before it, political desires overruled military decisions to a greater extent than ever before. In all the other wars prior, the politicians gave the military a much freer hand.

Even I, who never served, know the military axion "No plan survives contact with the enemy." In short, you cannot depend on the enemy to do precisely what your well-thought-out "plan" says he will do. When he deviates from your prediction of his behavior, your "plan" pretty much goes out the window.

Thus it is in all wars. Plans have to be scrapped or modified according to the enemy's actions. Thus it has been with this war. The enemy has done things that, for whatever reason, we did not consider. Therefore, we have had to adapt our plans to his actions.

Doing this is not a sign of failure. It is the only way to achieve victory.

C-C-G - we definitely had a plan at the beginning of the Civil War. General-in-chief Winfield Scott executed his "anaconda" strategy to strangle the South by isolating Southern ports and driving down the rivers in 1861.

The blockade of Southern ports continued throughout the war, and Ulysses S. Grant was ultimately the one who carried out and won the river war in '62-63.

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 07/12/2007
A short recon of what's out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.