These are some ground realities from the surge..this short video/doc shows our troops as brave and compassionate.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/video/page/0,,2125978,00.html

War is a horrible thing. It should not be loved by anyone.

"The American people will have to understand . . ."

Those that already "love" the "war" -- that would be the War-cheerleading Republicans -- TOTALLY FAILED in initially selling the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Overwhelming support for an occupation of a country needs to be garnered BEFORE the invasion of it.

Adrian, if they failed on "selling" the invasion, how did we get there in the first place? And should we list all of the "war-cheerleading" democrats that "sold" the invasion and voted for it also?

This is a good article but I have a couple problems with its assumptions.

First, I don't believe the Maliki government has EVER had legitimacy. We invaded, swept through the country, and occupied Baghdad. But we never stablized Baghdad -- there were what the White House called "celebrations," which were really riots and looting, starting on day one and it's never stopped since. As the chaos has continued, to all appearances very few Iraqis have chosen to follow the Maliki government and most have sided with either the Sunni or Shia insurgents. So while there might be a government in the Green Zone, obviously it lacks the ability to enforce order anywhere in Iraq.

Second, I said in a note last week that I would consider strategic victory in Iraq to be a situation where there is greater stability in the region and the terrorists' ability to do their dirty work is diminished. On a more tactical level, I would consider it to be a victory when ordinary citizens accept the authority of a government and allow it to do the sort of day-to-day activities mentioned in the story rather than devote all their efforts to fighting insurgents. I'm really beginning to wonder whether or not a single central government will ever have that sort of legitimacy in the minds of the people.

Like Tito in Yugoslavia, Saddam had the ability to hold Iraq together because he was a dictator, but when you have groups which are not just different, but actually hostile to one another within a border, that is a real obstacle to the establishment of a democratic form of government. American Republicans and Democrats might not like each other, but they aren't shooting at each other, and that's why our republic can operate -- we put our loyalty to the nation above the loyalty to our party or our politics. I do not believe that's the case in Iraq and that's why I believe that, failing some miraculous breakthrough, Iraq as we know it will end up in three separate nations just as Yugoslavia went back to its original ethnic-based nations, and I believe that will be the point where the fighting will cease and government can return to doing the ordinary tasks of serving the citizens.

It's about bringing "good government" and civil liberties and human rights to war torn Baghdad, a city that has seen none of those things in decades.

Supporting those things now in Iraq goes a against the emotional poison they've generated between the Republicans and the public (with the media's help).

Good post / link Kim,

I would only add that America made a commitment to that country, so to desert them is the height of betrayal and wrecklessness. The fact that anyone runs for the tall grass, in response to the non-stop propoganda campaign being run by the body count media,is an indicator of their lack of backbone,and their spinelessness should not be the motivation for America ditching her,decided in an orderly manner, commitment to the citizens of a nation we invaded.

Vietnam set that precedent, and now it is time to reset the precedent of America being a country whose word you can trust. Let the jack mythas and the harry reids be the voice of the past,the past they wish for a return to,at the expense of millions more innocents. America should rise above the likes of treasonous scum cowards like that.

"we put our loyalty to the nation above the loyalty to our party or our politics."

Oh BS. When ? When have the Rats done this? The democrats aren't loyal to anyone but themselves. How dare you lie about loyalty to our Country. It's expected behavior from you criminal frauds.

The democratic party needed to be burried along with that word that described them to the "T". Why just burry the word?

There's another current whizbang piece wailing and whining about the use of the term chickenhawk. Yet you folks glady tolerate terms like "treasonous scum cowards" You wonder why most of the country is leaving you folks behind? Good grief.

Okay JFO,

They are "people I disagree with". Now can you tell me why America should backslide on her promises ? Does it matter which partys' President made the promise ? It was an American President, you can't just reverse course for the sake of a political victory w/o it resulting in all kinds of terrible things down the road.

Don't you know that bin laden and al qeda / the taliban etc.,have made strategic dicisions basd on OUR past actions of retreat in the face of political discomfort ? They know that more killing makes many of us want to quit. Do you relly want to make it that easy for them ? They seem to like killing, and it seems simple to me what encourages them to do more of it, and that is NOT fighting back.

Nice piece Kim. It's too much work for some to wrap their heads around what victory will look like however. Easier to just sit on your fat ass screaming "Bush lied" or calling for redeployment to cover your own political ass.

According to the Dems, this was a war for oil. All right then, where's all the oil? Why don't we have lower prices from taking it all over?

Paul Hamilton already re-writing the battle winning Baghdad. I remember people celebrating in the streets. Using their shoes to beat pictures of Saddam that were ALL over the city. I remember the statue coming down and the people of Iraq dragging through the streets. Since Saddam was not captured right away, some people were weary of the celebration because of the brutalness of his regime. AFTER that celebration, the people started looting. Of course in this country, when people loot the streets the liberals declare they are only demonstrating their frustration for years of being deprived, but in Iraq, is demonstrates their hate for America. They looted their museums which by the way almost all of the items have been recovered. There was lawlessness. So, your comment is without merit and based on a myth. Typical lefty behavior. ww

I had breakfast with a friend of mine the other day who was at one time well-connected with power brokers in Washington. He still has good friends inside the beltway who are just thrilled that the Democrats are back in power. A friend of his is pretty much a maverick. When she's asked to describe her political views, she says that she's a "Kennedy Democrat". Most of the young guns don't know what that means, and most of the people who do understand hang their heads.

Many have pointed out that the American people supported the Iraq war, including Democrats, but many Americans with short attention spans have lost patience, and Democrats are scoring big against Republicans by exploiting this weakness. It's a shame, really. There's a great deal of good things that Kennedy Democrats - and others - could support and should support.

From Kennedy's Inaugural:

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans -- born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage--and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

. . .

To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required--not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

Back when I was a Democrat, that's a big part of what being a Democrat was all about. I can't recognize the Party now.

Let it be known that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans, a generation that has tasted defeat in Southeast Asia - and learned to accept it. A generation that has looked on and done nothing while millions of colored people have been murdered, but managed to pull together enough courage to bomb a dictator into submission that threatened the safety and security of Europe (eventually, after only a couple of hundred thousand dead). A generation of narcissists who will say or do anything, including undermining an army in the field, cheer-leading brutal terrorists, supporting oppressive zealots of the worst kind, promoting sexual apartheid, and resigning an entire population to a civil war that will undoubtedly lead to genocide - all to promote the acquisition of political power at home. A generation of idiots who cannot see or understand the nature of the enemy that pursues them. A generation that will do the right thing only if it is easy.

We are, indeed, the heirs of that first revolution. And we are dedicated to enjoying the fruits of liberty here, at home, and we don't care what happens to anyone else.

To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we say, "It sucks to be you. Call the UN."

Willie, here's a website with stuff about pulling down that statue which might refresh your memory:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm

As for the riots, they started almost immediately. Here's a story from the Sidney Morning Herald dated April 10, 2003:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/10/1049567757398.html

And here's the money quote:

The looting was on such a scale that it caused traffic jams in the eastern suburbs as huge crowds ripped all that they could from government buildings - air-conditioning units, ceiling fans, hat-stands and anything else they could carry.

They brought trucks and packed their cars so high that much of the loot fell off as they drove away. With great high spirits, they hijacked police cars and motorcycles, full-length curtains and sports trophies.

The used wheeled office chairs to push their loot away into the suburbs while some guarded their booty on street corners, waiting for family vehicles to return to collect it.

One of them said: "This is our peace dividend."

Nuts, I ended my italics early, but the last four paragraphs above are all from that story.

Wildwillie, you're right and Paul is wrong, as usual.

The bottom line remains that for the Left, hating Bush is more important than the fact that they've abandoned all of their principles in the pursuit of that hatred.

Hot Air is saying that Liberals should love this war because of the nature of the non-military efforts being made. I maintain they should also love it because the manner in which the military is conducting itself is also what the Libs want.

No taking of weapons caches in Mosques, that would be hateful.
Lawyers out in force making sure that no fire-fight ensues without proper legal and documentary underpinning.

No, cutting off supply lines from Iran as that would embolden the Iranians.

Jailing marines who didn't get proper permission from HQ to take out snipers.

and on and on. We are fighting this war like a bunch of weenie PC leftists. Even Kennedy or FDR were wise enough to know that you reduce civilian casualties in the long run if you rout the enemy (even with some collateral damage) in the short run.

Bush has yielded his strategy to the left while still staying the course on the fight. His principles are good but his methodology needs some serious work.

Of course, the left would have bad methodology and no principles whatsoever so they are no use to this nation at all.

And what Paul Hamilton has conveniently forgotten is the terrible price that was paid for Saddam's regime. Estimates range from 1.2 to 1.4 million people during the 11 years between wars. Try to wrap your brain around that figure for a minute. A King James Bible has about 790,000 words. Pick up a bible and look at the words on a single page, and try to imagine that each word is a human being. Now flip through page after page after page.

(By the way, when we did nothing in Rwanda, about 500,000 died.)

The argument has been made that we had Saddam "contained". That meant that we can sit back and let him kill about 100,000 or so every year. It also means that people like bin Laden can point to the official UN numbers on the misery in Iraq and say in his declaration of war:

More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanction) imposed on Iraq and its nation. The children of Iraq are our children. You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children.

Without regime change, there did not appear to be a way to undermine or counter this argument.

Now, of course, the argument is made that if we leave Iraq, it will splinter. I don't believe that it will splinter into three pieces. I think it will split in two, with the Kurds and Shiites exterminating the Sunni. Will we see hundreds of thousands if not a million dead? Certainly.

Apparently, most liberals don't seem to care.

Jo, I've cited my sources. If I'm wrong, I'm sure you have some proof of that, so let's see your sources.

kevino, maybe *if* were were going to invade, we should have gone in with sufficient troops and equipment and with a plan.

And what exactly does your figure of 1.2 million deaths mean? People die every day, so deaths alone don't mean much. Are you talking preventable deaths, such as from uncontrolled diseases, from violence, or what? And are you citing some propaganda from bin Laden as your source? I hope you can do better than that...

Paul, again you are disingenuous. In your orginal comment you said "Looting and riots started almost immediately" and your rebuttal to me was changed to "started ALMOST immediately." Your main contention being that there were no celebrations, which is plain incorrect, false, misleading, untrue any one of these words. Secondly, you contention that the Iraqy people cannot be government unless through a dictator is offensive and racist on its' face. If the government fails, which is far from happening, that will still be their choice. Something they have not had not had in their lifetime. Also, you say you do not believe..., what I would say is you don't WANT to believe. Now, how about supporting our troops and their mission? And tell your friends also. ww

Paul,

RE: "Maybe 'if' we were going to invade"
We had a debate. The majority voted for war. Democrats for Peace had there opportunity to put forward alternatives. They failed. The discussion is over. You can't change the past.

RE: "What does 1.2 million mean"
Well, for starters, look at the mass graves found in Iraq, graves filled with women and children who were murdered to maintain the regime. Finding new mass graves have been much easier in Iraq than in the former Yugoslavia, where less than 200,000 people died. Saddam can probably top that number just in executions of Kurds and Shiites. [Gee, and some people wonder why they don't get along with the Sunni.]

But if you read what I wrote and kept up with current events, you would know that the 1.2-1.4 million figure are mostly the estimates of the dead caused by the sanctions that the UN approved and that we helped enforce. This is what you get when gangsters run a country.

RE: Bin Laden propaganda
Read what I said. The number he quotes is from the UN. Got it?

Now, in order to defeat an enemy, you have to defeat his plans. If the containment makes us look like oppressive monsters to the Arab Street and provides him with recruits, then that is a problem. Problem solved.

At the time when the Iraq war was being debated, the alternative to war on this point was to: (1) lift sanctions and (2) try to convince Saddam to do better. Lifting the sanctions is a loser because Saddam gets what he wants. Trying to convince Saddam to do better is a loser because he's a dictator, and he can do what he wants. Inflicting pain on a subset of his people keeps his friends loyal to him, inflicts pain on his enemies, and rallies the Arab Street against the US. He's not going to play nice, even if you say, "Pretty please."

RE: Usual whining about a plan
Our military worked well. If Democrats had better ideas about winning the war, they should have said so. So far, there big claim to fame is bitching, moaning, and giving up. I've said in this forum and others for a long time that I have yet to see a plan put forward by any Democrat to actually win the war in Iraq. No one has yet to point me at any proposal other than run away.

I have yet to figure out why the particulars of recent history seem to be so hard to recall for some on the left.

"I have yet to figure out why the particulars of recent history seem to be so hard to recall for some on the left."

Hmm, I forget...

Just curious why there has not been a response on this link http://www.guardian.co.uk/video/page/0,,2125978,00.html

Despite claims made here...the "left" has not been in charge except in the House since January...I do not recognize the tossed about terms left or right. We probably have our own personal definitions based upon our own political ideology of those terms. WE should never be so presumptuous as to think our definition of left/right/center should apply to anyone but us.

The serious problems facing us both abroad and domestically cannot be foisted on one ideology or another. Both ideologies have been proven correct in some circumstances...and both have been proven wrong in some circumstances...

Thank you wildwillie. Paul loses again. Love it.

Actually, there are no hard numbers for the dead caused by the Iran/Iraq War and/or the sanctions and/or Saddam's executions. Most of it is guess work and the numbers constructed by means other than just counting the dead on the battle field. Both regimes were going to lie about their losses during the war so they didn't look bad and the only way we'll ever know just how many died because of the sanctions or just because of Saddam's madness is by digging up the graves. All of them. Because they certainly weren't going to be honest about that either.

With that said though, there are some good estimates. So debate all you want and demand all the statistical sources you want, once you get past a couple million, all told, what's the difference?

Oddly enough, no one seems to want to be honest about deaths in this war either except the US military. And that's driven home regularly by the press every time a round number is reached with phrases like "death toll" and "grim milestone".

Thank you Jo. He seems like a good guy, but sometimes I worry about him. w

Willie: I posted a source which stated that looting was taking place simultaneous with the celebrations. If you want to argue minutes or hours, that's up to you, but for me, that qualifies as "almost immediately." As for the government falling, overthrows aren't the way the democratic system is supposed to operate, so I'd say if it falls, that would be evidence of the failure of the system, not it's success. And I will support the troops by continuing to call for their return home. And thanks for the compliment.

kevino: So you cite the UN as a valid source when it suits your purposes but condemn them the rest of the time. And we are not containing terrorism -- the report last week said that al Qaeda is just about back to its pre-9-11 strength. I wonder how much more successul we'd been if we'd skipped the invasion of Iraq and actually gone after terrorists instead of Saddam. Finally, I don't think we should have invaded in the first place -- there is no good plan for a bad war. If there were some Dems who lacked the political courage to stand up against the war back in 2002, then they can defend their vote, but I was against it from the start.

Man, Paul creams you righties with facts and then you just call him wrong and masturbate each other for saying it with nothing to back it up. Just liek how every rightwing post here gets voted up no matter how hateful, childish or foolish and every leftwing post gets voted down no matter how thoughtful or well reasoned (notice I didn't say "right or wrong", that's not the point if you agree with it or not, only that you don't even consider it an option that a post with a left view might even be worthy of reading at all).

Its so fun seeing such stupid behavior from the right, it's why you lost the last election and will lose the next. Which would be fun to watch if you weren't losing our military and losing our standing in the world at the same time.

Paul, when we broke with England we were governed by the Articles of Confederation. After a short time, our founding fathers saw the problems with this system and "overthrew" it and authored the Constitution. I guess democracy shouldn't work that way either.

In this country, when there is good news there is rioting and looting. Like when a pro team wins a championship. I guess that also proves that we have failed as a country.

The murder rate in most of our cities are at an all time high, so again, we failed as a country.

Of course if you factor in DUI fatalities, drug fatalities, aids fatalities, by your standard, we are not a very successful country. By my standards, we are a great country and I am glad we are helping Iraq become a great country also. ww