Chavez leads gloating over vote

[sjmom2329]

<p>The problem for the Democrats is that they ran a successful campaign on a single premise – the notion that the solution to Iraq is to just leave. An idea, by the way, to which several posters adhere.</p>

<p>But there’s a problem. A variety of sources agree that simply withdrawing troops is a bad idea. What does that do for the Dems? The basis for their win, and (I would guess) their hopes in '08, is “getting the troops out or Iraq.” But when that course of action leads to further chaos in the middle east, what will they do?</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/washington/15military.html?ex=1164258000&en=98d9acbfca22200c&ei=5059&partner=AOL[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/washington/15military.html?ex=1164258000&en=98d9acbfca22200c&ei=5059&partner=AOL&lt;/a&gt;

One of the most resonant arguments in the debate over Iraq holds that the United States can move forward by pulling its troops back, as part of a phased withdrawal. If American troops begin to leave and the remaining forces assume a more limited role, the argument holds, it will galvanize the Iraqi government to assume more responsibility for securing and rebuilding Iraq.</p>

<p>But this argument is being challenged by a number of military officers, experts and former generals, including some who have been among the most vehement critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies.</p>

<p>Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it.

</p>

<p>And then you have to wonder, what will the electorate think in '08? Maybe the Democratic strategy of a win in '06 will work to Republicans advantage in the next Presidential election. <a href=“http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/americans-doubt-democrats-have-iraq-plan/20061114230309990001[/url]”>http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/americans-doubt-democrats-have-iraq-plan/20061114230309990001&lt;/a&gt;

More Americans rank Iraq as the top priority of the new Democratic-controlled Congress, but nearly three out of five say the party does not have a plan to deal with the war.

</p>

[parent2noles]

<p>conyat - I looked at your IAVA reference and initially it appears as a non-partisan (it is a 501c(3) organization) group. I am curious why, however, a Senator like Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) - married to Bob Dole, a WWII combat disabled vet and a former US Senator - would receive a ‘D-’ rating when her husband obviously can identify with Veterans affairs? This seems inconsistent.</p>

<p>The IAVA Congressional Ratings website may be found [url=<a href=“http://capwiz.com/iava/dbq/officials/]here[/url”>http://capwiz.com/iava/dbq/officials/]here[/url</a>].</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>A more thoughtful analysis is provided by this paper from an analyst at Rand.
<a href=“http://www.rand.org/commentary/092806UPI.html[/url]”>http://www.rand.org/commentary/092806UPI.html&lt;/a&gt;

If the insurgents are to be stopped, they must come to understand that there is a price to pay for their actions. At the moment, however, insurgents apparently feel they face little danger. Unlike in Afghanistan in 2001, the skies over Baghdad are unusually quiet. Anti-government forces face a threat from coalition ground forces, but insurgents who stage hit and run attacks are often long gone by the time American and other coalition troops can get to the scene along Baghdad’s confusing and busy streets. As a result, insurgents are emboldened by what they see as their relative invulnerability.</p>

<p>Insurgents also seem not to fear capture because it is unlikely they will be informed on by their Iraqi neighbors. And even if captured, insurgents will be sent to jail or prison where they can network for a few weeks or months with foreign jihadists, or perhaps recruit those Iraqis swept up innocently beside them. In the end, many of the insurgents are released due to “lack of evidence” and the overtaxed Iraqi justice system – too many now expect this outcome.</p>

<p>Though two years late, the Iraqi and American authorities have taken the first steps toward better addressing the security issues in Baghdad outlined above. If they can grow and sustain these efforts by applying the precepts of unconventional versus traditional warfare simultaneously, they may be able to get the capital under control. If coalition forces fail to do this, U.S. service members, Iraqi security forces and civilians may be killed in ever-greater numbers and the insurgent cancer centered in Baghdad will likely spread to other troubled areas.

</p>

[parent2noles]

<p>Thanks, sjmom. But I am still hoping for a real expert’s analysis and strategy for suitable resolution. Some of the best minds have been working on this…maybe cc input will close the deal? </p>

<p>The [Rand</a> Corporation](<a href=“http://www.rand.org/]Rand”>http://www.rand.org/) is one of those right-wing sweat shops, isn’t it? How can you believe anything from them or from a bunch of political nerds at the [Annenberg</a> Public Policy Center at UPenn](<a href=“http://www.factcheck.org/miscreports70.html]Annenberg”>http://www.factcheck.org/miscreports70.html)? ;)</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>Ha Ha, p2n! In case anyone’s interested, here’s a description of Rand.</p>

<p>

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis.
For nearly 60 years, the RAND Corporation has pursued its nonprofit mission by conducting research on important and complicated problems. Initially, RAND (the name of which was derived from a contraction of the term research and development) focused on issues of national security. Eventually, RAND expanded its intellectual reserves to offer insight into other areas, such as business, education health, law, and science. RAND’s innovative approach to problem solving has become the benchmark for all other “think tanks” that followed. (See History and Mission).</p>

<p>RAND’s tradition of problem-solving continues to this day. RAND conducts research and provides analysis to address challenges that face the United States and the world. Today, RAND emphasizes several areas of research that reflect the changing nature of a global society. Much of this research is carried out on behalf of public and private sponsors and clients. RAND also conducts its own RAND-initiated research on issues that otherwise might not receive funding. All RAND work —every publication, database, or major briefing —is held to rigorous and sometimes painstaking review processes. Such exacting standards are the foundation of RAND’s impeccable reputation throughout the world. See Standards for High Quality Research and Analysis.

<a href=“http://www.rand.org/about/[/url]”>http://www.rand.org/about/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Rand also operates an FFRDC (Federally Funded Research and Development Center). <a href=“http://www.rand.org/nsrd/ndri.html[/url]”>http://www.rand.org/nsrd/ndri.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[parent2noles]

<p>I know - I was joking …if you pass your cursor over ‘Rand Corporation’ in my last post you’ll see it is a hyperlink to their website. Ditto the Annenberg cite…</p>

[mini]

<p>Of course, my favorite Rand Corporation analyst was (and is) Daniel Ellsberg, winner of the 2006 International Right Livelihood Award.</p>

<p>But while we are on Rand, note this editorial:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.rand.org/commentary/081202LAT.html[/url]”>http://www.rand.org/commentary/081202LAT.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>(and note the date when it was published.)</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>As a think tank, Rand presents objective analysis, which may not always be in agreement with the policies of any administration. My point is that the analysts working for groups like Rand meet my definition of “wonk.”</p>

[Hanna]

<br>

<p>Democrats may think by leaving Iraq it’s all better, but that is foolish. </p>

<br>

<p>Have any Democrats been saying that? I’ve heard a lot of Democrats – and Republicans – saying that getting out now is the best of our terrible options, because staying costs American lives and American money without saving Iraqi lives that are going to be lost whether we stay or go.</p>

<p>But that’s about as optimistic as it gets. I have NEVER heard anyone say that if we just take the troops out, Iraq will become peaceful or that global terrorism will dramatically decline (my understanding of what “it’s all better” would mean). Have you?</p>

[parent2noles]

<p>That’s a summary of ‘cut and run’.</p>

[Hanna]

<br>

<p>That’s a summary of ‘cut and run’.</p>

<br>

<p>And? Do you have a substantive criticism besides “that’s consistent with a slogan”?</p>

<p>Let me give you a hypothetical.</p>

<p>Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the situation in Iraq is hopeless. Assume that as of 2006 (absent a permanent American occupation force of upwards of 1 million drafted soldiers, which no one including Bush has proposed), no matter what strategy we adopt, Iraqis will go right on killing one another (and us) just as they are doing right now.</p>

<p>What is wise about the choice to stay if that is true? How does it improve the situation for Americans to die as well?</p>

[OpiefromMayberry]

<p>Let me ask you what will change if we “stay”? Will fewer people die? Jr made a mistake that Sr didn’t. Sr just lacks that appeal that makes you all stay with Jr even as Sr’s old staff comes in to try and save Jr’s legacy. Sr was a better foriegn policy president, Jr can’t hold a candle. Now it’s just a question of many of our kids are going to die while it’s sorted out. </p>

<p>It’s funny but those bailouts often happened in the private sector too. But he says the right thing…no?</p>

[OpiefromMayberry]

<p>Let me ask you what will change if we “stay”? Will fewer people die? Jr made a mistake that Sr didn’t. Sr just lacks that appeal that makes you all stay with Jr even as Sr’s old staff comes in to try and save Jr’s legacy. Sr was a better foriegn policy president, Jr can’t hold a candle. Now it’s just a question of many of our kids are going to die while it’s sorted out. </p>

<p>It’s funny but those bailouts often happened in the private sector too. But he says the right thing…no?</p>

[Allmusic]

<p>Good question, Hanna.</p>

<p>I have always been curious as to how many young people’s lives the conservatives are willing to risk…another 2000, 4000, 10000? More? At what point, when the situation is still not improved, will you also know what many of us have suspected since March, 2003…that this is an unwinnable war? </p>

<p>We WILL pull out; it’s just a matter of time. But it will happen. How many lives are you willing to risk before that inevitable time?</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>AM, I just don’t believe that there is an “unwinnable” war. It’s just a matter of how much time and money we are willing to spend. If we put forth a mediocre effort, then expect a mediocre result. I think the right resources, including boots on the ground and money, could help us end this conflict as a victory, and leave a stable democracy in the region. Continuing on as we are doesn’t seem like it would be a good idea.</p>

<p>Analogy – people will complain about the housing market. They’ll say, “nothing is selling” or “we’ll never sell this house.” That’s never true. You may not sell the house for the price you’d like, but you can almost always overcome objections to a property by lowering the price. We can win in Iraq – we just have to be willing to spend the money. I think we’d spend it eventually, anyway, and I think it’s best to just do it upfront.</p>

[Hanna]

<br>

<p>how many young people’s lives the conservatives are willing to risk</p>

<br>

<p>The people spending American lives and money on this war are not, in any honest understanding of the term, conservatives. Or they may be conservative on other issues, but here they’re taking an approach that meets the worst stereotype of old-fashioned liberals: “Let’s just throw borrowed money at the problem without bothering to figure out whether our costly efforts are actually making the problem worse. After all, our intentions are good!”</p>

[OpiefromMayberry]

<p>“I just don’t believe that there is an “unwinnable” war”</p>

<p>What’s the score on the war on drugs? </p>

<p>Yes this war is unwinnable because quite simply one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. The longer we stay, the greater the growth of terrorism. Leave the area and let them go back to blowing up each other.</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>Hanna, the country is going to spend X dollars on national defense. I’ve posted links before that show we are actually spending a smaller percentage of GDP than in the past. It’s either pay now or pay later. If we don’t help Iraq become the stable democracy it could become, we’ll be putting out fires in other countries, or here. What was the cost of 9/11?

The September 11 attacks inflicted casualties and material damages on a far greater scale than any other terrorist aggression in recent history. Lower Manhattan lost approximately 30 percent of its office space and a number of businesses ceased to exist. Close to 200,000 jobs were destroyed or relocated out of New York City, at least temporarily. The destruction of physical assets was estimated in the national accounts to amount to $14 billion for private businesses, $1.5 billion for state and local government enterprises and $0.7 billion for federal enterprises. Rescue, cleanup and related costs have been estimated to amount to at least $11 billion for a total direct cost of $27.2 billion.

<a href=“http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/aug02/homeland.asp[/url]”>http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/aug02/homeland.asp&lt;/a&gt; If we could have spent some portion of that money in Afghanistan to take the Taliban out of power before 9/11, wouldn’t that have been a good use of national resources?</p>

[Allmusic]

<p>True, true, Hanna. They surely are not your old fashioned fiscally responsible conservatives, since they spend money like drunken sailors, and all of it is borrowed.</p>

<p>That’s another point, SJ. Into how much are you willing (beyond the unbearable amount we are already in) to mortgage your children’s and their children’s future? Money doesn’t grow on trees, you know! ;)</p>

[golani89]

<p>What debt are you talking about Allmusic? The trade deficit? the budget deficit? If it is the trade deficit its really bearable considering we have been in it for a long period of time and it has not really hurt the economy, in fact it has even been good for our economy. If you are talking about the budget deficit, it is shrinking at a huge rate and exceeding govt projections. I am not sure about the exact number, but with the enormous revenue this government is bringing in now, the budget deficits are really shrkinging</p>