Democrats Will NOT Take Congress!

[sjmom2329]

<p>How about looking at Iraq from an Iraqi point of view…

But what’s neither fine nor acceptable is to see politicians and decision-makers, who are supposed to be the leaders of the new world order, think and behave in the same manner as third world citizens.
All they seem to think about is how to get away from this debilitating conflict in Iraq no matter what the outcome would be. Even worse, few people seem to realize what the amplifications of a defeat in Iraq would be on the Middle East and the rest of our small global village.

Let’s call the battle for middle east, and I think politicians do not need anyone to explain to them what this part of the world means . . . the outcome of war in Iraq does not affect Iraq alone, a victory means disrupting the ring of terror and extremism the enemies are trying to establish while failure would be equal to allowing them to establish that huge ring, or should I say that gigantic octopus of terrorists and terror-supporting regimes that would extend from Afghanistan in the east to Libya in the west and from Iraq in the north to Sudan and Somalia in the south.

And instead of creating islands of democracy and liberty, connecting them and extend from there to change the world to the better, the enemies would engulf those islands and add them to their multi-jointed entity of terror.
We need the decision-makers to rise above the rhetoric of who’s right and who’s wrong and focus on protecting the world from falling prey to the vicious enemies of civilization.</p>

<p>We are in the middle of this situation now and losing is not an option.</p>

<p>You know what, maybe the world isn’t going to harvest direct benefits from winning the battle of Iraq but the world still has to spare no effort to win this battle, again not because winning will bring direct benefits but because losing here will bring subsequent losses that would no doubt be great.

I don’t think that I can be eloquent as one who is living this situation real time.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>

it may be better to lose Iraq than to lose America’s economic future to China.

</p>

<p>First off, I started what could be a fantastic thread [over</a> here](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=257503]over”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=257503) ;)</p>

<p>Secondly, this is just crazy. How, in any way, shape, or form is the US going to lose its economic future to China? It’s not like the second China’s GDP surpasses the US’s all Americans instantly become destitute and hungry.</p>

<p>And the current account deficit and Chinese holding of dollars? Eh. Way overblown.</p>

<p>

Just out of curiousity, how much further in debt to the Red Chinese are we supposed to go for the war in Iraq?

</p>

<ol>
<li> China’s about as Red as a mountain sky.</li>
<li> Our current account deficit would be gigantic even if we weren’t at war. Since we run such high capital account surpluses, it’s inevitable. And we were running surpluses in the capital account long before the war. I think the deficit’s been around 4-6% since the 90s.</li>
</ol>

[mathmom]

<p>This Democrat thinks we lost the war a long time ago, but I don’t expect anyone to recognize that any time soon. I don’t think the end results will be any different whether we pull out tomorrow or six years from tomorrow - except in the number of American lives lost. I think there will be chaos in Iraq that will ultimately resolve itself into three states.</p>

[citygirlsmom]

<p>but didn’t you here, according to some army recruiters, the war is over!!!</p>

<p>and now many in the army want rumsfeld out,and how many Iraqis have LEFT Iraq,…if it is so great there, why are they leaving</p>

<p>and Becthel says its tooo dangerous and they are leaving</p>

<p>"losing is not an option’? what does that mean? what is winning…no one has told me what winning will look like…</p>

<p>when you have the military saying what they are and Bush saying Rumsfeld has done an AMAZING job, how sad is that</p>

[driver]

<p>but didn’t you here
according to some army recruiters
the war is over!!!</p>

<p>and now many in the army
want rumsfeld out,
and how many Iraqis have LEFT Iraq
if it is so great there, why are they leaving</p>

<p>"losing is not an option’?
what does that mean?
what is winning…
no one has told me what winning will look like…</p>

<p>when you have the military saying what they are
and Bush saying Rumsfeld has done an AMAZING job
how sad is that</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>Beating a dead horse
Too many poetic jokes
As I prefer prose</p>

<p>Shoot. No wonder the Japanese are such boring people. Their poetry is so limited…Darn.</p>

<p>I really should have paid attention when we were studying iambic pentameter in high school.</p>

[Dadguy]

<p>Hey, that family can mock you in so many ways!</p>

[conyat]

<p>UCLAri, though it’s true that there would have been additional debt without the war, Bush is borrowing at twice the rate Clinton was. Our debt is 50% higher now than it was when he took office, which is a very damning statistic. One third of our total national debt is from Bush’s presidency alone. Even the Government Accounting Office says we’re on the verge of economic disaster.</p>

<p>One big problem with how Bush has conducted this war is that some things he chose to do the most expensive possible way, via no-bid contracts to political cronies. He could afford to, knowing that he won’t still be President when the bills come due, and he and his family and friends are wealthy enough to endure the coming austerity. </p>

<p>On a side note, we’ve outsourced so much of this war that the timetable for withdrawal probably won’t even be set by Congress or the President. An army still travels on its stomach. Because we have blown so much of our resources on outsourcing vital support functions at the expense of capacity building within the armed forces, when the contractors pull out, we won’t be able to continue to occupy Iraq without a draft, which the American people won’t support. And the contractors have already started pulling out. The owners have made their millions and their billions off this war; there’s no reason for them to stay.</p>

[TheDad]

<p>SJM, how about looking at the realities of Iraq:</p>

<p>1) The central government is weak, both structurally and even within those parameters operationally. </p>

<p>2) There is no “center,” no “Iraqi” civil society to hold together…it’s worse than tattered.</p>

<p>3) Iraqi sovereignty–or the facade of it in light of #1 and #2–is going to continually bump up against the wishes/desires of the American military. The pulling back of check-points and other operations in Sadr City while looking for the kidnapped American soldier the other day is just one of many examples.</p>

<p>4) Aside from the fact that Iraqi military & security formations are shot through with informers in various directions six ways to Sunday, their loyalties are not, for the most part, to “Iraq.” Clan/tribe/sect take precedence.</p>

<p>5) None of points 1-4 can be significantly affected by the American military.</p>

<p>6) A majority of Iraqis approve of attacks on Americans and an even larger majority want us gone.</p>

<p>7) The “three-state” solution for Iraq is no solution; each individual part–an independent Kurdistan, an isolated Sunnistand, and a relatively rich Shiitestan operating in conjunction with Iran–pose major problems that <em>should)</em> be deal-killers to us.</p>

<p>8) Phase IV planning (for post-conflict) was an ad hoc joke and failed to have the most significant items even on the list, the political and economic framework of Iraq. It all assumed that people would do what we told them to and that they’d be so happy to be rid of Saddam that they’d gratefull comply with all of our suggestions.</p>

<p>9) Iraq is <em>not</em> the central front of the war on terror. One of the bigger lies, after WMD, put forth by the administration, is the false dichotomy that we either fight them over there or fight them over here. As the declassified Key Judgments from the National Intelligence Estimate on Global Terrorism makes clear, our presence in Iraq is galvanizing Islamist terrorist activity and we’re inspiring/recruiting more terrorists than we kill.</p>

<p>SJMom: I have made many detailed posts on our Iraqi adventures, some of them running near 30,000 characters that had to be split into three posts. If you want bombast, look at what you cited from RealClearPolitics about Democrats not being united on which way they wish to lose the war. Articles built around statements like that have less credibility than a Bugs Bunny cartoon and deserve all the jeers and contempt that can be summoned.</p>

<p>I notice the neocon rats like Perle, Adelman, and John Cole are deserting the ship, though Perle and Adelman are still insisting the concept was good, they just had no idea that Bush’s team could be so incompetent. I’d prefer that fathead Perle to go down with the ship.</p>

<p>Oh, and on Monday the ARMY TIMES and its sister service publications is running the following:

Time for Rumsfeld to go</p>

<p>“So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and
informed public opinion … it is necessary to tell the hard bruising
truth.”</p>

<p>That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent
Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.</p>

<p>But until recently, the “hard bruising” truth about the Iraq war has
been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. One rosy
reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice
President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “mission
accomplished,” the insurgency is “in its last throes,” and “back off,”
we know what we’re doing, are a few choice examples.</p>

<p>Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired
generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting
criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have
spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the
generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.</p>

<p>Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate.
Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the
war’s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.</p>

<p>Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate
Armed Services Committee in September: “I believe that the sectarian
violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it … and that if not stopped,
it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.”</p>

<p>Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command
briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now
borders on “critical” and has been sliding toward “chaos” for most of
the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and
police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing
for the security of their new government and their nation.</p>

<p>But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of
molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a
force for national unity has become a losing proposition.</p>

<p>For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the
Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of
national identity, are only in it for the money, don’t show up for duty
and cannot sustain themselves.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more
troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.</p>

<p>And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.</p>

<p>Now, the president says he’ll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his
term in the White House.</p>

<p>This is a mistake.</p>

<p>It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has
failed. But when the nation’s current military leaders start to break
publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is
losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.</p>

<p>These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many
privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private,
adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of
subordination of the military to civilian authority.</p>

<p>And although that tradition, and the officers’ deep sense of honor,
prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.</p>

<p>Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the
troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has
failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame
for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops
who bear its brunt.</p>

<p>This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins
Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:</p>

<p>Donald Rumsfeld must go.

</p>

[CITATION_X]

<p>If the the Dems take the Senate and the House - it will be interesting how CNN handles all the dancing in the streets in Islamic cities throughout the world</p>

<p>Will CNN try to hide it or will they just try to rationalize it (as they did with Kerry’s statement among others) - other than being the shoutings of people who would like nothing better than to see Al Qaeda destroy America</p>

<p>No doubt the newly elected Speaker Pelosi (standing along side President Buish) will see fit to release a statement something along the lines of:</p>

<p>“While we have achieved a great victory for our political party, this should not be interpreted by our enemies as any weakness on our part to not stand firm on a united basis against those forces seeking to destroy America”</p>

<p>Meanwhile Ms Pelosi can once again seek on her continued efforts to weaken The Patriot Act, eliminate eavesdropping of terrorists communications to the United States, and seek the release of GITMO prisoners - along with the 15 other things that the Dems have been attempting to do over the past several years -all with the ultimate result to weaken the United States and return to our pre 911 status - with our blinders on once again</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>CITATION X,</p>

<p>Other than political humbuggery, what evidence do you have that there will be “dancing” in the Islamic world?</p>

[TheDad]

<p>And what a loss of words you’ll be at when nothing of the sort happens. The GOP is reduced to cartoon fears because they’ve got nothing else…and they’re stunned that the same shtick isn’t working anymore.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>To be honest, I don’t see much changing in our counterterrorist policies with a Democratic regime in place for a number of reasons. For one-- and this is structurally the most important one-- it’s hard to change bureaucracy in the US. I won’t get too technical, but the US bureaucracy is deliberately set up to be hard to change. Most counterterrorism emerges from the bureaucracy anyway (think DIA, CIA, NSC), so it’s doubtful that even Pelosi and her ragtag group of Democrats can do much to change the current strategic objectives apropos counterterrorism.</p>

<p>As far as the Iraq war goes, I’m generally opposed to a pullout any time soon (mostly because it would be cruel to the Iraqis themselves), but what can a House of Dems do? Bicker with the Senate? Tell the President he’s a poopoo head?</p>

<p>C’mon guys. Let’s keep this to sound arguments. Or at least lets not bring in the pundit-soundbitery.</p>

[CITATION_X]

<p>Probably not much dancing actually - just shouting and hand waving and shooting guns in the air and cursing Bush and America - with Israel tossed in for good measure</p>

[CITATION_X]

<p>The argument in fact is quite “sound.” </p>

<p>Regardless of what occurs in the streets, the election of the Dems in this situation will certainly be PERCEIVED as a partial victory by certain opponents of the United States in the middle east.</p>

<p>Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s statement as reported in the Washington Post last year:</p>

<p>"The top Democrat in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi of California, today threw her support behind a proposal by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) for a prompt pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq. Murtha, a former Marine with a reputation as a hawk on military issues, stunned Washington two weeks ago when he said U.S. troops have done all they can in Iraq and should be withdrawn within six months.</p>

<p>“We should follow the lead of Congressman John Murtha, who has put forth a plan to make America safer, to make our military stronger, and to make Iraq more stable,” Pelosi said in a news conference."</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/30/AR2005113001136.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/30/AR2005113001136.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Of course it’s possible the Dems (this week) will claim that Pelosi now is just supporting President Bush and his plans to limit withdrawals only as permitted under actual conditions on the ground in Iraq</p>

<p>Ms Pelosi’s no position “position” might work in the election, but she has offered nothing constructive in regards to the very real issues being faced in Iraq</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>Again, you’re confusing a lot of issues here. Like I said, counterterrorist activities are unlikely to change. Whether or not pulling out of Iraq is likely to lead to victory calls in Syria and Iran is debatable anyway. Some, even hawks, have suggested that we’ve done all we can directly and should cut our losses-- in other words, sunk costs are sunk costs, but we’ll be da_ned if we’ll incur more marginal costs!</p>

<p>And as some suggest, if what we’re seeing is sectarian collapse anyway, why wait any longer?</p>

<p>However, I don’t agree with that summation of what’s going on. I think that something is still salvageable in Iraq, be it one state or maybe even three statelets. But I don’t think that you can take Pelosi’s words at face value-- after all, politicians will say all sorts of things to get elected (a rather obscure example in my mind is the New Zealand Labour Party in 1984). </p>

<p>Regardless, I think your argument relies on both an excess of soothsaying as well as low expectations for the other two veto players in our system (Senate and Executive) to stop any sort of Pelosian revolution.</p>

[CITATION_X]

<p>Sorry, but the crowds in the street are not going to be reviewing poistion papers about the strategic nuances of american foreign policy </p>

<p>Once again the basic premise is as follows: a major democratic party victory in this instance will be effectively intrepreted by america’s enemies (among other entities) - as a possible first step to an eventual retreat in Iraq</p>

<p>Now you can policy wonk this thing to death (as the Clinton-lovers always do), and certainly such victory does not actually necessarily translate to any major change in the overall Iraq strategy for the simple reason among other things - Bush will still be President. However one cannot deny perception can in fact become reality to certain parties </p>

<p>I’m always amazed at how the left in America has championed the criticisms in recent years that Senator John McCain has reserved for President Bush - yet now very selectively is ignoring his very clear cut statements in regards to the long run disasterous implications to the United States of any retreat in Iraq - or disguised retreat under the pretense of a “redeployment” or other deceptive label</p>

<p>Unfortunately Iraq is not just about Iraq.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>

Sorry, but the crowds in the street are not going to be reviewing poistion papers about the strategic nuances of american foreign policy</p>

<p>Once again the basic premise is as follows: a major democratic party victory in this instance will be effectively intrepreted by america’s enemies (among other entities) - as a possible first step to an eventual retreat in Iraq

</p>

<p>This is assuming that the same crowds are following American elections, too. Big if…</p>

<p>

Now you can policy wonk this thing to death (as the Clinton-lovers always do), and certainly such victory does not actually necessarily translate to any major change in the overall Iraq strategy for the simple reason among other things - Bush will still be President. However one cannot deny perception can in fact become reality to certain parties

</p>

<p>I’m neither a Clinton lover nor a wonk. I’m just a guy who recognizes that policy isn’t changing much because of a few seats changing in the House. It’s great that you think that some Islamicists think so. But reality is different. And believe me, I understand the importance of perception. However, in some ways, it may be a boon for us if some of these groups become more bold. Getting them out of their ratholes may offer us the opportunity to paint a target on their heads.</p>

<p>And if the current situation in Iraq has taught us anything, it’s that even if the GOP is seen as a “hardline” party, it doesn’t matter much to insurgents and peddlers of sectarian violence. Since when have they had much respect for whatever the official line of the Executive or State Department was, anyway?</p>

<p>

I’m always amazed at how the left in America has championed the criticisms in recent years that Senator John McCain has reserved for President Bush - yet now very selectively is ignoring his very clear cut statements in regards to the long run disasterous implications to the United States of any retreat in Iraq - or disguised retreat under the pretense of a “redeployment” or other deceptive label

</p>

<p>I have a fair amount of respect for the Senator, but why should I be beholden to accepting his advice in whole? Not that I do disagree, but I don’t see why it’s ideologically bad to pick and choose what you think is right in someone’s prescription. Let’s not throw out the baby, the bathtub, and the bathwater all at once. We can just throw out the baby…err…bathwater. ;)</p>

<p>

Unfortunately Iraq is not just about Iraq.

</p>

<p>Maybe…maybe not. The doomsday soothsayers were saying that about Vietnam decades ago. I’m skeptical of both sides, in this case. Pulling out immediately may make things worse. Too much rigidity in NOT pulling out may cause us too much grief (and make things worse.)</p>

<p>We have to remain open to whatever the best option is when it strikes us. Right now, all our doors seem closed…</p>

[Allmusic]

<p>We will draw down from Iraq, no matter what happens with Congressional seats on Tuesday.</p>

<p>Like Vietnam, the American public has had enough of young men and women dying for no reason. We will begin to withdraw troops, even if the House stays in GOP control. It is just a matter of time.</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>Allmusic - good morning! But your words in the following quote are a clear indication of the defeatist attitude I see in most Democrats.

Like Vietnam, the American public has had enough of young men and women dying for no reason.

I think, as mentioned in some earlier links, that success in Iraq is vital to national security. I believe that this country can be successful, as long as we keep our eye on the ball and don’t become distracted by all the gloom and doom. Here is a link to a Jeff Jacoby column regarding success in Iraq <a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/06/14/signs_of_success_in_iraq/[/url]”>http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/06/14/signs_of_success_in_iraq/&lt;/a&gt;

In the June issue of Commentary, veteran Middle East journalist Amir Taheri describes <code>The Real Iraq" as a far more promising place than the horror show of conventional media wisdom. Arriving in the United States after his latest tour of Iraq, Taheri says, he was</code>confronted with an image of Iraq that is unrecognizable" – an image that ``grossly . . . distorts the realities of present-day Iraq."

And here is the voice of Taheri on Iraq

October 20, 2006 – TALK to Iraqis these days, and you’ll likely hear one thing: What are the Americans and Brits up to? The worry is that the U.S. and U.K. political mainstreams now regard the Iraq project as a disaster, with cut-and-run, or whistle-and-walk-away, the only options. </p>

<p>Most Iraqis regard the toppling of Saddam Hussein, the dismantling of his machinery of war and oppression and the introduction of pluralist politics to Iraq as an historic success. The issue is how to consolidate that victory, not to snatch defeat from its jaw. Those challenging this historic victory are enemies of both the Western democracies and the Iraqi people.

<a href=“http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/iraq__uniting_against_the_jihadis_opedcolumnists_amir_taheri.htm?page=1[/url]”>http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/iraq__uniting_against_the_jihadis_opedcolumnists_amir_taheri.htm?page=1&lt;/a&gt;
I think most American troops view that the work they are doing DOES have purpose, and I’m sure they’d appreciate a little support on the home front.</p>