Is Campaign '08 gonna be great or what?

sjmom2329 · February 24, 2007, 5:27pm

You know, if you were ever able to post something that didn’t involve slamming the President or Republicans in general, I might actually read the whole thing. As it is, I generally make the assumption that you don’t really know what else to say.

So, do you actually know anyone who’s been “on the ground?” My husband does, and he says that they feel that they have an important mission, that they are commited to seeing it throug and that morale is good. They do NOT feel that the US has been defeated.

interesteddad · February 24, 2007, 6:31pm

The issue is not defeat or victory. We obviously “won” the war against the state of Iraq and its dictator Sadaam Hussein. We control the territory in that that sense. We own it. And, can continue to do indefinitely…as long as we are willing to station 130,000 troops in protected fortresses, spend $100 billion a year, and accept 1000 or so US casualties per year.

That’s what war is about: owning territory. We won. Mission accomplished. Raise the flag over the green zone. Drink a toast.

The question is…and has been for several years…what do we do now with the godforsaken colony? Some argue what the British figured out long ago…that the cost of owning unruly colonies, rife with political forces they couldn’t understand, just wasn’t worth it. Our President, and his party, apparently believe the cost of maintaining colonial control over Iraq is worth it…for reasons that he hasn’t intelligibly explained.

He said that we turned Iraq over to a democratically elected government. “Jolly good show, carry on chaps, keep up the good work with your democratic government, and all that…” But, then we didn’t leave.

dstark · February 24, 2007, 6:55pm

I wonder if Iraq is going to be a big issue in 18 months. :)

This will be exciting campaigns if they haven’t been decided until after the conventions. I don’t care who the candidates are. I just don’t want the nominations sewed up until after the conventions. I want indecision. I want excitement. I want chaos.

Allmusic · February 24, 2007, 7:31pm

Idad has said it perfectly.

TheDad · February 24, 2007, 9:45pm

[qutoe]You know, if you were ever able to post something that didn’t involve slamming the President or Republicans in general, I might actually read the whole thing.

[/quote]
I really don’t care if you read my whole posts or not. But you don’t have any answers to the points raised. And because of the lack of answers, and because of the mess created by them, and because of the enabling of continuing this mess, Bush and Republicans deserve every slam they get. You’re a bully, SJMom, but a bully without the ability to back up your arguments and I’ll go toe to toe with you or anyone else who peddles the “fight until ‘victory’” twaddle.

Bullfeathers. I asked you to define “win” and described the political geography on the ground. You neither were able to do the first nor challenge the second.

Yes, I know several people who are either there or have rotated through, including a captain, a lieutenant colonel, and a full colonel.

Perhaps you need to get educated and not rely upon hubby. None of what you cited matters. In the least.

They feel they have an important mission? Really? As one grunt said, “Sarge, just exactly which group are we supposed to shoot at?” “Stay the course” is a slogan, not a strategy or the objective. What reality on the ground is the “mission” supposed to produce? Who will be in charge of Iraq and under what conditions? Let’s have some hard answers, not political pablum and sloganeering.

They are committed to seeing it through. Define “it.” The people I know who have been there get very defensive and angry if you ask them to define “it” beyond “keep killing bad guys.” They can’t define the good guys and they can’t define the end state. I understand why they get defensive, though: because if you take it to the logical conclusion, what they’re doing, and what they’re asking those who serve under them to do and risk their lives for, doesn’t mean a g-d thing and that’s just too horribly depressing to contemplate. See also: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. Except for a lot, we’ll have a “stabbed in the back” moment at some point, worthy of Ludendorff, with the ungrateful and incompetent Iraqis, the press, the Democrats, and everybody else fingered except those who dreamed up, planned, and executed this mess…by which I mean Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Feith cabal, not the poor s.o.b.'s in the field.

Morale is high. Bullfeathers. You ought to talk to those who aren’t in carefully screened or instructed groups for the media. “Why are we here?” and “Just kill 'em all” are common sentiments. For many officers, they’ve gone careerist, trying to get their tickets punched without messing up. The most common thing keeping most of the grunts going is trying to get home and trying to get the mates in their units home. Yes, many still believe in “the mission”, but if you press them on what the end state of that mission is, you’ll get blank looks or anger.

interesteddad · February 24, 2007, 10:43pm

I can take a stab at what I think the Bush administration’s plan for Iraq may be. First, keep in mind that they have removed the entire military command structure and started over with Petraeus. So, here’s where it appears to be heading:

a) The US has given up on training Iraqis. The stuff about the Iraqis taking the lead in the “surge” is just so much disingenuos crap. The forces currently “surging” into Baghdad are US forces.

b) Petraeus has basically scrapped the last three years and gone back for a “do-over” in Baghdad. He’d like to have more troops (in accordance with his insurgency book), but he’s got everything that we can send.

c) We are doing the thing that nobody wanted to do. House to house in Baghdad. US troops massively exposed in urban guerrila warfare. It will stabilize Baghdad for as long as massive US troop presence remains.

d) The term “surge” is a bold-faced lie. Petraeus’ book describes anti-insurgency warfare as requiring massive troop strength for a very long period of time – five years, ten years. That’s why he ducked the question about time frames when asked by the Senate Armed Serviced Committee. That’s why there is no money for Iraq in the President’s 2008 budget. Budgeting numbers for the outyears would require stating the obvious…that we are there for the long haul.

e) The administration has no intention of sticking with Malaki…or the failed “government” in Iraq. They have identified a couple of Iraqi generals. They are just waiting for Malaki to give them an excuse. A hand-selected Iraqi general will declare emergency “martial law”…basically a US enforced coup and we’ll have our strongman.

I hate to be cynical. But, think about it. President Bush has said, quite clearly, that “failure is not an option”. We know that a Shi’a theocracy is not an option. We know that pulling out is not an option. We know that a Bathist/Al Queda dictatorship is not an option. So what other options are left from Bush’s perspective? If we are going to stay…and make no mistake, Bush is staying…then the only viable option is to impose a government with US military force. Petraeus would like to have 200,000 troops instead of 160,000, but we don’t have 200,000 to leave in Iraq for five or ten years. 160,000 will have to do.

Think I’m wrong? Think Bush really wants out? He had the perfect opportunity with the political cover the Baker-Hamilton Report gave him. The President has no intention of scaling back. Don’t let the “newspeak” lingo fool you. Don’t fall for “surge”. It’s a long-term escalation. Bush has done the math. He knows that the Democrats don’t have the votes in the Senate to tie his hands…and he’ll just ignore them if they do.

Think I’m wrong? Why was the announcement of the surge coupled, the same day, with a request to authorize an permanent increase in the Army and Marines troop levels?

TheDad · February 25, 2007, 12:10am

In which case we’ll have even more people shooting at us than we have now. In case anyone hasn’t noticed, anyone backed by the U.S. has had virtually no internal support. Impose a strongman who’s neither SCIRI nor Dawa and all hell will break loose, making the current scene look like a Sunday afternoon tea party. Otherwise, there is much truth in what you say.

Bush was asked why he thought the new plan would work. The response was reportedly, “because I told the generals it had to.” Cf., King Canute.
What a blustering buffoon.

Btw, Petraeus is one bright guy attempting an impossible job out of sense of duty. He gave a speech at the War College a while back. His ten?..twelve?..points were a devastating repudiation of US policy & strategy to date.

interesteddad · February 25, 2007, 1:44am

Maybe he is, I dunno. I watched his testimony before the Senate Armed Sevices Committee and thought it could be summed up as “yadda, yadda, yadda”.

They all spouted complete crap about benchmarks for the Iraqi “government”. It’s now a month and a half later and nothing has happened. Note carefully the lack of “press releases” about additional Iraqi battalions arriving in Baghdad as promised.

Part of the deal was that we were going to be allowed into all neighborhoods, but we haven’t set a boot in Sadr City.

It was all one big deception. I am so sick of being lied to by the government.

TheDad · February 25, 2007, 2:53am

ID, I take Congressional testimony as a political exercise, nothing more. His writings ring true and thoughtful.

But, yes, the deceit, manipulation, and arrogance of this administration is unbearable but bear it we must. They and their enablers among the electorate have much to atone for and I doubt they ever will.

Btw, more rational reports scoff at the notion that Muqtada is in Iran. Fwiw.
The administration’s spin is so bad that if they say the sun is rising in the East, I want to check the compass bearings myself and be cross-checked by three independent observers.

interesteddad · February 25, 2007, 3:34am

I’m sure he’s a capable guy. But, I’ve had it. In my book, everyone who works for the administration is a liar until proven otherwise. If they don’t want to be associated with that, then they should resign.

I don’t know any other way to look at it.

<hr>

BTW, I had to chuckle at a confirmation hearing recently…I think for a very qualified ambassador being given the Iraq job.

One of the Senators said he thought the world of the guy, but was going to vote against him. He went on to explain the reason. The Senator was disgusted that he had voted to confirm Petraeus and then been attacked by the administration with the “Democrats are hypocrits for voting to confirm Petraeus and then not supporting his plan.” The Senator advised the Ambassador to take that story back to the administration and advise them that were going to have increasing difficulty getting candidates confirmed if they didn’t rethink the attacks.

sjmom2329 · February 25, 2007, 6:54am

The only bully I’ve ever encountered on this website is you, thedad.

I won’t be responding to any further posts from you – you can just pat yourself on the back and say you finally got rid of one more dissenting voice online. Those pesky, middle-aged, suburban housewives are such a threat to you.

There are posters with a different point of view, with whom I may not agree, but usually learn something – JHS, Allmusic, Dstark, Kluge and others I can’t think of at the moment. I don’t learn anything from reading your comments, and your pompous attitude just brings out the worst in me. So, goodbye.

TheDad · February 25, 2007, 11:34am

Go ahead and flee in disordered retreat, SJMom. You post all sorts of bull about Iraq and this administration and then can’t respond to a few simple questions because you have no answers. Your position is overrun. Your sloganeering posturing is insufficient. Ask your hubby what it means when one side has its tanks on the enemy’s airfields.

sjmom2329 · February 25, 2007, 12:01pm

Fine, one more comment.

First of all, just because YOU decide that the issue is “political geography” doesn’t mean that I have to accept your definition of the debate. I don’t believe that you have any particular insight into the military in general, and Iraq in particular. I don’t have to answer questions you raise, especially when I think they are irrelevant.

I know I’m just a simple woman (read the sarcasm) but I don’t have to have my husband do all my thinking for me, as should be evident by my many other posts. However, he is closely involved with defense issues on a daily basis, and I’d be foolish to disregard his opinion – especially in favor of someone who seems to think that belittling others is the finest form of rhetoric.

My thoughts have consistently been that we should support the troops, give them a chance to do their job, and defend the democratic principles that are the foundation of this country. If you have a problem with that, I don’t care.

My experience with other people who have a different political outlook on CC has usually been educational. Mini and I only seem to agree on issues about how to raise children but I respect his honesty and commitment to his principles. I appreciate the many concerns that Allmusic shares. JHS, dstark and kluge present good examples of logical debate. I’m sure I’ve missed others, but that’s it for now.

I’m not running from any debate, I just choose to disengage with you.

TheDad · February 25, 2007, 2:53pm

Wrong-oh, as usual. I’ve worked for the military, I’m a long-term student of military history, a former reviewer of military history, and did coursework on Iraqi foreign policy back in the mid-70’s wherein I predicted an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The loony leftist professor thought I was nuts.

Defining “winning” is irrelevant? Describing the end-state of Iraq when the mission is allegedly finished is irrelevant? Umm, can you bring any intellectual integrity to your position?

Sloganeering, all of it. “Support the troops” does not mean blindly sending them on a fool’s errand. “Give them a chance to do their job?” What job? Describe “win.” Democratic principles? Iraq’s or ours? Iraq is headed towards being a militia-backed theocracy. Our democratic principles? Our democracy isn’t at risk from Islamist terrorists in Iraq or anywhere else. It’s in more danger from the an administration that lies, sneers and evades at judicial review and Congressional oversight, doesn’t respect habeus corpus, and believes in a regal fantasy called “the unitary executive.”

If you can’t back your argument with specifics but say, “My husband knows about all this stuff,” expect to get called upon it and get nailed.

You don’t back up any of your assertions with any facts about Iraq. You bleat “support the troops” and “principles of democracy” as if these words represented a strategy, a goal, or a means of affecting events on the ground.

Try a simple one: define “win.” Who runs Iraq and under what conditions? Unless you know where you’re driving to, you’re lost and wandering aimlessly. Only in this case it costs a staggering amount in blood and dollars.

===

ID, I originally gave some credence to the thought that invading Iraq was necessary. While I dismissed the language of looming threats of a mushroom cloud as hyperbole, I mostly took it whole.

After the fact, I felt betrayed. No WMD. It became increasingly evident that the intelligence was cherry-picked, manufactured, and manipulated to give the answer the Bush administration wanted so that Bush could do what he wanted to do. It became clear that his motivation was one of waving his dick around the Middle East to one-up his father. (Sorry, I think the oil was secondary or tertiary, the cherry on the frosting but not the cake.) And it became clear in 2002 that instead of soberly leading a united country against a legitimate threat, the administration was more interested in using 9/11 as a tool to stampede the voters to narrow partisan advantage.

This betrayal has so incensed me that the Furies have nothing on me.They should have been careful about what they wish for. They wanted a partisan war, they got one and now they’re losing it. Payback is a rhymes-with-witch. In working to destroy the neocon political edifice, I will ask no quarter for surely I am giving none.

Breaking: interesting snippet in the LA TIMES that several generals are prepared to resign if Bush orders an attack on Iran. I wonder if it’s true. If so, why do these generals hate America? Why don’t they support our troops?

interesteddad · February 25, 2007, 3:51pm

TheDad:

I echo your sentiments about the sense of betrayal. I started to get a quesy feeling in the post-invasion period when it became clear that the US had uncovered zero evidence of WMD in Iraq.

I think the motivations of the Bush administration are a bit more complex than you have outlined. You’ve captured part of it from President Bush’s angle. However, to that, you have to add the fact that Bush is an intellectual lightweight who is famous for refusing to read briefing papers or sit still for a discussion of opposing views.

The other half of the equation is that Cheney (and Rumsfeld) took advantage of Bush’s detachment to run roughshod over US foreign policy. Cheney, in particular, made sure that Bush only heard what he wanted him to hear. Cheney and Rumsfeld are not stupid men. Their policies have been based on a particular philosophical view of the US role in the world and a particular philosophical view of the priviledge of the executive branch.

It was the confluence of Cheney’s aggressiveness and Bush’s passivity that produced the results we currently see.

What fooled me was the long-term observation that guys with foreign policy experience at the highest levels of the executive branch (of both parties) historically have tended to move towards a concensus, incremental, realist assessment of US options – much in the way that a Sen. Warner and a Sen. Levin are probably not that far apart on defense policy. I figured that Bush had enough “old hands” on deck to continue that tradition. It’s just shocking to me how far Cheney/Rumsfeld veered from that approach.

Bush’s record in Texas and his family connections gave me the mistaken belief that he was a fairly pragmatic operative. I was never a fan of Bush, Senior. A friend of mine was one of his campaign speechwriters (he told them that he was a Democrat when he was hired) and said that watching him give a speech was like watching a 2-year old running around the edge of swimming pool. But, I never felt concern that Bush, Sr. would conduct a reckless foreign policy.

Shame on me. From now on, I intend to pay much more attention to the foreign policy and defense experts surrounding each candidate.

mini · February 25, 2007, 3:51pm

“After the fact, I felt betrayed. No WMD. It became increasingly evident that the intelligence was cherry-picked, manufactured, and manipulated to give the answer the Bush administration wanted so that Bush could do what he wanted to do.”

Originally, Clinton Administration, and for better reason. It was after the fact. Clinton had already done what he wanted, and now he needed cover.

Let’s quote “experienced” Senator Biden from 1998:

“An asymmetric capability of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons gives an otherwise weak country the power to intimidate and blackmail. We risk sending a dangerous signal to other would-be proliferators if we do not respond decisively to Iraq’s transgressions.”

Or “astute” and “intelligent” Senator Levin from 1998:

“Mr. President, Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction programs and the means to deliver them are a menace to international peace and security. They pose a threat to Iraq’s neighbors, to U.S. forces in the Gulf region, to the world’s energy supplies, and to the integrity and credibility of the United Nations Security Council.”

These aren’t stupid people. They were lied to and systematically deceived by the Clinton Administration, with information “cherry-picked, manufactured, and manipulated” to give the answer the Clinton Adminstration wanted to provide cover for its crimes.

The Bush Administration didn’t have to do much more, once the road had been paved by the Clintonian child killers.

“This betrayal has so incensed me that the Furies have nothing on me.”

Reserve some of it for the Dems who bought the Clinton “intelligence” hook, line, and sinker.

mini · February 25, 2007, 4:06pm

Iran started its nuclear program under the Shah, actually while I was still there, and with several rationales. First on the list: Tehran even then was among the world’s most air-polluted cities. Burning of natural gas (and even of coal) seemed to be a silly way to go, now that there was (a-hem) safe nuclear power. Nuclear power would also free up major oil resources for export. The thought was that Iran could either build its own oil refineries or nuclear plants, but not both, and that nuclear power was a better bet economically, as oil markets were unpredictable. Nuclear also provided prestige.

Now - you can add a reason - greenhouse gases. Why is it that only westerners are allowed to worry about global warming? ;)

(Now of course, they also want nuclear weapons, and, given what they’ve seen since the shaw from aggressive and hostile occupying forces on their borders, with good reason.)

dstark · February 25, 2007, 4:05pm

“Originally, Clinton Administration, and for better reason. It was after the fact. Clinton had already done what he wanted, and now he needed cover.”

What were Clinton’s goals in Iraq? To kill hundreds of thousands of people?

mini · February 25, 2007, 4:17pm

“What were Clinton’s goals in Iraq? To kill hundreds of thousands of people?”

The major goals were exactly the same as those of the Bush Administration - control of the pipelines, and establishment of permanent U.S. military bases outside of Saudi Arabia. These were long accepted as goals well before the current Administration. What the “idealistic” neocons added was the establishment of western-style democracies, something that Madeleine Albright, always a proponent of realpolitik, thought ridiculous (and still does.)

“To kill hundreds of thousands of people?”

Yes. The idea was not to attack the Iraqi military. If Clinton could kill enough civilians, and, especially children, the theory was that there would be a “palace revolt”, and the new pro-Western military leadership would invite the U.S. in, and the goals could be reached without a drop of American blood shed. It didn’t work, obviously, even with the death of about a million people, around half of them children under age 5 in what was then a country of 20 million people. About a quarter of all children under age 5 died - imagine what a similar number would be in the U.S.

The other reason to kill children was to severely weaken Iraq in the next generation - and this has in fact happened. Classic genocide.

But the strategy failed, and the Europeans called Clinton on the carpet for his crimes. So in came George Tenet (July 1997), and the beginnings of a new strategy, culminating in the Christmas bombings of 1998. Fundamental to the strategy was cover for the crimes, and creation of the WMD myth, a systemic pattern of lies and deceit which Clinton sold to the “experienced” Joe Biden, and the “astute and intelligent” Carl Levin, turning them into parrots of the State Department. Without the Clinton-created mythology, Bush never could have sold his claptrap - and it was really easy for Bush to do, because George Tenet was a Clinton appointee, and Levin and Biden, etc. already trusted him.

dstark · February 25, 2007, 4:19pm

Well, then Clinton didn’t do what he wanted. We don’t have control.

Is Campaign '08 gonna be great or what?

CONNECT WITH US