<p>Food for thought…<a href=“http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/amateur_experts.html[/url]”>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/amateur_experts.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If Sowell opined that the sun was rising in the east, I’d run a cross-check with my own compass.</p>
<p>The problem for all the “stay to win” Busheviks with Iraq is that if you ask them to define who controls Iraq and under what circumstances, you’ll largely hear the sound of crickets. They seem to think that if only the Americans kill enough “bad guys,” with all the “bad guys” conveniently described as “Al Qaeda” to inflame American passions and stiffen resolve, while totally ignoring the reality on the ground, then all will be well.</p>
<p>It means nothing that 90 percent of the Sunnis and 60 percent of Shiites approve of attacks on American troops. It means nothing that they can’t point to an Iraqi political faction who can control the country and is pro-American…hell, the current PM’s faction is pro-Iranian. There’s a magical mystery of how it will all work out if we only stay the course…with a lot of hand waving and no explanation how that maps to any reality on the ground. They crow about the temporary co-option of some of the Sunnis in Anbar while ignoring the virtual Sunni-cleansing in Baghdad and recalling that we once similarly armed the Taliban to our purposes in Afghanistan and, gee, didn’t that work out just swell…the Sunnis of Al Anbar will thank us profusely for the weapons and supplies as their ongoing struggle with the Shiite-dominated central government evolves.</p>
<p>I guess they live in a Fox News “reality.”</p>
<p>"I guess they live in a Fox News “reality.”</p>
<p>TD, old buddy, what is the problem with Fox News? MSNBC is waaaay out there editorially, as well, but when you compare the actual hard news, it could be the same station if you closed your eyes. I mean, heck, what’s the problem with having a station that slants right editorially? It’s not like it’s a secret, just like MSNBC, CBS and CNN’s bias isn’t exactly hidden. I watch MSNBC and FOX, read the NY Times and the NY Post and live to tell. I am after all, a libra and demand a little something on each side of my scale. (All kidding aside, though, do you actually watch Fox news?)</p>
<p>TD, my point is that the Dems insisted that Rumsfeld was wrong to close his ears to the leaders on the ground. Fine – good point. But the Senate unanimously approved of Petraeus’ appointment, insisted that he report to Congress, and then bad-mouthed him before he can give his report. The Dems (and you?) wouldn’t listen to anything he has to say, because it might not agree with their political position. Did you listen to his testimony? Maybe, maybe not. You probably just assume that “while many of the field grade officers I know are well versed in history per se, their appreciation of social, political, cultural, and economic aspects of problems ranges from Rube Goldberg-contorted to dangerously simple-minded.” And we should listen to people who deliver their opinions in A/C offices, rather that the guy who knows what’s going on?</p>
<p>Just because the article was from Sowell, it’s invalid? What specifically do you think is wrong? Did the Democrats not try to bash Petraeus before he spoke? I don’t see how anyone can argue that the Democrats political odds are better with an improved situation in Iraq. You like to talk about “Busheviks” who maintain their position regardless of the facts. When have you EVER admitted that your “facts” might be wrong. </p>
<p>I think I’ll take General Petraeus’ opinion about the status in Iraq over yours, thank you very much. I’m pretty sure he lives in Iraq these days, not some "Fox News “reality.”</p>
<p>TD - your last couple of posts are so full of hyperbole & generalization that you undermine your own credbility.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s just a ridiculous comment. Give people some credit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like the military itself is not an “institution”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…and just how many “field grade officers” do you know?? That is a completely false representation of the “thinking men” we have in the military these days! </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What misconceptions you have! You seem to believe that our military is full of a bunch of mindless gorillas who just want to break things & kill people. It’s people like you spouting falsehoods & inaccuracies who are undermining support for the military. Many of the guys & women in Iraq are serving two or three tours - BY CHOICE. They see what we’re trying to accomplish over there - building schools, restoring utilities, HELPING PEOPLE. They are committed to the mission and it isn’t all about destruction!</p>
<p>Would you rather Saddam & his sons were still in control, putting people in shrredders & all those other horrible things? Your use of the term “Busheviks” suggests that you think those who have some hope for the outcome of this endeavor are also just mindless ideologues. </p>
<p>But hey, you seem to think you have all the answers - what’s your plan?</p>
<p>And if you think al quaeda is going to “go away” just because we leave Iraq, then you are seriuosly deluded. Yes, we fo meed to stop expending so many lives & resources over there, but it has to be done in a way that is not seen as a surrender. You don’t think the officers & advisors have given this any thought??</p>
<p>Bz, if you think AQ is the major problem in Iraq, then you don’t understand Iraq. No problem, lots of people don’t. Including our Doofus-in-Chief. Emotionally equating withdrawal from Iraq with surrender to Al Qaeda is a dishonest bit of propaganda promulgated by the Busheviks but which doesn’t map to reality. 60 percent of all Shiites and 90 percent of Sunnis approve of attacks upon American troops; this is an Iraqi problem, not an AQ problem. The US forces are just a pawn and irritant in a multi-sided Iraqi power struggle in which AQ is, overall, insignificant, despite the bleating about AQ in every administration press release describing action there.</p>
<p>The analogy of carpenter & hammer is perfectly valid to describe folks who think that the “problem” of Iraq can be solved if only you kill enough bad guys. Of course, asking people to sit down and describe who are the bad guys, who are the good guys, and under what circumstances and constraints the good guys will hold power and what role the US has in facilitating that end often produces a befuddled stupor before a reaction that boils down to “Shut up and clap louder.” Well, the folks clapping remind me of nothing so much as those clapping to keep Tinkerbell alive; unfortunately, this is the world stage and not your school drama production and Bush’s Iraq policy is even more of a fantasy than Tinkerbell.</p>
<p>And just because the military itself is an institution, it doesn’t mean the people belonging to it understand how institutions are built, developed, and work. They may understand how <em>their</em> institution works, but this is hardly the same thing, and the military itself as an institution is peculiar and majors and colonels I know have at least some inkling of that as witnessed by their observations about who gets through the gates for promotion to O-7 and who doesn’t and why.</p>
<p>You buy into the notion of the US military “helping people” as if any accomplishments weren’t built on a foundation of sand, largely irrelevant, and subject to horrendous amounts of corruption both in Iraq and the US companies operating there. The number of projects funded but never done, started but never completed, completed but never staffed, or completed but then allowed to fall into decay comprise a huge amount of the total planned.</p>
<p>The US needs to drastically reduce its footprint in Iraq and withdraw from the cities, maintaining search-and-destroy garrisons in outlying areas to react against what AQ activity there is and to prevent AQ from emerging from the ensuing chaos as the Iraqis sort themselves out. Not much I can do about that.</p>
<p>But on the US front, it’s imperative to get the drunks who have been steering the country away from the steering wheel. That’s Job #1, necessary before any domestic repairs can take place. And that means removing the followers of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, Bolton, Rove, and the whole arrogant incompetent lot from power and to take political steps so that they and all the Busheviks and Bush enablers never have any effect of consequence on American power again. And that includes people like John McCain all the way down to through the whole rotten GOP organization…what Rome did to Carthage is a good example. The individual supporters can work on their tennis and bridge games or howl with sound and fury signifying impotent rage…I don’t care either way. That’s something I <em>can</em> do something about and as one small element of the national body politic it’s something I’m doing my damnedest to effect.</p>
<p>===</p>
<p>ZM, yes, I’ve watched FN, often in places where I’m a captive audience. There are many ways to frame a story and FN consistently frames political stories with the most conservative, pro-Republican manner frame it can. “Fair and balanced” my right testicle. The caption labels appearing on screen while someone is talking are particularly damning, crap that more or less says “Democrats for Defeat in Iraq” and they have a nasty habit of making “mistakes” that always have the effect of helping the GOP, e.g., “mistakenly” identifying an indicted Republican as a Democrat, etc. all the time…once or twice is a mistake, consistently is a policy.</p>
<p>Faux News should be registered as the propaganda arm of the RNC.</p>
<p>Btw, something like 1/3 of all Americans think that Saddam Hussein was personally involved with the planning, ordering, and execution of the 9/11 attacks. Any guess as to which news organization’s viewers are most likely to have that view?</p>
<p>Well, TD obviously you are a hopeless cae!</p>
<p>How about utilizing that “Liberal Cognitive Ability” (see other post about that) and check out this site with REAL news straight from the frontlines about what is really happening in our armed forces relative to the War on Terror. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.defendamerica.mil/[/url]”>http://www.defendamerica.mil/</a></p>
<p>Be sure to look at the pictures!</p>
<p>I don’t have a lot of hope for you b/c you are just so closed-minded. But if the assertions in that other thread about Cognitive Abilities are true, maybe, just maybe you can actually recognize the facts & adjust your thinking! In any case, I hope you will soon find reason to quit bashing our military & their mission. You never said how many officers you “know”, but let me tell you that I live in a military town - many many of our local marines are volunteering for tours in Iraq - and then returning again & again. I trust their judgement about whether this is a worthwhile mission or not! God Bless Them!</p>
<p>And instead of railing on about how little confidence you have in the military, how about contributing to one of the charities mentioned on the above site. How about care packages thru anysoldier.com or contribute something to the wounded warrior project? You could spend your time doing something POSITIVE, rather than negative.</p>
<p>BTW, it is rather comical that you don’t realize that our enemy IS “Al Queda in Iraq”. Granted, that appears to include insurgents from all ove the Middle East. Isn’t it curioius how they all migrated to Iraq once we started fighting over there! Better concentrated in that one place than spread out to diverse locations (more than they already are!). We have an advantage in fighting them in a time & place of our choosing - that just happens to be Iraq.</p>
<p>Equating Iraq with the war against Islamic terrorists is among the biggest swindles this administration has perpetrated. It is simply wrong. The majority of attacks against Americans in Iraq are by Sunni insurgents not allied with AQ. For that matter, 90 percent of Sunnis and 60 percent of Shiites approve of attacks on American fools. </p>
<p>Your posts are full of irrelevancies. That Marines returning to Iraq to “finish the job” may be laudable on an individual level but says nothing that the “job” is either “winnable” or even “the right job.” Most of the blustering Busheviks drop into sputtering incoherence if you ask them to define “victory” in terms of who, among the major political factions in Iraq, will run the country and under what conditions, ranging from relations to Iran to internal compromises to achieve the pretty much universally ignored, universally despised “political reconcilliation.”</p>
<p>Your response is just a mind-numbing variant of the “Shut up and clap louder” variety and while this may strike a chord with credulous fools, most Americans have come to their senses.</p>
<p>But, please, continue to knock yourself out for McCain. I enjoy seeing any waste of resources on the other side.</p>
<p>Angry? Me, angry? Certainly I’m angry. The arrogant orifices running this administration has taken the tragedy of 9/11 and used it as the justification to inflict disasters upon my country, both internationally and abroad. I have no intention of “playing nice” until the last neocon is out of power and Republicans are reduced to running redneck states and a few rural counties here and there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’ve posted this statistic three times now. Where are you getting these figures?</p>
<p>Again, you seem to think that the present administration, pentagon advisors & soldiers on the ground are just idiots - so…here’s your chance. Lay it our for us - what’s YOUR plan? Just what do you think woud happen if we just packed up & moved out of Iraq overnight? What’s your “perfect scenario”?</p>
<p>And did you even visit the website I posted - or would you rather just revel in your ignorance?</p>
<p>And let me get this straight - you’re backing HILLARY for PRESIDENT?? That’s the best y’all got to offer?? Hahahahaha! That’s Hillaryous! (I just made that up! Altho’ I’m sure SOMEONE’S used that line before, I bet it won’t be the last time!). If y’all could put up a decent candidate, it might just be worth voting for him/her just so y’all would stop these ridiculous diatribes!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would like to see us declare “Mission Accomplished” and pull our troops out at a fairly rapid rate over the next 12 months.</p>
<p>Divert some of the $10 billion a month we are currently flushing down the drain into humanitarian relief efforts to deal with the refugee problem and strain on neighboring countries.</p>
<p>I have no preference whatsoever for who emerges as the political victor in Iraq. That’s for the Iraqis to sort out themselves.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here you go. It’s fairly extensive on the, all of it bad news for Busheviks. It shows 94 percent for the Sunnis, only(!!!) 35 percent of the Shiites (who comprise 80 percent of the population). I grabbed it quickly, so I didn’t check the date, it may be pre-surge and the report I heard cited the other day was definitely post surge…no surprise that the Shiite negatives would go up after the heavy US operations in Iraq. (And here’s a question for the Bush enablers: how many have bothered to study <em>anything</em> about Iraq besides what Bush mouthpieces and Faux news tell you? How many of you know <em>anything</em> about the major political factions within Iraq, where they draw their support from, and the nature and stance (not wide) of their militia forces and attitudes vis a vis Iran?)</p>
<p>
You must be a slow reader: try fifth paragraph, post #86 for starters. It gets more than a little annoying when people pretend one hasn’t made the points that one has. </p>
<p>And I’ll turn it around: not you, nor virtually any Bushevik, has defined “victory” in terms of who [what political faction(s)] controls Iraq under what conditions and circumstances. Just a bunch of mindless handwaving about defeating AQ, as if AQ were the problem.</p>
<p>
Careful, buckoo, about claims of ignorance. I know a damned sight more about Iraq, militarily and culturally, than most people, and more than a 100 percent of those who faithfully rely upon Bush, Petraeus, or Fox News to tell them what to think. I was a junior staff member for a leading Democratic Senator on the Armed Services Committee, my college coursework included two quarters on Middle Eastern foreign policy with an emphasis on Iraq, and there’s a fair bunch of field grade officers I spar with all the time…what have <em>you</em> got? Btw, my Lefty prof ridiculed me in 1974 when I proposed an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait…said it would never happen. I don’t submit to authority of either Left or Right though the Right has proved to be a damned sight more damaging to the country than I ever dreamed the Left could be.</p>
<p>Btw, for those who hold Petraeus as a saint’s relic that makes Bushevik policy all better, there’s a long list of retired flag officers who disagree with Bush’s Iraq policy. There is not one homogenous “military” position and it’s another bit of false-carding duplicity to suggest there is.</p>
<p>Btw, here’s a bit from an <em>active</em> officer…Petraeus’ boss in Central Command, fwiw, for those who don’t get news beyond Faux News and the Bush noise machine:
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235[/url]for”>http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235for</a> the rest.</p>
<p>
Dear friend, I argue my points with citation and substance, no mere diatribe. I have no intention of attempting to garner your vote for a Democratic candidate. I am hoping that all Busheviks experience the electoral steamroller that gets the Democrats the White House, another 4-8 Senate seats, and 5-15 House seats next year. And I want them to see it coming. And just before the steam roller hits and turns them into a patch of grease on the electoral road, I want them to think of people like me. Even now, I hope they feel unease and dread over their morning papers and their evening cocktails. I hope things like my posts haunt their dreams over the coming months. Many can already feel it in their bones, the GOP is going down and Bush’s Iraq policy with it. A small bit of retribution for the damage done to my country but, for the moment, I’ll take it.</p>
<p>Dream on!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I was never fool enough to offer my services to a Democrat, but I do happen to have a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science from none other than Emory University with an emphasis on Foreign Policy & International Relations - Significantly MORE than two quarters worth of studies on The Middle East, The Soviet Union & more. I’ve lived & traveled all over the world and worked for several years on a NATO base in Europe. I could go on, but I’ll suffice it say that I don’t rely on anyone to <em>tell</em> me how to think. I’m perfectly capable of researching & contemplating the issues and arriving at my own conclusions, thank you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does that comment imply that those officers disagree w/ you??</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I do think AQ is the problem. This is the “umbrella group” through which all those radical muslim extremists can fulfill their dreams of Jihad & kill Americans. How convenient for them that we happen to be in Iraq; but again, better there than here! The idea of victory is, as I believe it has always been, to stabilize the country while trying to help Iraq establish their own democracy. The large voter turn-out, in the face of threats of violence, illustrated that the Iraqi people really do want this for themselves. They are glad that Saddam & his cronies are out of the picture. It’s only been since the country has been invaded by foreign fighters jumping at the chance for martyrdom that “the plan” has gotten so bogged down. Couple that with the Sunni & Shiite factions each vying for the top spot in the power struggle, and you see why it’s become such a mess. Yes, mistakes were made - not securing the Syrian border was a big one. Not sending in enough troops at the outset is another. No one apparently expected the amount of Iraqi on Iraqi violence that ensued - that is disappointing; it has clearly ripped Iraq apart at the seams & made our job infinitely more difficult. Couple that with AQ’s rising influence in the region & it is questionable just how successful this <em>mission</em> can be at this point. However, there is a government in place - such as it is - and it really is in our best interest to stay until that government is more stabilized and can control its own country. We’ve got to help this fledgling democracy survive. If we can eliminate all the non-Iraqi insurgents as well as quell the infighting among the Sunni & Shiites, then maybe there is a chance (I’m currently in favor of a partition plan).</p>
<p>If you are doubtful about the righteousness of this endeavor, let me remind of you of some words of JFK. Everyone has heard these lines from his 1961 Inaugural Address: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But do you know the next line?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He also said this in that speech:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you see, it’s not just some crazy idea drummed up by the Bush administration!</p>
<p>You might add Senate seats. You might add seats in the House.</p>
<p>Unfortunately for the Dems though, a Republican will be President of the United States once again. It’s not just the Hsu scandal either. Your candidate is… well quite frankly she’s a loser.</p>
<p>I would advise you Hillary supporters to venture out of your comfort zone and talk to people who you may not normally asociate with. It doesn’t matter who you talk to…maybe the dry cleaner or the guy who delivers your pizza. </p>
<p>Get out of the circle of (fill in the blank) who you normally associate with.</p>
<p>Hillary has no chance.</p>
<p>Praise God (is that still allowed?).</p>
<p>VD, if Hillary gets the domination, I’ll make book. To the extent that I’d expect to own your house, your car, and your ass. I’d use your ass as a footstool.</p>
<p>Bz, piffle. And that’s what I think of your “experience.” Nice try to pull in the aura of JFK generalities to cover the inane specifics of Iraq but no sale. And I see you’re a fan of the “KGB took the WMD over the Syrian border” conspiracy theory.</p>
<p>What is it with you with asses and footstools?</p>
<p>Some of the former seem to have natural uses as the latter. Why do you ask? If you were really Dei, you’d be omniscient and wouldn’t have to.</p>
<p>Well TD, I could go into more detail about my experience, but then I’d have to kill you - haha!</p>
<p>As far as WMD leaving Iraq, I’m not concerned with what went out of the country (so don’t assume anything), but I am alarmed by what & who has entered Iraq from the Syrian border.</p>
<p>Further, I couldn’t care less whether you’re “buying” anything I have to say. I don’t think there are enough of you left-wing nuts out there to amount to a <em>hill</em> of beans. It’s just that the few of you there are are so vocal that your “message” (inane as it is) might get thru to the others who are waiting for someone to tell them how to think. The ONLY thing you all really have going for you is the mounting frustration over the cost of the war (human & otherwise). And of course we have the liberal bias in the media to thank for that! Yeah, I know you’ll try to deny that exists… (Try convincing us that the sky isn’t blue too!).</p>
<p>You guys are just so mad that you’ve lost the White House in the last two elections that you have resorted to denial of the truth, fabrications, fallacious arguments & blathering. That’s okay - knock yourself out - I’m hanging onto the hope that, come November '08 the rational thinkers in this country will again prevail. Obviously ANYONE is better than a Democrat - as 2000 & 2004 have demonstrated!</p>
<p>
And what exactly is this supposed to mean? That Fallon is right and Petreaus is wrong by virtue of the fact that Fallon’s view may be at odds with Petreaus (but is certainly not in synch with the “get out now” crowd)?</p>
<p>The only thing that this article can defintively put to rest is the notion that Bush surrounds himself only with those who agree with him. Note that Fallon was included in the meeting with Bush so that Bush could hear both sides.</p>
<p>
LOL, Buzz. Support for Bush, support for the war is a minority position. Bush is mired in the mid-30’s, hasn’t cracked 40 in any national poll since last December. Only about 35 percent of the public think that invading Iraq has been worth it. It’s the Busheviks and right-wing nuts who are the dead-enders, the minority, and out of touch with the mainstream of American opinion. </p>
<p>
Actually, even the non-Faux News media, often just picks up the GOP talking points and uncritically accepts the frame, e.g., “Bush to Propose Troop Cuts in Iraq” which is nothing more than cutting back from the peak of the surge and drawing back from what are unsustainable levels. [N.B., the deployment cycle, operational tempo, and wear and tear on the military forces and their capabilities should have anyone who is pro-military, as opposed to pro-Bush, to the point of tears.]</p>
<p>
The rational thinkers prevail with a Dem victory. The dead-ender knee-jerking and hyper-credulous true believers are about the only ones left who believe in Bush and his policies…you do realize that his support among independents is down to 32 percent (12 percent among Democrats, only 76 percent among Republicans). </p>
<p>
As I said, a dead-ender. With a great deal of atonement due to address the damage done our country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It puts to rest the fallacy that Petraeus is an all-knowing savant and that there is a “military” position on Iraq (Bush’s policy) and that those who don’t agree with it are Defeatocrat worms and traitors. </p>
<p>Of course, it was already clear from last November’s elections, when everyone from a former Secretary of the Navy down to a Command Sergeant Major were elected as Democrats to Congress on an anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war policy.</p>
<p>But it’s one of the nice convenient lies that the Busheviks like to imply, that the military is fully behind Bush and his policy and that if citizens aren’t then they’re not supporting the troops. Codswallop.</p>