<p>“Built into your comments is the assumption that Bush has to be wrong.”</p>
<p>It’s not an assumption; it’s an observation.</p>
<p>“Just what do those who support troop withdrawal think will happen if the US leaves?”</p>
<p>The same thing that will happen if we withdraw in six months, after the “surge.” Only there will be more dead Americans in the meantime. For those who oppose troop withdrawal, just when will “victory” cease to be just around the corner? No one on this thread has even been able to tell me what victory is. Cheney told us that the insurgency was in its last throes in 2004.</p>
<p>I don’t teach my kids that because I don’t think it’s true. No matter how much I practiced I could never be a concert violinist, much less a soloist. Could we drop a nuclear bomb and “win” the Iraq war? Sure, but at what cost?</p>
<p>SJ, we already have been defeated. That’s the point. And 20K more troops is only going to result in more dead Americans, not any “victory” (hey, I thought we were victorious three years ago…at least I remember Bush telling us that…). No one thinks we can have a “victory” at this point. What’s the best we can hope for? Under 2000 more dead Americans? </p>
<p>I am on the side of saving American lives (and Iraqi ones), not squandering them for some unwinnable war.</p>
<p>“Well, I’d be happy if somebody could just give us a definition of victory that Iraq did not already meet in 2002.”</p>
<p>Permanent military bases in Iraq.
Permanent U.S. control of the oil pipelines.</p>
<p>“I just find it appalling that so many are openly hoping for defeat in Iraq.”</p>
<p>There are now 1.7 milllion refugees, most of them likely permanent. 650,000 dead since 2003. Trillion dollars spent. Oil revenues, what there are of them, supporting the insurgents. Children can’t leave their homes to purchase a loaf of bread. U.S. foreign policy now the laughingstock of the world; U.S. military seen as a paper tiger; U.S. “intelligence” without any credibility.</p>
<p>Halliburton stock soaring. Sounds like victory to me. ;)</p>
<p>Specifically, the fact that she said absolutely nothing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. Levin is Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee; McCain the ranking Republican. These two are tasked with oversight and funding of the military.</p>
<p>Secretary Rice has stated in her testimony before the Committee that this time is different because Maliki has made a real commitment to progress on the political side. She has assured the Committee that Bush has held his feet to the fire. I am stunned that she didn’t provide any new milestones in her answer to Levin/McCain (the list from September is already obsolete; none of them were accomplished).</p>
<p>There are mechanisms in place (used daily) for administrations to communicate top-level classified information to the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. </p>
<p>Sec. Rice’s response to Levin and McCain was the embodiment of disdain. Remember, McCain is one of the President’s few vocal supporters on Iraq.</p>
<p>Two points by way of background:</p>
<p>a) Levin has been calling for measurable milestones for the Iraqi government for more than two years. It is his opinion that the lack of pressure (no measurable milestones combined with open-ended military commitment) is a reason the Iraqi government has failed to make progress essential to stabilizing the country.</p>
<p>b) The books that are coming out about the inside workings of the Bush administration suggest that ignoring Congressional oversight was an intentional policy championed by Dick Cheney and supported by “innovative” legal opinions from White House council. This skirmish is a part of a legitimate consititutional power struggle that has been waged between Congress and this Executive Branch since 9-11. In my opinion, this “arrogance” is one of the key reasons the Bush administration is currently struggling to round up Congressional support – especially among the warhorses on the Armed Services, Foreign Relations, and Intelligence Committees. Waging war without the support of these Senate warhorses is a fool’s errand and has been forever. These guys have tentacles into the military machinery that go back decades.</p>
<p>This is why, by the way, the warhorses on these committees are asking the Administration to specifically detail the Constitutional authority under which they would use military force against Iran.</p>
<p>AM, you accuse the Bush administration of not listening to his generals and advisers and then drag out some obscure person who retired a couple of years ago who notably says nothing about the potential of a surge. I’d say that if someone is not listening it is a certain person from Boston who is into music. </p>
<p>I doubt that you really are after the truth; you have your heart set on the fact that “we have lost” and there is nothing left to do but put our tail between our legs and come home. However, if there is any shred of an open mind left in you I will give you the same challenge as I did for Hanna - listen to the John Burns interview. In it he shares how the generals on the ground do indeed believe that our last chance is via a surge. Also, listen to the highly respected General Petraeus and see if he shares your view that we have been defeated.</p>
<p>FF, I admire your tenacity, but when I hear about 28 new militant groups, as well as 250 dead on Monday, 100 dead yesterday, I am not hearing that we can “secure” the country with any old “surge”. </p>
<p>Of course, we will learn this the hard way, as we have everything else. It will certainly be revealed that the surge will result in only more deaths, but hey, if it isn’t your kid in the line of fire, most Americans don’t seem to care.</p>
<p>“a) Levin has been calling for measurable milestones for the Iraqi government for more than two years. It is his opinion that the lack of pressure (no measurable milestones combined with open-ended military commitment) is a reason the Iraqi government has failed to make progress essential to stabilizing the country.”</p>
<p>The Democrats like to make believe that there IS a viable Iraqi government that exists outside the Green Zone. There sure isn’t a lot of evidence for it. I think it is ridiculous to “hold Maliki’s feet to the fire”, and hope he has a nice little nest-egg waiting for him in Paris for when he leaves.</p>
<p>“Also, listen to the highly respected General Petraeus and see if he shares your view that we have been defeated.”</p>
<p>General Petraeus WROTE that the U.S. needs 250,000 troops in Baghdad alone. Hardly the equivalent of the paltry escalation of aggressive hostile occupying troops.</p>
<p>Levin has proven that he can’r be trusted to keep confidential information regarding diplomacy private, so why on earth would Rice put anything more than “nothing” in a letter? I wonder what kind of response any previous Sec of Stae would provide regarding a request for full disclosure about sensitive negotiations. The Senate needs to realize that the Executive branch is in charge of foreign diplomacy.</p>
<p>Why aren’t any Democrats other than Feingold calling for Congress to vote to stop funding the war? Why aren’t they as enlightened as most posters here, I wonder?</p>
How utterly condescending and sanctimonious. Why not listen to the “kids” who ARE in the line of fire? The majority of them ARE in favor of sending more troops and only a small minority agree with your plan to bring them home. You feel comfortable saying that those who don’t have kids in the military have no right to express a view about foreign policy but then feel it is OK to take a stance that is completely contradictory to that held by those who are in harms way. I’ll reverse the tables on you - when you have a son or daughter over there you will have the right to call for them to be brought home; until you have such involvement (just after hell freezes over) you have no right to speak for them.</p>
<p>“Why aren’t any Democrats other than Feingold calling for Congress to vote to stop funding the war? Why aren’t they as enlightened as most posters here, I wonder?”</p>
<p>Because they are cowards, and prepared to abandon the troops to the deadly lying, deceit, cheating, and malfeasance of the Administration.</p>
<p>Actually, I’m confident that Levin understands full well there is not a viable Iraqi government. He wants milestones from the administration (which claims there is a viable Iraqi goverment) so that he can set in motion mechanisms to pull out when those milestones are missed.</p>
<p>Actually, the lack of political will for a pluralistic government is the reason we are in the mess. Everyone acknowledges that the “surge” can’t work without political progress. </p>
<p>What is missing from the Alice in Wonderland equation: If there were the political conditions for a pluralistic government, there wouldn’t be this kind of violence in the first place! If sectarian factions in Iraq are so divided that they spend all day killing each other, it is unlikely that they will reach effective compromise within a government.</p>
<p>From what I read, a goodly percentage of those with children or loved ones in harm’s way are very much wondering what they are potentially sacrificing their lives for. The purpose of the mission? Who knows at this point.</p>
<p>Would you like some evidence of this POV FF?</p>
<p>You would have to provide some examples of Levin leaking classified information. A quick Google search turns up nothing.</p>
<p>Why should Rice enumerate specific expected milestones? Because she has said that the Maliki government living up to its commitments is a necessary precondition for the current strategy in Iraq.</p>
<p>BTW, I believe McCain is introducing a resolution this week requiring specific benchmarks.</p>
<p>Only 38% of the active military believes that there should be more troops in Iraq than there are now. The poll is skewed toward older, more experienced military personnel, and toward officers.</p>