Redstate

I can't imagine what contemporary event or set of events would lead you to make those statements

I wasn't thinking of this crew:

Major US newspapers print highly classified documents at will with no action from the Administration. Every major, and most minor, politicians and nearly every news outlet goes out of their way to draw parallels to Vietnam. The leadership of the Senate of one party makes reference to our troops as Nazis, etc and no one in Congress blinks an eye. Other Senators call our troops in Iraq terrorists.

I wasn't thinking of media elites, or weak-kneed politicians, or anyone who aspires to win acceptance from the faculty of the Columbia School of Journalism. THAT crew is made up of what C.S. Lewis would call people "without chests," who aren't up for this fight, yet lack the guts to admit it.

I think a majority of Americans will be repelled once they get a real good look at Team Biden and its chestless wonders. By asking them, straight-up, if they want to quit, their responses should expose their chestlessness for all to see.

BTW, I haven't been gone. I simply haven't had much unique content to add recently. Neverthless, thanks for the kind words.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

The term "surrender monkeys" was gold. I don't think most people want someone overly militaristic or gung ho, but lets call a spade a spade. There are those that want the U.S. to capitulate, which is a de facto surrender. The term "surrender monkeys" has such a nice catchy ring to it.

Surrender monkeys.
Surrender monkeys.
Surrender monkeys.

Most Americans agree with the Baker-Hamilton ISG findings. The term was first used in a New York Post front page referring to Baker and Hamilton.

It's not gold.

The first person to use the term was Groundskeeper Willie. The full quote was "Bonjourrrrr, you cheese-eatin' surrender monkeys!"

http://www.davidstuff.com/france-willie.wav

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

To pile on Bush. The fundamental problem with the war in Iraq is the inability or unwillingness for *anyone* in power to actually "speak to truth" about what the war is really about. The war has become so much more than simply removing a dictator... so in a sense, W was right about that particular mission being accomlished. There was just so much pus under that big ugly scab... how could anyone have known how it would play out? I think it is terribly disingenuous to expect that we would anticipate the current situation. Let's add to that the unrealistic expectations of the American populace... on what basis are we placing our expectations for what this would be like? And what do you mean "kind of sacrafice?" Do you realize that Chicago alone had over 400 murders last year?

I keep thinking how difficult this must be for W to warn America about what terrible danger we are in with Islamic extremism without agitating everyone in the wrong direction. How do you explain to the Americans that we are in real danger from the extremists, some of whom are already in our midst without stirring mentally unbalanced people into persecuting all Muslims? And once it gets started... has anyone read "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds?"

You say this....

. The war has become so much more than simply removing a dictator... so in a sense, W was right about that particular mission being accomlished. There was just so much pus under that big ugly scab... how could anyone have known how it would play out? I think it is terribly disingenuous to expect that we would anticipate the current situation. Let's add to that the unrealistic expectations of the American populace... on what basis are we placing our expectations for what this would be like? And what do you mean "kind of sacrafice?" Do you realize that Chicago alone had over 400 murders last year?

and then downthread you say this.....

Why should that have been explicitly laid out? Why should anyone be surprised that (even if everything were going swimmingly well), given the state of dysfunction in that country (as we knew it then)we would be there for at least five years? What evidence would have made anyone think anything different?

These two comments appear to be in direct conflict with each other.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Or are you nitpicking that I alluded to us (meaning the planners - of which I was not one) being cognizant of some dysfunction being present but not able to anticipate all of it?

You obviously don't know what you are are talking about with this glimmering jewel of ignorance:

"1) declaring "mission accomplished" a couple of months into the endeavor"

Bush never, ever, indicated to the country that the Iraq "mission" was "accomplished". That is a media driven falsehood.

The USS Abraham Lincoln was returning from it's tour in Iraq and was hours from port and thousands of family memebers. The ship had that banner made weeks before they even knew that President Bush what going to visit (which was a very last minute addition).

The fact is, he landed on the ship to say thanks to the all the guys on the ship for a job well done. He also made a quick speech. It was covered by the media who took the banner and President Bush's referall to it as some sort of declaration that the War was over.

And then it snowballed to the point that you come here and post it as a rock solid fact on par with gravity and it's stupid, stupid, stupid!

Gah! This must have been what it was like to argue with someone who still believed the earth was flat - long after it was proven to be round.

I still reside on planet Earth. Where, hostile alien, are you from?

Here are the first two paragraphs of the president's speech delivered aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003 (boldface added):

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment -- yet, it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage, your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other, made this day possible. Because of you, our nation is more secure. Because of you, the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free. (Applause.)

Do you believe that "major combat operations have ended" or that "Iraq is free"? If so, I'm sure you'll be the first to decry sending more troops to the country. What's the point otherwise?

"Major combat operations" are the all out shooting war. You know, tank vs tank. Infantry men vs infantry men. That has ended (or are you aware of an enemy army in Iraq that the military doesn't know about?).

"The tyrant has fallen" = Saddam is no longer in charge. His status has since changed to dead.

"Iraq is free" = The Iraqi people are able to choose their own government and are no longer terrorised by a dictator. Or haven't you been paying attention? Don't you remember all the purple thumbs?

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

why don't we just leave?

As for the banner, this story confirms that the White House now admits to having created and provided it, though allegedly per the request of the crew of the U.S.S. Lincoln (a qualifier about which I have grave doubts). A White House that truly wanted to prepare the country for many more years of hard "slogging" (a word I think the former Secretary of Defense discussed at one time) and that had at least half of a brain would never have agreed to bring such a misleading banner with them, let alone position it just above the president's head as he spoke (unless you believe the sailors could override W.H. preferences in such matters).

Specifically, back up your justification for suspecting that the Navy's lying in this case.

Moe

PS: Don't even think about getting cute about this. If it's just low-grade paranoia on your part, say so. I won't even ban you for it.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

My grave doubts -- which do not qualify as any grade of paranoia, I'm fairly certain -- are only reinforced by the president's admitting that he deliberately misled the press (and, by extension, the American people) when he proclaimed that Donald Rumsfeld would be Secretary of Defense until the end of his second term. (It is my experience that lies usually come in swarms.) I was not aware that I could not express grave doubts without proffering evidence. I'll keep an eye on application of the same standard in other contexts.

In any event, I went on to discuss the situation as if the claim concerning the Lincoln's crew were true. Under such circumstances (i.e., the request for the banner arose from the men and women aboard ship, without any prompting from the White House), the president and his staff were derelict -- if they knew and wanted the country to know that the U.S. military's presence in Iraq would last for many years and likely be quite bloody -- for even bringing the banner, let alone allowing the Commander in Chief to deliver his speech on national television with the thing perched overhead. Permitting such a backdrop is wholly inconsistent with the W.H.'s reputation for excellence in such matters.

Your argument is lost on anyone with any knowledge of the events surrounding the aircraft carrier.

The aircraft carrier in question is not nuclear powered. It was was returning home after a record time at see. Mission accomplished was appropriate.

The words you quoted from the presidents speach never mentioned the Mission Accomplished banner.

see should read sea.

he'd be pissed that you're robbing him of all the credit.

As for the hunky-dory comment, I'll let that pass.

And as for the banner, if you wish to go on record as asserting that the White House compelled the crew of the Abraham Lincoln to participate unwillingly in a PR event, then go ahead. Do you have any proof? Do you think the captain and crew of the Lincoln to be sheep?

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

is that George W. Bush, a man I voted for both times he ran for president, has never made the case for the kind of sacrifice needed

What kind of sacrifice has been needed from the American people so far, which President Bush has not called for? So far, it's been an open question as to whether we've needed more troops or not. Many say yes, but many have said no. If we've reached the point where the President decides we need to increase our force totals in IZ, then OK. However, I have yet to see an emerging consensus, from any sector of the political debate, for a HUGE expansion of our military and a total mobilization of our economy (as we saw in World War II).

What kinds of sacrifices are you calling for? Higher taxes? Rubber drives? War Bond drives? A draft?

"victory" (still ill-defined)

I take it you read "Plan For Victory," and found it wanting. How? Just because you don't like the plan, doesn't mean there hasn't been one.

in that "country" (still ill-defined)

The President's goal has been for Iraq to persist and succeed as a nation, within its recognized borders. Consult an atlas.

As for the President's "slipshod" leadership, you cite two examples:

1) "declaring 'mission accomplished.'" Ummm...for those willing to actually listen , Bush made it clear on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln that major combat operations were over. He also made clear that we had a long struggle ahead. Anyone who actually thought about the challenges ahead knew that's what we were facing. And, as for the banner "Mission Accomplished," the Lincoln's crew hung that to celebrate the end of a nine-month deployment. Those who want to create and sustain KnownFacts about the President simply can't be bothered with that fact. Should the Secret Service have pitched the banner into the sea?
2) Canning Rumsfeld as he did. Machiavellian, yes. But, it did rob the Dems of some of their post-election momentum.

rhatican, we're in the midst of a counterinsurgency. Yes, there were some Administration officials who opined that the fight in Iraq would be easy. But they were in the minority. Most experts warned us to be ready for a long and sticky fight. Show me an official Administration position paper or Presidential speech that said that Iraq would be quick and easy.

I'm sorry if you feel let down. But, the Bush Administration did not promise you (or anyone) a quick fight in Iraq.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

"* Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages
o Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
o Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
o Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism."

Okay, that looks good. Problem is, it doesn't look anything like what we have now, or what we are likely to see in the foreseeable future. The basic problem with the Plan is that it makes no mention anywhere of the sectarian violence that is the fundamental problem today. I guess that's why we're waiting for a new plan to be unveiled later this month.

If you do not see these stages being achieved, it is because you are choosing to look away, or looking only at anecdotal data from the media.

o Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists,

Check. Violence against US forces peaked over two years ago and against Iraqi security forces in the summer of 2005. I would call that steady progress.

meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions,

Interim government elected, check; Attempts to disrupt the election defeated, check; Constitution agreed and ratifed, check; new government elected under the constitution, check.

and standing up security forces.

Total numbers of Iraqi security forces on duty:
May 2003, 7-9,000; End 2003, 99,600; End 2004, 118,009; End 2005, 223,700; November 2006, 323,000.

That would be a pretty comprehensive, check.

o Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security,

Increasingly this is so. As you have seen above the Iraqi security forces are continuing to grow in strength, and are taking more of the brunt of the work. There were surges in violence in mid and late 2006, which the Iraqi security forces took the lead in defeating - hence the much lower levels of violence against Coalition forces. So, check.

with a fully constitutional government in place,

Iraq's score on the Index of Political Freedom, 5.05, ahead of all Middle Eastern states except Israel, Lebanon and Morocco. Check.

and on its way to achieving its economic potential.

Total economic growth statistics show strong growth from 2004 onwards, compared with a decline both in 2003 and in 2002, however, these are suspect. I prefer to stand on actual goods which, though anecdotal, show something real:

Cars: pre-war, 1.5 million, now 3.1 million.
Telephone subscribers: pre-war, 833,000; target, 1.1 million; actual, 8.1 million.
Utility infrastructure, eg oil, electricity, water - all stable.
Education: children in primary education +5.7%; middle and high school, + 27%.

There is a long way to go, of course, but 'on its way'? Check.

So that would be pretty clear. You agreed that the objectives were fine, and we have seen that all the short term goals have been met and there has been considerable progress to the medium term goals.

Glad we are agreed.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

I just don't get it: Why didn't Dubya pick you to be the new defense chief, not that sourpuss Gates? You sure take the wind out of those doodlebugs from the ISG, who didn't have the gumption to get out of the Green Zone to see all the wonderful progress in the rest of the country. And you've got to wonder about the million Iraqi refugees in Jordan and 500,000 in Syria who are missing out on all that progress. Well, their loss.

it seems that you consider yourself both amusing and well informed. The first is a distinct misapprehension and the second is up for grabs.

If you can't address a reply to one of your multitude of screeds in a civil manner then you need to find another place to post them.

Glad you found it refreshing. I find that mindless pessimists are often refreshed by exposure to the facts. You can find more of them at the Brookings Institution. Not all are positive, but that was never the standard, as you conceded in your previous post.

The criteria are clear. You agreed that they are fair. You just didn't realise they were being met. Glad you have learned something.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Have you read the corrections page to any major newspaper recently? If they hate incompetence, it is only out of self-loathing.

And apropos of nothing much, don't you think your email address is just an exclamation point to your relentless trolling?

If they did Bill Clinton would never have been elected. What they look for instead is ways to shove our faces in how "bad" America is when it acts in its own self-interest. They did it in Vietnam, Watergate, the Iran hostage crisis, the arms for hostages mess, and now Iraq.

I also find it interesting that your past point of reference is the proximal cause of the current mess in the Middle East. Had Carter acted decisively to put down the tyrants who now lead Iran, we would not be in this position. Iran supports, funds, and trains many of the people who have been and continue to cause problems in Iraq. They have no interest in a stable Iraq in the American sphere of influence, so they do their best to undermine it, with hearty and willing assistance from the MSM. The WoT/War against Radical(Fascist) Islamists or whatever you want to call it will not end until we depose the regime in Iran. So we should get on with it already instead of continuing to bleed in other places.

maybe in the minds of some folks. But if you go back and read the 2003 State of the Union and the address in March 2003 announcing hostilities, it is clear that political transformation was always the primary goal and Saddam on a rope was simply an ancillary benefit.

it means the blunder was made at the beginning. But it does not change the fact that it was a blunder if this is how we are going to define victory. It is a blunder to set out on a military mission where victory will not be judged on what you do and accomplish, but is dependent on what others do.

If we defeat the terrorists in the middle east, but do not bring democracy to the middle east, will we have won? Lost? Defeating the enemy is possible (an achievable goal), but changing hearts and minds of the people, is that militarily possible?

the danger of acting on your ideas and ideals rather than aiming at the lowest common denominator.

Your goals become too many, at times contradictory, and before you know it you have a multi-headed monster.

That is exactly where we are. Here is exactly why no one can say what victory is, even the Administration.

Contradictory goals? Here is one example. We can't crush pockets of resistance because it might bring disfavor on the new government. This is happening all the time in Iraq.

So what is the primary goal of committing our armed forces? Victory over terrorists, or the goal of setting up a "stable Iraqi government"? Again we can accomplish the first, but we are at the mercy of millions of Iraqis for the second. In this case, our attempt to help with the second is causing us to fail to accomplish the first (which is in our power to do).

It pains me to say so, but what was missing from the administration's warfighting plans was any concept of Iraq's history and ethnic makeup. Bush is not alone in this; note the Dim's dim new intelligence committee chief, who thinks Al Qaida is a Shiite organization (coin toss, picked the wrong side). Decision makers didn't know the facts on the ground, and didn't think they mattered.

It would have been nice if the civilian warfighters had considered Col. Boyd's OODA decision cycle: Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act, instead of following Rumsfeld's TWIIBAR loop: "Think Wishfully, Ignore Intelligence, Blunder Ahead, Repeat."

Here is the passage regarding Iraq in the 2003 SotU address....

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)

Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. (Applause.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

The entire passage was about WMDs and a demand by Saddam Hussein to disarm.

Other than one sentence that references the Iraqi people being liberated, I don't see where political transformation in Iraq was part of the plan.

Heck he was more clear, regarding political transformation, when he talked about Iran.....

Different threats require different strategies. In Iran, we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government and determine their own destiny -- and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom.

I ask you this because I have seen some people make mention of this belief before and I just don't understand where they derive it from. It was clear to me at least that WMDs were the casus belli for our invasion and the primary purpose for removing Saddam.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

doesn't necessarily mean it is correct.

You skim at warp speed over the violations of sanctions, etc. as well.

Is it your contention that because he mentioned three different types of WMD that WMD were three times as important? That is about as valid as reading the Declaration of Independence and saying that liberty was unimportant because other things were mentioned more frequently.

I just fail to see how anyone who was alive during the 02-03 debate on Iraq could say what you are saying? Is that what the neo-cons and PNAC were all about? WMD?

We are talking about the message being delivered to the American people, not the political junkies such as you or I. Truth be told I NEVER thought that WMDs were the true reason for going into Iraq.

I believed from the beginning that it was about creating a Western friendly Democracy in Iraq.

I didn't skim over the sanctions. I just don't see how they are relevant to your claim that fundamental political change was a clear stated objected of our invasion of Iraq.

We are talking about message here not technical cover. Are you suggesting that the typical soccer mom and BBQ dad understood what our ultimate objective in Iraq was in 2003?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

It was crystal clear to everyone that fundamental political change was the plan, unless you feel that deposing the Iraqi government was not fundamental political change.

Perhaps you were hoping that we would install a pro-American strongman to replace Saddam? Well, were you?

That would be the "realist" position, but as I recall there was considerable outrage when it seemed for a time that Chalabi might fill that role. So I'd be interested to hear where you stand on this issue. (And its remarkable that for all your posting here, its still unclear where you stand.)

It was crystal clear to everyone that fundamental political change was the plan, unless you feel that deposing the Iraqi government was not fundamental political change.

I don't think it was crystal clear at all. At least not to the American people.

I'm not suggesting that there was a better course of action. I'm saying that the course we chose was not properly communicated to the American people.

(And its remarkable that for all your posting here, its still unclear where you stand.)

It's because I do not take an advocacy position here. That would be inappropriate. I tend to take a Liberal Devil's Advocate position. If asked about my specific views I will certainly. Matter of fact my first diary was about my views on Iraq.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

1. You weren't paying attention.
2. The MSM didn't publicize the many public statements in that regard.

"Regime change" was a widely used phrase at the time. In fact it was also used by the left to suggest that we also needed a "regime change" in the US. What exactly do you think that phrase meant if it wasn't "fundamental political change"?

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

If asked about my specific views I will certainly.

Your diary, and your comments, go into detail about what you are against. You manage to remain completely opaque as to what, if anything, you are for.

So let me ask again - do you think we should have replaced Saddam with another dictator? WIth Chalabi?

... but I believe he might be fairly characterized as a believer in the "Containment was Working" Pleasant Fiction™. And as such, he would be (again) fairly characterized as opposed from the get-go on first principles and therefore unconcerned with such details as with whom to replace Saddam.

He'll certainly correct me if I've misstated his POV.

< re-cloak >

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

Yes, I'm familiar with his ability to wriggle like a greased eel when asked a question.

I'd like to hear some straight-forward answers to some straight-forward questions. Nobody else is allowed to engage in this degree of obfuscation and I don't see why flyerhawk is accorded special privileges.

I certainly can provide opinions of what we could have done differently but I won't deny that I was very much against the war from the get go.

You know who else was, apparently? Gerald Ford......

Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said. "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do

Weird how a former Republican President felt the emphasis was on WMDs.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

not with the war itself. He thought they made a mistake in using WMD as a primary reason. As I said in another post, there were MANY reasons that we went to war. WMD was only 1.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Well I didn't say that he disagree with the war, although other comments in the interview certainly suggests he did.

You can keep saying there were many reasons why we went into Iraq but the truth is that the PRIMARY reason was WMDs. It amazes me that you, and others, would even try and suggest otherwise.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

...that we went in there because we were no longer willing to take the risk that Hussein represented. Which included WMDs, to be sure. Vicious human rights violations, also - including blatant state-sponsoring of terrorists - but that's one blank spot generally found among the antiwar movement that I've despaired of seeing eliminated before either 1/20/2009, or 1/20/2012.

I particularly hope that the second to last thing that went through Hussein's head was the thought Gee, I could have avoided all of this if I had just obeyed my cease-fire obligations*. Because if he didn't want to be treated like a power-mad dictator with a credible WMD program, he shouldn't have acted like one.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

*The last thing? A sincere, heartfelt and honest repentance of his sins, of course, of course. Hell is eternal, after all.

To be clear I am not speaking to the morality of our justifications and actions but the praticality and political impact.

I think that the President would have been better served speaking to the horrors of Saddam and supplementing those views with talk of the WMDs. Instead he did the reverse and when WMDs were not found, he found himself in a politically untenable situation. Now in his defense, any rational analysis of the situation in early 2003 would suggest that Saddam did indeed have WMDs so it wasn't a bad play. But it did blow up because they couldn't find those WMDs.

And your 2nd point is one that I will always wonder about. I've heard various arguments as to why Saddam was so pugnacious but none has ever felt true to me. It Bush made numerous missteps during this whole process they pale in comparison to the disastrous moves that Saddam made from 1990 to 2003.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

So let me ask again - do you think we should have replaced Saddam with another dictator? WIth Chalabi?

Well first of all I opposed the invasion to begin with but that wasn't the question.

I think that we should have gone hat in hand to the UN, Arab League, and NATO and looked for support for Post-Saddam Iraq.

I would have made it clear the moment that Saddam was captured that the war was far from over and that we needed to understand that the greater challenge lay ahead.

I would have addressed the American people and told them that we will need to make sacrifices for the greater goals we must achieve, rather than downplay what was going on in Iraq.

that's a brief synopsis of some of the things I would have done differently.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

And now you understand why I avoid expressing my views here. They will always be given short shrift and largely ridicule while my motives and integrity will invariably be questioned as well.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

You cite my question to you;

So let me ask again - do you think we should have replaced Saddam with another dictator? WIth Chalabi?

And then refuse to answer it. But in characteristic fashion, you don't simply say "I'm not going to answer you". Instead you ramble on for a few paragraphs on matters which have nothing whatsoever to do with the question.

Flyerhawk, you're a textbook troll. That is to say, you like to grill other people about their positions, but nothing short of being stretched on the rack will ever induce you to actually answer a question yourself. Of course I knew this before I engaged you here, I just think of you as an online scratching post.

You ask me a question that has one answer and then call me a troll when I try to explain my POV.

Typical indeed.

Or maybe you really think I wanted a dictatorship imposed in Iraq. Anything is possible I guess. But I think I'll go with you trying to frame the debate to favor your own views.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

What do you think the "one answer" is?

I asked you, do you think we should have replaced Saddam with another dictator? Your response ..

I think that we should have gone hat in hand to the UN, Arab League, and NATO and looked for support for Post-Saddam Iraq ..

is not an answer.

I would have made it clear the moment that Saddam was captured that the war was far from over and that we needed to understand that the greater challenge lay ahead..

is not an answer.

I would have addressed the American people and told them that we will need to make sacrifices for the greater goals we must achieve, rather than downplay what was going on in Iraq ..

is not an answer.

Why are you unable to answer a simple question?

I do not think we should have installed a dictator in Iraq.

A very useful statement.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

It's contrary to the "realist" position, for one thing. So it goes a ways towards identifying your own political leanings.

And what would you have told them those greater goals were?

I would say "I think that we should have gone hat in hand to the UN, Arab League, and NATO" is about as clear as you can get.

I think you are wrong an awful lot, but I do not question your integrity, your patriotism or your intelligence. I like to think of you as a good example of how smart, decent people can nonetheless be terribly mistaken.

And now you understand why I avoid expressing my views here.

Hinzsightreport.com -- Citizen Journalism!

Are you suggesting that the current death toll is not great enough for you? Or that the war is not costing enough? Or is it just that if a war doesn't cause tax rises no-one can take it seriously? Or are you falling into the silly John Kerry/ Charlie Rangel idea that rich people aren't paying enough in blood or taxes?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

I don't think you read my comment properly.

I didn't say anything about acceptable levels of sacrifice. I said that the President should have made it clear that sacrifices will need to be made.

Heck they don't even put the Iraqs costs into the unified budget. They create an annual special appropriate so that they don't have to deal with the political costs of that even.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

run for President then your "wouldas" wouldn't sound like the lightweight, Monday morning QBing in which the Left excels.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

and there has been no agitation to invade them. Clearly the reason we went to war against Sadam was his willingness not only to create, but also to use them. If you are seeking to undo the willingness to use them, you necessarily need to create a new nation state when you are done. For some odd reason, we seem to prefer democratic ones to tyranies and autocracies.

Here is George W. Bush's biggest mistake. He changed victory from an achievable one of moving Saddam out of power (Mission Accomplished) to bringing a stable democracy to Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.

Yup. And he did so without getting real buy-in from the American people for a long-term protracted event. Whereas he had overwhelming support for going to get the WMDs and even ousting Saddam, he should have realized that, when we never found the WMDs, the political landscape had changed.

And perhaps he did realize that. I think it is possible that he changed strategies BECAUSE we didn't find WMDs in Iraq. Which is perhaps why he never really marked out a course for us in Iraq because doing so would have highlighted that Democracy building was NOT his initial intent.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

the discussion with anything like facts, but from the president's address of March 19, 2003:

To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you. That trust is well placed.

The enemies you confront will come to know your skill and bravery. The people you liberate will witness the honorable and decent spirit of the American military. In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality. Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for his own military -- a final atrocity against his people.

I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.

We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.

So you are basing this premise on essentially 2 paragraphs from a speech given to prepare the world for our invasion?

Where was the speech to the American people that this will not be a short interdiction but rather a lengthy occupation? While I can at least understand why they expected the Iraqi people to be more supportive of our actions, they had to realize that we wouldn't be leaving Iraq anytime soon.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

that everyone did not realize that from the get-go! Why should that have been explicitly laid out? Why should anyone be surprised that (even if everything were going swimmingly well), given the state of dysfunction in that country (as we knew it then)we would be there for at least five years? What evidence would have made anyone think anything different?

I tell you sometimes I just shake my head at how really shortsighted people are. What lack of imagination and understanding of history. Television truly has ruined the American mind and perception of time.

But I simply don't buy that.

The President is not supposed to ASSUME that the American people understand things such as that. And when he does make that assumption he is leaving him exposed for criticism down the road.

Historically long drawn out military occupations are the exception, not the rule for us.

He needed to explicitly lay that out because people needed to understand that it wasn't just about getting WMDs, if that was indeed the case.

IMO, this has always been a blind spot of the American right during the Bush Administration. Intent on believing that the President is a good leader they, at least a large portion of them, never considered that he failed to lead the nation in this matter. He failed to explain to the American people what laid ahead. And this is a big reason why we are where we are today.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Bush has repeatedly stated that the war on terror would last FAR beyond his presidency. This isn't a problem with a quick and easy solution. That the left refused to listen to or acknowledge those statements is not his fault. You could say it's Bush's fault for not saying it often enough, but the message has always been there.

And the Iraq war wasn't just about WMDs. There were in fact multiple reasons that we went to war as outlined in the congressional authorization, WMD was just one of many.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Historically long drawn out military occupations are the exception, not the rule for us.

We have had, and continue to have, long drawn out military "occupations" in Germany, Korea, and Kosovo. We did not leave troops in Kuwait after GW1, but we did leave them in Saudi Arabia. Going further back, we kept troops in the Philippines for a century after the Spanish American war. Apart from the invasion of Grenada I can't think of many instances where a US invasion was not followed by a lengthy period of military presence.

Let's see.

Gulf War I
Haiti, several times.
Dominican Republic
Panama
Grenada
World War I

Not sure how you can call Korea an occupation. And when did we have troops in Kosovo?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

We had them in SA for over a decade because of that war (more accurately, that phase of the war). We were finally able to move them out because we resumed hostilities, but Gulf War I's hardly an example of us fighting, then going home.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Perhaps we are dealing with a semantics problem. As I understand it, we were not occupying Saudi Arabia. We were asked by the properly recognized sovereign government of Saudi Arabia to bring troops in to protect them. We have no authority in Saudi Arabia the Saudis could tell us to leave whenever they wanted.

No one cares if there are soldiers stationed in far away lands. They care whether we are dealing with political and military crises because are soldiers are in some far away land.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

The Iraqi government could ask us to leave. They don't want us to. So whatever your Kosling friends may think, we are not "occupiers" in Iraq.

We are functional part of the Iraqi government right now. We aren't simply garrisoning troops in the country. We are providing security and military support.

The government in place was created by the United States, even if the politicians themselves were popularly elected.

It is an occupation. And this is exactly the problem. Instead of just calling it what it is there is an attempt by many on the Right to soften the language to make it appear more palatable.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

So you see the current Iraq government, which you concede was popularly elected, as being an American puppet?

The government in place was created by the United States

The form of government was created by the US, just as was done in Japan. Do you dissapprove of this? If so, why?

We are functional part of the Iraqi government right now. We aren't simply garrisoning troops in the country. We are providing security and military support.

Not true and hasn't been true since Bremmer decamped. We also have provided security and military support in Greece, Korea, the Philippines and other areas that weren't considered "occupied."

The government in place was created by the United States, even if the politicians themselves were popularly elected.

The same can be said of Japan, Germany, and even the states of the Confederacy.

t is an occupation. And this is exactly the problem. Instead of just calling it what it is there is an attempt by many on the Right to soften the language to make it appear more palatable.

Actually it isn't. We are involved in helping a popularly elected government, represenatative of the majority of the people, establish itself in the face of an insurgency, of various stripes, and foreign meddling.

I agree that many of my compatriots ran like scalded dogs from the word "occupation" when it was one, under the CPA. But