Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 14, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

BOMBS AWAY....I know the party line is that these are "precision" bombing runs, but still:

A review of military data shows that daily bombing runs and jet-missile launches have increased by more than 50 percent in the past five months, compared with the same period last year. Knight Ridder's statistical findings were reviewed and confirmed by American Air Force officials in the region.

The numbers also show that U.S. forces dropped bombs on more cities during the last five months than they did during the same period a year ago. Airstrikes hit at least 11 cities between Oct. 1, 2004, and Feb. 28, 2005....A year later, U.S. warplanes struck at least 22 cities during the same months.

Apparently our military leaders still don't believe we're fighting a counterinsurgency in Iraq. Either that, or they simply don't know how so they're using air strikes instead. Or else they've given up and are just trying to hold things together until they finally get the word to withdraw.

Bombs don't beat insurgencies. The fact that we're increasing our reliance on them is bad news.

Kevin Drum 9:24 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (255)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Can't we talk about something important, like how liberals hate God and wish he'd go away?

Posted by: Boronx on March 14, 2006 at 9:27 PM | PERMALINK

"Apparently our military leaders still don't believe we're fighting a counterinsurgency in Iraq"

Thus spake General Drum, the intrepid and wise military leader!

Posted by: am on March 14, 2006 at 9:27 PM | PERMALINK

I read that the cost of the war is going up based on the last supplemental request. This probably confirms why it is going up.

Posted by: cperrin on March 14, 2006 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINK

am, what do you think is going on?

Posted by: Boronx on March 14, 2006 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINK

The fact that we are conducting airstrikes as we start the fourth year of occupation is the only fact anyone needs to know to determine that we have lost this "war".

As Kevin said, bombs are the insurgents best recruiting tool. Or, maybe, second best after Abu Ghraib.

Posted by: arkie on March 14, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

This post provokes two thoughts: first, this is exactly what started happening in Vietnam as Nixon began to implement his "Vietnamization" strategy. It killed a lot of people, but obviously didn't really accomplish anything. Second, Juan Cole has for some time argued that the US has a moral obligation to preven a full-scale, conventional, civil war from breaking out in Iraq, and that this can be done via air power and special forces (neither based in Iraq per se). Cole has otherwise been very critical of the US use of airstrikes and of the unwillingness of US media to report on their effects. I've never quite understood exactly what air power is supposed to accomplish vis a vis preventing a conventional civil war. Certainly over the last few weeks we've seen killing on a scale not far below full scale civil war; hard to see what air power could do about any of it.

Posted by: Rich C on March 14, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it.

Posted by: Richard M Nixon on March 14, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

boronx, it is a long established fact that am doesn't think at all.

as for this news note, look, when the president doesn't understand what's going on (and he clearly doesn't), then it's hard for the Pentagon to understand what's going on. it's much easier for them to cling to the notion that we are fighting an "enemy," rather than coming to grips with the multi-dimensional unhappiness that is this demented piece of bush-ian adventurism.

Posted by: howard on March 14, 2006 at 9:38 PM | PERMALINK

You mean you don't believe Dickless Cheney's claims that the insurgency is desperate and on the brink of defeat?

You mean violence and the US response is actually increasing, contrary to what the conservative lemmings who comment here say?

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 9:41 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, is there an info on the BDAs of these air strikes? Or do you think they are just blowing things up for the hell of it?

Posted by: Keith G on March 14, 2006 at 9:41 PM | PERMALINK

A review of military data shows that daily bombing runs and jet-missile launches have increased by more than 50 percent in the past five months, compared with the same period last year. Knight Ridder's statistical findings were reviewed and confirmed by American Air Force officials in the region.

Isn't interesting how this goes mostly uncommented upon by the press in general?

"War in Iraq? Isn't that just Iraqis whacking Iraqis now? sigh. Oh those hot-blooded desert people. They'll never learn."

Heyzeus! Just like Vietnam towards the end - pull the troops but bomb the shit out of everything.

Bill Maher was right. The 9/11 hijackers weren't cowards. They were willing to die for what they believe int. However, when things get too hot or complicated for the U.S., we always substitute fire power for strategy. How many Glenn Reynolds, Jonah Goldbergs, Assrockets, Limbaughs, Cheneys or Bushes have been, are willing to die for this cause?

May they all die slow painful deaths and burn in hell for eternity.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 14, 2006 at 9:41 PM | PERMALINK

"Bombs don't beat insurgencies. The fact that we're increasing our reliance on them is bad news."

Well, that was the entire Bosnian war, and that had zero American deaths. No real nation building though.

Its more troops
Then its less troops (Murtha)
Now its troops instead of airstrikes...

Posted by: McA on March 14, 2006 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINK

Am I the only person wondering how America lost its way? This war is as pointless as it is endless. Nobody seems to have any idea of an end game. Our leadership hasn't got a clue. The Democrats should be screaming bloody murder, but aren't. They cower under their beds afraid of a President with a 36% approval rating and no plan. The people are out front of the elected officials, but neither the press nor the officials seem to notice. Iran is on the horizon. That's just what we need. Yeh, right.

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 14, 2006 at 9:46 PM | PERMALINK

"Men, it is not your duty to die for your country; it is to make the other son-of-a-bitch die for his." -Patton

Our advantages are in firepower and information. If we're using the latter to put the former to better use, that's GOOD news, not bad.

I don't expect our army to play fair and scale down just because the other guy isn't an even match.

Posted by: Avatar on March 14, 2006 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK

McAnus: Well, that was the entire Bosnian war, and that had zero American deaths. No real nation building though.

Bosnia didn't involve an insurgency.

Why do you lie?

Could it be you don't really have any real evidence that would show your support for Bush and his policies are justified, so you just make it up?

Pretty much nails it.

Its more troops
Then its less troops (Murtha)
Now its troops instead of airstrikes...

First, its conservative lies.
Then, its more conservative lies.
Now, its conservative lies still.

McAnus is consistent!

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 9:51 PM | PERMALINK

McA: Well, that was the entire Bosnian war

Bosnia was not an insurgency.

Iraq is a country that we "conquered" three years ago. Remember "Mission Accomplished". We are bombing territory that we claim to control. This is equivalent to bombing Frankfurt or Hamburg in 1948.

Posted by: arkie on March 14, 2006 at 9:52 PM | PERMALINK

Didn't Sy Hersh wrote about this in the New Yorker months ago? I seem to recall him writing about a new military strategy that would rely on air power as a way to reduce our reliance on ground troops in Iraq.

Posted by: D. on March 14, 2006 at 9:52 PM | PERMALINK

The Democrats should be screaming bloody murder, but aren't. Posted by: Ron Byers

They can't Ron because they never put up any resistance to it to being with. Except for Russ Feingold. Feingold/whoever in 2008?

Posted by: Jeff II on March 14, 2006 at 9:53 PM | PERMALINK

Bombs don't beat insurgencies. The fact that we're increasing our reliance on them is bad news.

When you know you can't win... it increases the frustration... and so you drop more bombs.


Posted by: koreyel on March 14, 2006 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINK

Jeff II, I am with you on Feingold. Near as I can tell he is the last real American in Washington.

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 14, 2006 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINK

Keith G: The linked article doesn't talk about damage assessments. It quotes military spokesmen saying that they use precision munitions aimed only at known targets, but that's it. Take it for what it's worth.

I'm not sure it really matters all that much, though. If there's anything that nearly all counterinsurgency experts seem to agree on, it's the fact that bombing is counterproductive when it comes to defeating an insurgency. That's true even of precision bombing.

If our counterinsurgency tactics were successful, we'd be bombing less, not more. The fact that the opposite is true means either that our counterinsurgency tactics aren't working or that the military doesn't really believe we're fighting a counterinsurgency. Either one of those is bad news.

Posted by: Kevin Drum on March 14, 2006 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

Thus spake General Drum, the intrepid and wise military leader!

Posted by: am on March 14, 2006 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINK

Marty Kaplan has an interesting article over at Huffington Post entitled "We the Morons" that would seem appropriate to this conversation about the Iraq War and the failure of our leaders or the press to notice that we are bombing more and enjoying it less.

According to Kaplan "we are at a watershed high in Americans' hunger for political information, intensity of political feeling, and yearning to make a difference. Ironically, at such a ripe moment, the political class seems to be catastrophically out of touch with the governed whose consent they depend on."

I wonder why?

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 14, 2006 at 10:16 PM | PERMALINK

Sounds like a big portion of Iraq is the "land of no go". The doctrine of US casualty minimization for political purposes.

Either it's the beginning of a withdrawal or the beginning of a world of hurt.

Posted by: B on March 14, 2006 at 10:17 PM | PERMALINK

Our advantages are in firepower and information.

You can scratch information. We don't know who they are, where they are, or when they are. The leaders of this expeditionary train wreck have been consistently ill informed about the situation (militarily, culturally and politically) within Iraq.

Firepower is the last resort, and that's why an increasing reliance on it is not a good sign.

Posted by: floopmeister on March 14, 2006 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks Kevin. I was just wondering if BDAs would give an indication of tageting: safe-houses, munition stashes, etc. I sure hope the US military is not blowing things up just to show them who is boss.

Posted by: Keith G on March 14, 2006 at 10:19 PM | PERMALINK

I'm having a bit of trouble keeping track of the political Bat-Turns around here. Can we hear again from those who thought the idea of an "over the horizon" force that would come zooming in on demand was a brilliant idea?

What the hell did you think THAT would involve if not air power?

Or were we speculating on "over the horizon" door-to-door ground forces? That would be something to see logistically.

You really need to keep some note cards or something to try and stay consistent.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 14, 2006 at 10:20 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz

You are right, if we were trying to use an "over the horizon" strategy air power would be our weapon. Unfortunately our Hummers are still driving around the streets, taking fire. Our soldiers are still dying.

I have heard that the tactic of choice is to chase a group of insurgents into a house and then to call in air. That way the troopers don't have to risk going into an unknown. Good tactic if you have unlimited air.

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 14, 2006 at 10:24 PM | PERMALINK

What the hell did you think THAT would involve if not air power?

troops and systems that aren't based locally, but can be deployed quickly to the target area, if necessary.

it means our troops aren't sitting there as targets, right in the middle of the Iraqi's daily lives, but can show up on very short notice, should the situation call for it.

but of course you knew that, didn't you ?

Posted by: cleek on March 14, 2006 at 10:26 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz -- you and your hero stepped in it, you guys get to pick it out of your tread with a stick.

Murtha is just one congressman throwing out ideas. He's not the party and his brain farts don't have to be in tune with the party platform.

Posted by: B on March 14, 2006 at 10:28 PM | PERMALINK

B

Murtha's "brain farts" are better than the collective wisdom of our entire civilian leadership team of Bush, Rumsfelt, Cheney ad nauseum.

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 14, 2006 at 10:31 PM | PERMALINK

no arguments there -- but I don't think anyone has a good solution for this mess. Better ones, yes. Good ones, no.

Posted by: B on March 14, 2006 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINK

I'm just curious what the target of these bombs are. I here a lot of "they" and "them" talk; who are "They?"

Posted by: nutty little nut nut on March 14, 2006 at 10:37 PM | PERMALINK

Well, that was the entire Bosnian war

Look! It tries to think again!

Posted by: ogmb on March 14, 2006 at 10:41 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: I'm having a bit of trouble keeping track of the political Bat-Turns around here.

We're agile - unlike wingnuts that only turn right.

To me the real point is that if you feel compelled to increase airstrikes, the mission ain't even close to accomplished.

Hint: the bombing of Japan and Germany stopped in 1945. Truman didn't announce VE or VJ day and then say "oops, just a few more years of bombing".

This is more like the Tet Offensive. Tactically we won (cue cmdicely rant). But the American people started to realize that the "almost over" line was bullshit.

Posted by: alex on March 14, 2006 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

You really need to keep some note cards or something to try and stay consistent.

Thought the war was a stupid idea before it started.

Still think it's a stupid idea.

Where's the inconsistency?

Posted by: floopmeister on March 14, 2006 at 10:45 PM | PERMALINK

We've completely fucked up Iraq. When SAS soldiers start resigning things are truly bad:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/12/nsas12.xml

Posted by: Vanya on March 14, 2006 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINK

D. is right: Sy Hersh wrote about this as a strategy soon to be implemented by US forces, last fall in the New Yorker. The idea was that this would help cover our ignominous retreat...much as in Vietnam.

Is there such a thing as being too far ahead of the curve?

Posted by: Kit Stolz on March 14, 2006 at 10:53 PM | PERMALINK

to go one step further in response to tbrosz, the point is that what's going on in iraq is an internal struggle. the purpose of an over-the-horizon force is just in case it all really goes to hell in a handbasket.

instead, we don't have a defined enemy, just a morass. Bush thinks the enemy is terrorists, or today, he thinks it's IEDs for crissake. I'm not even sure that calling what's going on an insurgency makes any sense any more.

what certainly doesn't make sense is to think that we've got an advantage in "firepower." for that to be meaningful, there would need to be an enemy over whom we have that advantage, but there is no "enemy."

meanwhile, congrats to am for continuing to demonstrate what not-thinking looks like!

Posted by: howard on March 14, 2006 at 10:55 PM | PERMALINK

meanwhile, congrats to am for continuing to demonstrate what not-thinking looks like!

Actually, I think it's called "over-the-horizon" thinking.

Or, in layman's terms; "Off-the-planet" thinking.

Posted by: floopmeister on March 14, 2006 at 11:02 PM | PERMALINK

Well I think this makes perfect sense. We have "unlimited" munitions, and we certainly control the air. So we just drop shit 24/7, everyone stays inside, and presto! No insurgency, no grumbling about the US presence, no nothing.

It's a perfect plan. Unless you have to leave your house, I guess. But then fuck them, they shouldn't have been born in Iraq.

Posted by: craigie on March 14, 2006 at 11:05 PM | PERMALINK

When SAS soldiers start resigning things are truly bad:When SAS soldiers start resigning things are truly bad

Why do SAS soldiers hate America?

Fuckin' liberal pussies....

/snark

(please don't kill me and make it look like an accident, any SAS guys who are reading this. It was snark. SNARK!)

Posted by: trex on March 14, 2006 at 11:06 PM | PERMALINK

I mentioned earlier that I have read the tactic of choice is to chase Iraqi insurgents into a house and then call in air. I said that was a good tactic, and it is from the point of view of the American troops. It is exactly what I would do if I were them. But it does have one bad side effect. Those houses are occupied. The poor folks living in those houses die just like the insurgents trapped with them. Mom, dad, grandma, little sister die on a regular basis. That is how you recruit new insurgents.

I read in a post recently that war is a necessary evil. If it isn't necessary it is just evil. The guy is right.

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 14, 2006 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

The fact that the opposite is true means either that our counterinsurgency tactics aren't working or that the military doesn't really believe we're fighting a counterinsurgency.

lol...

Reminds me of a famous oxymoron...

And speaking of military intelligence...

Given that 42% of our taxes go in that direction, don't you wish the whole thing was run like a business?

I mean talk about government failure....
Iraq sets the bar for t-shirt hell:

300 billion dollars and all we got was this lousy civil war...

Posted by: koreyel on March 14, 2006 at 11:09 PM | PERMALINK

Geneva Hague Fucking War Crime

Aerial Bombing of civilian areas during an occupation is a War Crime, dammit. Fuck censure.

Posted by: bob mcmanus on March 14, 2006 at 11:11 PM | PERMALINK

There must be some kind of mistake. We can't possibly be dropping bombs (and thus killing innocents). We're the good guys. Didn't they welcome us with flowers and tiny little American flags? Didn't they? And whatever you do-- DO NOT talk about once nationalized Iraqi oil now being in private hands. That isn't why we went there. It's just a fortunate side effect. Love your president. Love the war. It's all good.

Posted by: dilemmanade on March 14, 2006 at 11:22 PM | PERMALINK

Aerial Bombing of civilian areas during an occupation is a War Crime, dammit. Fuck censure.

Posted by: bob mcmanus on March 14, 2006 at 11:11 PM | PERMALINK

But if guys with rpg's and military rifles are in an area, its not civilian anymore, is it?

Calling in an airstrike as opposed to storming the house and getting shot with an RPG is just self-defense.

Posted by: Mca on March 14, 2006 at 11:24 PM | PERMALINK

Well, that took a brain surgeon. Until one figures out how to stop an insurgency from breeding, there is no defeating them.

Posted by: elmo on March 14, 2006 at 11:26 PM | PERMALINK

But if guys with rpg's and military rifles are in an area, its not civilian anymore, is it?

Hang on - we're not talking about US cities here.

Posted by: floopmeister on March 14, 2006 at 11:27 PM | PERMALINK

Americans are war criminals en masse.

Posted by: Name on March 14, 2006 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINK

Most of you have dodged the issue. Anybody who thinks you can have easily deploy an effective "over the horizon" ground force doesn't know that much about deployment logistics. For example, a C-17 can carry exactly one Abrams tank.

It's typical for the anti-war types to howl about American casualties that are the inevitable result of pinpoint ground actions, while at the same time wailing about the innocents on the ground that die in Clinton-style air wars.

Pick a tactic. Any tactic.

And please, let's not regurgitate "stay out of Iraq." This is a problem in Afghanistan, too.

A small article of historical interest. Contrast and compare.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 14, 2006 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINK

It's typical for the anti-war types to howl about American casualties that are the inevitable result of pinpoint ground actions, while at the same time wailing about the innocents on the ground that die in Clinton-style air wars.

Sorry, but why did Clinton get mentioned? Sorry mate - there's a corollary to Godwin's Law which states any time a Bush supporter brings up "Clinton!" their argument is discounted.

And no, it's not just his penis.

Oh,, and 'wailing about the innocents' it just tawdry. I'll remember not to 'wail' the next time 911 is mentioned.

And please, let's not regurgitate "stay out of Iraq."

Of course, because that issue is over, isn't it.

We don't even talk about the Iraq War any more.

Old news.

This is a problem in Afghanistan, too.

Do say. Of course, if you actually had support from the local population, you could pursue a classic (and successful) anti-insurgency campaign.

But you don't.

So you can't.

You supported this war - what now?

Posted by: floopmeister on March 14, 2006 at 11:48 PM | PERMALINK

Jeff II, I am with you on Feingold. Near as I can tell he is the last real American in Washington.
Posted by: Ron Byers on March 14, 2006 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINK

Me too.
I've been saying this for weeks. The Dems have stared into the eyes of their enemy, and they not only blinked, but they closed their eyes, laid on their backs, spread their legs wide and handed a container of pre-warmed lube to him and whispered "be gentle, I'm a virgin."

What I don't get is - November 04 came and went. November 06 is coming, and they're still spreading their cheeks and begging for a good hard pounding.

And I'm hearing these kinds of complaints from callers to lefty-talk radio. I'm reading these kinds of posts more and more frequently. The Democrat voter base is getting more and more pissed, and the Democratic politicians are growing more and more passive, impotent, and irrelevant.

I can't imagine that they're ignorant to this growing buzz of discontent. I'm even hearing rumors of Gore running as an Independent in 08. I'm sure he'll get a lot of Dem defectors if they blow '06 (and I'm convinced that it's already too late for them to recover, no matter what scandal comes out about BushCo). If I were a Republican thinking of the Presidency in '08, I'd have a hard on right now.

I keep thinking that the best possible thing that could happen to this country right now is for the Democratic party to go away, and a new DLC-less party arise to take it's place.

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on March 14, 2006 at 11:51 PM | PERMALINK

I keep thinking that the best possible thing that could happen to this country right now is for the Democratic party to go away, and a new DLC-less party arise to take it's place.

And how is that magically supposed to happen - I thought you guys were part of the "reality-based" crowd?

Posted by: Karl on March 15, 2006 at 12:03 AM | PERMALINK

Pick a tactic. Any tactic.
Posted by: tbrosz on March 14, 2006 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, please.

RummyBush's tactic seems to be:
Enough soldiers to piss them off, enough hardware to bankrupt us, enough panic to justify the sense of urgency, but not enough of any of it to get the fucking job done.

500,000 troops, or zero troops. Do the job right or don't do it. Iraq was an optional war of choice. Most people *knew* that beforehand. The rest, who didn't, were lied to.

And don't bother with the tired "but we don't have 500,000 troops" argument. It's bullshit. We're a nation of 300 million. You recruit, you train, and after the required time to get it done, you THEN send in the troops. There was no reason to rush to war, other than to preserve the illusion of urgency based on the lie of WMD. Perhaps had we waited two years to get up the proper troop levels, we would have found out through inspections that there was no WMD, and the invasion would have been found to have not been necessary at all. Doesn't that sound Fiscally Responsible? That should resonate with a true conservative. Unfortunately, there are none left in the Republican Party. Just assholes who like to complain about evul librulz.

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on March 15, 2006 at 12:03 AM | PERMALINK

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7468.htm

This may be "they or them"

Posted by: Neo on March 15, 2006 at 12:03 AM | PERMALINK

Tom, you're a fuckwit and more incoherent than usual tonight.

I'm sorry we have humiliated you and your wannabe military knowledge by being correct about Iraq at every turn: about not invading, about the tactics, the profiteering, the human suffering, the debacle -- everything -- and that all your smug inside baseball and predictions about Operations and milblogs have just turned to ashes in your mouth. I don't know what to do about that. We can't help being right. But desperate attempts on your part to wring semantic points out of convoluted arguments that misstate our position just make you look bad.

Unfortunately for you, Bushian logic dictates that your tactics are those of a desperate dead-ender and that the rest of us are on the verge of victory.

Posted by: Windhorse on March 15, 2006 at 12:06 AM | PERMALINK

Our trolls seem to be missing some important points from the article:

Bombing populated areas may kill or injure innocent civilians.

Many Iraqis are part of tribal societies. Kill one of their own, and they want to kill you and several of your family.

So bombing insurgents may lead to more Iraqis turning into insurgents.

Doesn't this seem counterproductive in the long run?

(Why bring up Clinton so much, unless you're hoping against hope that Iraq will turn out as well as the Balkans did? They've still got problems, but everyone here would sure as hell rather live in Bosnia or Kosovo than Iraq.)

Posted by: Librul on March 15, 2006 at 12:08 AM | PERMALINK

They are dropping that ball out of Phantasm. You remember this one:

http://www.anchorbay.co.uk/phantasm/images/PhantasmSphereClosed.jpg

Posted by: jerry on March 15, 2006 at 12:09 AM | PERMALINK

Neo:

Interesting link - the NSA has been alerted - I also noticed the "Feingold censure motion" at the bottom of that page. How did that work out for your side, when Frist offered multiple opportunites to VOTE on it, and the Democrat leaders turned him down?

Librul:

Was it counter-productive in Japan circa 1945?

Posted by: Karl on March 15, 2006 at 12:15 AM | PERMALINK

Was it counter-productive in Japan circa 1945?

Excellent point.

Just not for this discussion.

Posted by: floopmeister on March 15, 2006 at 12:21 AM | PERMALINK

Why is that, floop - the title is "Bombs Away" - did we drop nukes in Iraq while I wasn't looking?

Posted by: Karl on March 15, 2006 at 12:24 AM | PERMALINK

It's typical for the anti-war types to howl about American casualties that are the inevitable result of pinpoint ground actions, while at the same time wailing about the innocents on the ground that die in Clinton-style air wars.

And it's typical of tbrosz to continue to cheerlead for this clusterfuck, as long as he doesn't have to serve, and the President insists on paying for the war with a tax cut.

As an aside, I'd hazard a guess that far fewer civilians die in Clinton-style air wars than Bush-style air wars. Which is, of course, what all this is about.

tbrosz loves to quote the statistic about the C-17 and the M1 tank. So what? A heavy tank is excellent for destroying Soviet armor but of limited use in counterinsurgency or in small-unit action in a populated city.

tbrosz' reflexive water carrying for this mendacious, incompetent and corrupt administration is only one example of why you just can't trust Republicans with national security. Shame on you, tbrosz.

Posted by: Gregory on March 15, 2006 at 12:25 AM | PERMALINK

I've been saying this for weeks. The Dems have stared into the eyes of their enemy, and they not only blinked, but they closed their eyes, laid on their backs, spread their legs wide and handed a container of pre-warmed lube to him and whispered "be gentle, I'm a virgin."

Oh, please, OBF, this characterization is hardly accurate.

The Dems have done what you described far too often to be charitably described as "virgins."

Posted by: Gregory on March 15, 2006 at 12:27 AM | PERMALINK
Mar 14, 2006 9:00 pm US/Eastern

More U.S. Troops Moving Into Iraq

(CBS) March was supposed to be the month when the U.S. commander in Iraq made a recommendation to pull more troops out of Iraq. Instead, he has asked for more troops to be sent in.

With 133,000 American troops already in Iraq, an armored battalion of about 700 soldiers kept on standby in Kuwait is beginning to move north toward Baghdad. U.S. officials say Gen. George Casey asked for more troops because of a convergence of events, and danger, surrounding the third anniversary of the American invasion.

Huh. The Pentagon is moving an over the horizon force into Iraq to respond to contingencies. Go figure.

Don't they know tbrosz thinks this is just madness?

Posted by: Windhorse on March 15, 2006 at 12:27 AM | PERMALINK

Why is that, floop - the title is "Bombs Away" - did we drop nukes in Iraq while I wasn't looking?

Sorry, did you drop bombs in Japan after the occupation by US troops in 1945?

No?

Then that situation would be somewhat different from this situation, wouldn't it.

That situation, in which a country surrendered and was then occupied.

As opposed to this situation, in which US troops are dropping bombs on an occupied country as part of anti-insurgency operations.

I'm sorry, I can't make it any clearer than that, actually.

For further information, look up 'Strawman' in a dictionary.

Posted by: floopmeister on March 15, 2006 at 12:33 AM | PERMALINK

floopmeister:

Every situation is different than another. Here are the points that Librul believes "trolls" seem to be missing again:

Bombing populated areas may kill or injure innocent civilians.

More died on August 6 and 9, 1945. Gen. MacArthur took some time even after that to get things in order.

Many Iraqis are part of tribal societies. Kill one of their own, and they want to kill you and several of your family.

Have you heard of kamikazi pilots?

So bombing insurgents may lead to more Iraqis turning into insurgents.

Maybe - if so, we will have to kill or otherwise defeat them too - see me in 60 years for the final judgment.

Posted by: Karl on March 15, 2006 at 12:35 AM | PERMALINK

Have you heard of kamikazi pilots?

Have they been attacking the Pacific Fleet again? Dirty Japs! What will we do now kaptain amerika?

Posted by: Neo on March 15, 2006 at 12:41 AM | PERMALINK

Hey floop, Karl doesn't meet the minimal coherence requirements to qualify even as target practice. Drop him.

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 15, 2006 at 12:43 AM | PERMALINK

Many Iraqis are part of tribal societies. Kill one of their own, and they want to kill you and several of your family.

Have you heard of kamikazi pilots?

Yep, you're an idiot.

Since when was Japan a tribal society? It was feudal - at least up until the opening of their society to the outside world and its rapid industrialisation.

Are you seriously trying to argue that kamikaze pilots, sworn to die for a divine ruler representing the nation, are equivalent to tribal members following the logic of a blood feud?

Next you'll tell me all the members of al Qaeda are in the same tribe.

Do you realise how silly this makes you sound?

So bombing insurgents may lead to more Iraqis turning into insurgents.

Maybe - if so, we will have to kill or otherwise defeat them too - see me in 60 years for the final judgment.

You've already lost this war, boyo. I'd spend my time thinking up ways to blame liberals for the defeat, if I were you, rather than spouting strawmen.

Hey hang on - you're not the actual scarecrow from Wizard of Oz, are you?

"If I only had a brain..."

Posted by: floopmeister on March 15, 2006 at 12:51 AM | PERMALINK

Brooksfoe - yeah, but it's a slow day at work and it's nearly 5pm, so...

Posted by: floopmeister on March 15, 2006 at 12:52 AM | PERMALINK

With regard to bombing, it would be nice if we could get a clear sense of how good the targeting information is, and how often it kills innocent bystanders. Judging from the images from Baghdad hospitals during "shock and awe", even attacks on targets you've had months or years to gather intel on often lead to dead families or kids with no arms. (Obviously these images were never shown on American TV news, but if you were lucky enough to get one of the networks that actually had cameras in Baghdad during the invasion, Al-Jazeera or a couple of intrepid European freelancers, you saw what actually happened. Of course Al-Jazeera pulld out after a smart bomb got dropped on their offices, killing an onscreen reporter on the roof. The same day, another Arab channel got bombed too. Both bombings were "targeting errors". I love how the war's defenders say the targeting procedures are virtually infallible and cause no collateral damage - except when they drop a bomb right on an Arab TV bureau, in which case it's an unfortunate targeting error.)


I digress...Judging by the fact that 40 years later we still can't get a clear admission that US shelling and bombing in VC-controlled areas killed huge numbers of innocent civilians, it seems unlikely that we'll ever learn anything clearly about what the bombing today is actually doing to Iraq.

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 15, 2006 at 12:52 AM | PERMALINK

Apparently our military leaders still don't believe we're fighting a counterinsurgency in Iraq. Either that, or they simply don't know how so they're using air strikes instead. Or else they've given up and are just trying to hold things together until they finally get the word to withdraw.

Muqtada al Sadr is also wondering about the state of the mission:

BAGHDAD: Radical Iraqi Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr yesterday blasted US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for keeping US troops in Iraq while saying they would not be used in case of civil war.

May God damn you. You said in the past that civil war would break out if you were to withdraw, and now you say that in case of civil war you wont interfere, Sadr told a news conference.

Whats the point of you staying here if you cant even protect or help people?

Posted by: Windhorse on March 15, 2006 at 12:54 AM | PERMALINK

Generally it seems these airstrikes are used to hit targets identified on the ground.

Unfortunately, it only takes one guy with a gun firing out a window five minutes ago for them to level the whole building.

...Nevermind who else might be in the building.

Posted by: Crissa on March 15, 2006 at 1:01 AM | PERMALINK

Do you realise how silly this makes you sound?

Unfortunately for all involved, Hebephrenic Schizophrenia prevents Cheney ("Karl") from recognizing this at all.

Posted by: Windhorse on March 15, 2006 at 1:02 AM | PERMALINK

If there hadn't been so much media stationed in New Orleans and the Gulf coast in the aftermath of Katrina, the Bushistas would probably have gotten away with saying that Katrina was, that in its last throes, that we're winning the war on flooding etc.

Posted by: Brian Boru on March 15, 2006 at 1:15 AM | PERMALINK


I think if anyone looked very hard, they'd find out why people like Hillary Clinton (and quite a few other Democrats in Congress) are happy to stay in Iraq while public support is collapsing. Perhaps someone should.

Posted by: gcochran on March 15, 2006 at 1:18 AM | PERMALINK

I've been saying this for weeks. The Dems have stared into the eyes of their enemy, and they not only blinked, but they closed their eyes, laid on their backs, spread their legs wide and handed a container of pre-warmed lube to him and whispered "be gentle, I'm a virgin."

There are two parties in the USA - the Plutocrats and the Patsies. The first exists so the rich get richer, and the second exists to defuse democratic revolt against the policies of the first.

Our advantages are in firepower and information.

How much information do you need to bomb a city? Is it likely to get up and walk around when you're not looking?

Frankly, the insurgents must love this tactic. You're being chased by the US Army - you run in someone's front door, run out their back door and five minutes later their house gets flattened by massive airpower, killing a family of innocents, and motivating an entire tribe to join in the fun.

Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans on March 15, 2006 at 1:24 AM | PERMALINK

What and who the hell are we bombing?

Posted by: Jimm on March 15, 2006 at 1:32 AM | PERMALINK

Commander Kevin Drum, a noted expert on military tactics, is planning military strikes from his cushy location at the Laguna Nigel Country Club.

Posted by: BigRiver on March 15, 2006 at 1:49 AM | PERMALINK

I wonder if Commander Kevin Drum is consulting with that other notable military genius, General Matthew Iglesias. General Iglesias, of course, plans military strategy from a croissant and espresso deli in Westchester County.

Posted by: BigRiver on March 15, 2006 at 1:52 AM | PERMALINK

Someone calling himself BigRiver, whose qualifications include...nothing, as far as anyone knows, has taken it upon himself to decide who can and can't express an opinion about whether bombing works well at ending insurgencies. He doesn't actually attempt to prove that bombing can end insurgencies, of course; that might require some evidence and some thought.

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 15, 2006 at 1:57 AM | PERMALINK

Windhorse:

Unfortunately for you, Bushian logic dictates that your tactics are those of a desperate dead-ender and that the rest of us are on the verge of victory.

Are you sure the word "victory" is what you're looking for? A bit revealing, isn't it?

Funny. I don't feel desperate. As for military knowledge, I'm not an expert, but compared to some others here, I do pretty good.

Do you really consider the force moving up from Kuwait to be analagous to any kind of a quick-response force? When are they due in Baghdad, and if they were responding to specific terror attack, how long would the attackers be gone before they got there?

Posted by: tbrosz on March 15, 2006 at 2:47 AM | PERMALINK

Wise words. I have nothing to add these... so I'll repeat them so that the 34% who are delusional Americans can continue fly the flags from their pickups and hail the commander and thief.
--

Ron Byers:
Am I the only person wondering how America lost its way? This war is as pointless as it is endless. Nobody seems to have any idea of an end game. Our leadership hasn't got a clue. The Democrats should be screaming bloody murder, but aren't. They cower under their beds afraid of a President with a 36% approval rating and no plan. The people are out front of the elected officials, but neither the press nor the officials seem to notice. Iran is on the horizon. That's just what we need. Yeh, right.

Posted by: Jay in Oregon on March 15, 2006 at 2:49 AM | PERMALINK

Has anyone considered that some of the wrath of local citizens might be reserved for the militants and terrorists who forcibly take refuge in people's homes while under fire?

The number of local tips leading to insurgents and terrorists has been steadily increasing.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 15, 2006 at 2:50 AM | PERMALINK

The end game has to be local. In that the elected representatives of each community has to decide to abandon their militant elements and come together.

They have to come to a consensus that reflects their relative power without the US around for the US to leave without further violence.

In this case, the US should stay well away.
Until militant Sunni's and Sadr's boys discredit each other relative to moderate Sunni's and Shiite's by attracting collateral damage onto their supporters.

Besides, this is Sadr remember? You use to claim he was an Iranian pawn, Now he's calling for help.
Good sign.


Posted by: McA on March 15, 2006 at 2:58 AM | PERMALINK

For anyone who's interested in how we could have avoided the deadly period of directionless incompetence at the beginning of the occupation, the papers that came out of the State Dept's long consultative process with experts and Iraqi expatriates over how to reform a post-Saddam Iraq are here:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/state/future_of_iraq/

Would've been nice if the Pentagon had bothered to read them. The chapter on "Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration of Paramilitary Forces" in the Defense Policy section is particularly well written and interesting.

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 15, 2006 at 3:29 AM | PERMALINK

He [Gen Whitley] added that Phase IV "did not work well" because the concentration was on the invasion. "There was a blind faith that Phase IV would work. There was a failure to anticipate the extent of the backlash or mood of Iraqi society."

There was no "failure to anticipate". Cheney and Rumsfeld never really bought the neoconservative hype - they just wanted Saddam out, and Chalabi in. Chaos served that agenda. There is documentary evidence that neoconservative analysts were predicting an insurgency in Iraq after an invasion several years before 2003.

End game is just around the corner, and I don't mean Iraq, which will be a continuing crisis for some time, not to mention strategic failure. We must make sure Americans have not died in vain for lies, and that those responsible are held accountable by the freest people this modern world has ever seen. The dead-enders defending failure and deception in the name of patriotism should reread the history of liberty, deny the centralized surveillance authoritarian Fear State, regain their ideals, and stand up for them.

Posted by: Jimm on March 15, 2006 at 3:59 AM | PERMALINK

Major combat operations are over.

Posted by: derek on March 15, 2006 at 4:37 AM | PERMALINK

Polls show that American servicemen largely believe that Iraq was responsible for the September 11 attacks, and many Iraqis continue to attack and kill our soldiers. They are the enemy. Bombs away!

They remain stubbornly ungrateful for our gift of invasion and shoving prepackaged democracy down their throats at the point of a gun. Bombs away!

The only sane thing to do would be to admit this was a mistake and pull out. Only someone completely out of touch with reality, of course, could expect such sanity from this administration.

Posted by: bad Jim on March 15, 2006 at 5:45 AM | PERMALINK

hey they're just doing what they do best. Never mind that its ineffective, it makes the commanders feel good...its down right sexy for them blowing the shit out of innocent people, turning cities to rubble. Hell its better than shooting the elderly in the face.
.

Posted by: pluege on March 15, 2006 at 6:02 AM | PERMALINK

These are war crimes committed against civilian populations. The men who ordered these bombings should be put on trial for war crimes. Plain and simple.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on March 15, 2006 at 6:59 AM | PERMALINK

When are they due in Baghdad, and if they were responding to specific terror attack, how long would the attackers be gone before they got there?

uh... they're not supposed to be responding to "specific terror attacks" - that's what the Iraqis are for. i mean really, how could you forget about the dozens of Iraqi brigades? our troops might be needed to stop the country from disintegrating into total civil war, but the Iraqis are going to have to learn to police their own country - you're not signing us up to be their police force, are ya?

oh, and McA, kindly limit your troop deployment fantasies to your own countrymen.

Posted by: cleek on March 15, 2006 at 7:30 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, you've been scammed. Those quotes surely were picked from on old WWII era newspaper.

Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on March 15, 2006 at 7:55 AM | PERMALINK

Exhibit A from First Draft:

Yet another reason why US forces should be removed from Iraq immediately: our "commanders in the field" are willing to wipe out an innocent family of eleven in order to capture a single insurgent.

Eleven people -- most women and children -- were killed when a house was bombed during a U.S. raid north of Baghdad early Wednesday, police and relatives said.
The U.S. military acknowledged four deaths -- a man, two women and a child -- in the raid that they said netted an insurgent suspect in the rural Isahaqi area, about 50 miles north of the capital.
''The killed family was not part of the resistance; they were women and children,'' Ahmed Khalaf said. ''The Americans have promised us a better life, but we get only death.''
Police Capt. Laith Mohammed, in nearby Samarra, said American warplanes and armor were used in the strike, which destroyed the house. The 11 people inside were killed, he said.

Posted by: pluege on March 15, 2006 at 8:06 AM | PERMALINK

Problem is, all of the bush worshipping war loving cowards won't enlist.

Posted by: gus on March 15, 2006 at 8:12 AM | PERMALINK

o_b_f: The Democrat voter base is getting more and more pissed, and the Democratic politicians are growing more and more passive, impotent, and irrelevant.

So many are covert Republicans anyway. Take Lieberman and Landrieu...please.

It makes no difference who you vote for - the two parties are really one party representing four percent of the people. - Gore Vidal

Posted by: CFShep on March 15, 2006 at 8:30 AM | PERMALINK

"It's typical for the anti-war types to howl about American casualties that are the inevitable result of pinpoint ground actions, while at the same time wailing about the innocents on the ground that die in Clinton-style air wars."~Tbrosz

Heartless war- and death-loving bastard.

Posted by: Ace Franze on March 15, 2006 at 8:53 AM | PERMALINK

It's bad enough when bloviating politicians from Washington second-guess military strategy.

Posted by: Paddy Whack on March 15, 2006 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK

Gee, Paddy, bloviating politicians started this "war".

Posted by: Ace Franze on March 15, 2006 at 9:00 AM | PERMALINK

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060315/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_violence


Building allies, one body at a time . . .

Posted by: Joel on March 15, 2006 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINK

"Bombs don't beat insurgencies" - Kevin.
"Car-bombs beat Democrats" - Jay

Stephen Kriz has the absolute gall to call for our military leaders to be charged with war crimes because of some bombing runs in a war zone yet we have heard not one single call from that brain dead moron for the murderous Islamic Jihadists to be charged with crimes when they shoot school children in the back and blow up commuter trains in London and Madrid. Great example of why so many people do not trust Democrats to do anything except fester in their own feces.

BTW, the Iraqi military and security forces combined with the mullahs and the Iraqi government have successfully thwarted a major up-rising which is a turning point towards success. Put that in your pipe and smoke it because that fact does not loom well for the Democrats in '06 or '08.

Posted by: Jay on March 15, 2006 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

I don't often directly disagree with Kevin, but the statement "bombs don't beat insurgencies" struck me as too typical of post-Vietnam liberal thinking, particularly in the drawing of wrong lessons depeartment.

In Vietnam, the vast majority of our bombs missed everything. Those that connected caused the great majority of Viet Cong and NVA casualties.

In Iraq, we are bombing more in recent months because we are getting more leads on worthwhile targets. If you don't believe that killing insurgents ultimately defeats insurgencies, you ought to have a gig on the History channel, where idiots prattle on about how insurgents who fight via guerilla warfare tactics "always" win.

If that were the case, the Roman Empire never would have been established and I wouldn't be living near a Native American casino, because the Muckleshoot tribe would have never lost the land on which my house is located. It would still be a pristine field of wild rye and blackberries.

The U.S. Marines and Army did a remarkably good job of suppressing the Phillipine Rebellion 1899-1905 and a revolt in Nicaragua a little later.

Last I heard, the Sandinistas in El Salvador had to give back most of the properties they expropriated for themselves. Is the IRA winning in Ireland? The Boers in Africa fought a classic insurgency against the British and were put down hard by absolutely brutal tactics by the British army, which became a factor in German resentment of Britain leading to World War One.

Barring major intervention by Iran, what we are really seeing in Iraq is things settling down to a wary stalemate. Eventually the American air activity should taper down as well, probably fairly dramatically in the next few months.

All bets are off if Iran tries to sneak major military units into Iraq, of course.

Posted by: Michael L. Cook on March 15, 2006 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

To some extent, the problem seems to be linguistic. "Profit" is synonomous with "winning" in many languages, e.g. vinst in Swedish. Certainly the dumping of ordinance on Iraqis has been profitable for our defense contractors. And with the old stuff being cleaned out, their possibilities for building and selling more ordinance to the Pentangon just keep on improving. For GE, Raytheon, MD, etc. Iraq has been and remains a "winning" proposition.

The more interesting issue behind George Bush's claims that we are winning in Iraq is not what he means by "winning", but who he means by "we".

Posted by: kostya on March 15, 2006 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

To tbrosz about 6 feet up.

Why do you keep asking for a Democratic solution? Unless we are looking at the exact same thing in 3 years, it's completely irrelevant. The Bush solution is all that matters.

Posted by: B on March 15, 2006 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

All questions of what tactics work aside-- Does it indicate that we are making progress when the number of airstrikes is increasing (three years in a supposedly autonomous country that we occupy) ?

Hard to do much rebuilding when you're still dropping bombs.

It would be interesting to know what the targets are.


Posted by: Stephen on March 15, 2006 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINK

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ICK/is_4_14/ai_75578180

"To put it simply, air control meant substituting aerial bombardment for the traditional ground-based punitive expedition. Airplanes could reach the object of the expedition (e.g., the tribal headquarters or main village) very quickly. Airplanes had an impressive amount of firepower and the capability to inflict serious harm upon rebellious natives. Since disruption and destruction were the goal of a punitive expedition, a small force of airplanes proved cheaper and more efficient since it could inflict as much damage as a large and cumbersome ground-force expedition."

Yes, we're reliving the British occupation, step by step.

Posted by: Steve Paradis on March 15, 2006 at 10:02 AM | PERMALINK

yet we have heard not one single call from that brain dead moron for the murderous Islamic Jihadists to be charged with crimes

that's probably because it's so fucking bloody obvious that it should go without saying.

Posted by: cleek on March 15, 2006 at 10:02 AM | PERMALINK

uh... they're not supposed to be responding to "specific terror attacks" - that's what the Iraqis are for

cleek is exactly right, an over the horizon force is obviously not meant to respond to terrorist attacks. Either that's shameful misdirection or humiliating lack of military knowledge, take your pick.

Posted by: Windhorse on March 15, 2006 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINK

No, it SHOULDN'T go without saying cleek. It needs to be said everyday by everyone on this planet. These extremists are running around killing innocent people everyday and nobody on this planet has the balls to call it for what it is - MURDER. These people are not fighting an occupation, they are not freedom fighters nor do they represent Islam. They are murderers and if every single nation and person on this planet rose up to defeat it, we could save lives by the thousands. But no, too many people are too politically correct, too scared and too interested in political posturing for their own selfish purposes. That is what is so fucking bloody obvious.

Posted by: Jay on March 15, 2006 at 10:08 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, missed all of that inspiring military expertise of our resident military authority, General Cratogeomys from the Geomyidae command.
Our resident Yellow-Faced Pocket Gopher used to walk past the ROTC marching drills when he was trying to become a Golden Gopher. By osmosis, he learned so much in military tactics. Now, that he burrows in California, playing with the Salinas guys from the Thomomys bottae branch, he comes back from hoarding to explain why he knows so more than General Zinni.

Where is Bill Murray when you need him?

Once a pest, always a pest.

Posted by: thethirdPa;ul on March 15, 2006 at 10:11 AM | PERMALINK

These extremists are running around killing innocent people everyday and nobody on this planet has the balls to call it for what it is - MURDER.

you are either lying or crazy.

. But no, too many people are too politically correct, too scared and too interested in political posturing for their own selfish purposes

sing it, kettle.

Posted by: cleek on March 15, 2006 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

" . . . nobody on this planet has the balls to call it for what it is - MURDER."

Bullshit. It's done all the time, and if you were literate, you'd know this. You're just throwing up chaff to distract from the real discussion, which is whether we are any better when we murder a dozen innocents every time we kill one terrorist.

Smarter trolls, please.

Posted by: Joel on March 15, 2006 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

The morons chime in right on cue. The minority fringe of the minority party who have yet to see a car bomb they wouldn't surrender to are now saying that they know the difference between murdering and defending, except for Joel, of course I don't expect anything from that human feces. You are all a bunch of hypocritical liars to boot in that you continuously blame the deaths at the hand of extremists on the US for "illegally invading" their peaceful country. That is a fact you can not run from, though you run from everything else so why should I expect anything different.

How about if we consider all of the people in Iraq as detainees in Gitmo struggling for their freedom. Now there is a scenario that the Democrats might actually fight for.

Posted by: Jay on March 15, 2006 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

BAGHDAD: Radical Iraqi Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr yesterday blasted US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for keeping US troops in Iraq while saying they would not be used in case of civil war. May God damn you. You said in the past that civil war would break out if you were to withdraw, and now you say that in case of civil war you wont interfere, Sadr told a news conference. Whats the point of you staying here if you cant even protect or help people?

It's a sad day indeed when a violent imam like Al-Sadr sounds far more reasonable, rational and sane than the US Secretary of Defense.

By the way, as long as Al-Sadr is always identified as "radical cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr" in news reports can we also start to refer to "radical President George W. Bush" or "radical Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld"?

Posted by: Stefan on March 15, 2006 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

I realize that it is an exercise in futility to point out a fact that does not fit the "Cut-and-run-Feingold" agenda but Kevin might read this story. Aside from the misleading headline, note later in the story where it says "
"Troops were engaged by enemy fire as they approached the building," said Tech. Sgt. Stacy Simon, a military spokeswoman. "Coalition forces returned fire utilizing both air and ground assets."

Notice the "air and ground assets" comment ? The Air Force is circling high above so ground pounders can call in JDAM munitions when they find a nest of insurgents. Naturally AP asks the Iraqi insurgents for their version and emphasizes it. However, you can find the truth if you look hard enough.

Now you can return to the regularly scheduled moonbattery.

Posted by: Mike K on March 15, 2006 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: Funny. I don't feel desperate.

That will be because you haven't been in Iraq yourself for the last three years, you contemptible coward. You're loving this, as long as it's other Americans who have to do it and not you.

But it doesn't really matter what twists and turns you put on the war you wanted, in March 2006. What counts is whether you were predicting any of this in March 2003. And you weren't: your story has changed every month for the last three years, from "cake walk, out in six weeks" to "no problem, three years is just fine". I bet you're not desperate. Like a lobotomy patient, you live in the eternal present, and Oceania has always been this way.

Posted by: derek on March 15, 2006 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

So were cowards Jay BFD don't bitch at us you guys wanted war, Presto Grand Wizard Bush gave it to you enjoy it. We'll sit around the campfire pass around a dobie and enjoy our first ammendment rights. So piss off mate.

Posted by: Neo on March 15, 2006 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

They are murderers and if every single nation and person on this planet rose up to defeat it, we could save lives by the thousands. But no, too many people are too politically correct, too scared and too interested in political posturing for their own selfish purposes. That is what is so fucking bloody obvious.

This sanctimonious and maudlin post just begs the question:

What the fuck are YOU doing about it?

Answer:

Like most Chicken Hawks - NADA.

FYI - All the people can rise up all they want, but it won't mean shit if the Iraqis won't fight for themselves. Our troops would be home right now if all those Iraqis who yearned for freedom from Saddam would rise up and fight those terrorists and insurgents. But they aren't. So we continue to do their fighting for them. And will continue to do so until those Iraqis take matters into their own hands.

Posted by: NSA Mole on March 15, 2006 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

I'd like to thank Kevin Drum and all the lefty posters here for reminding me why I don't like the Demcratic party.

Kevin "Cat blogging" Drum is a metrosexual country club blogger in Orange County, but he thinks he knows more about military strikes than the generals actually on the ground. Most of the lefty posters in here will listen to loud-mouth Washignton poiticians but sneer at the generals actually in Iraq.

And these morons wonder why Americans don't trust them on national security issues?!

I trust the generals on the ground.

You Dems can have your loud-mouth politicians (Kennedy, Murtha) who bloviate from thousands of miles away.

Posted by: Paddy Whack on March 15, 2006 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

". . . except for Joel, of course I don't expect anything from that human feces."

Very impressive, Jay. Did you have to remove your finger from your nostril in order to type that?

Smarter trolls, please.

Posted by: Joel on March 15, 2006 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

oh Jay, if you were any dumber, you'd have to wear a helmet.

Posted by: cleek on March 15, 2006 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

"I'd like to thank Kevin Drum and all the lefty posters here for reminding me why I don't like the Demcratic party."

Save it, PW. Nobody here gives a flying fuck why you don't like the Demcratic [sic] party.

Smarter trolls, please.

Posted by: Joel on March 15, 2006 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

And these morons wonder why Americans don't trust them on national security issues?!

Rasmussen (2/06):
"Americans have a slight preference for Democrats in Congress over the President on national security issues. Forty-three percent (43%) say they trust the Democrats more on this issue today while 41% prefer the President."

Posted by: cleek on March 15, 2006 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

Oh boohoo Paddy whack doesn't like the lefties, Does that mean your not gonna make this months mortgage payment for me? No, then you can piss off too! Freaking conservatives whiny victim crybaby motherf*ckers.

Posted by: Neo on March 15, 2006 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

They are murderers and if every single nation and person on this planet rose up to defeat it, we could save lives by the thousands.

So when are you enlisting and heading over to Iraq? Oh, that right, you're just another cowardly pussy chickenhawk who doesn't have the balls to fight for a cause he supports.

I never thought we should have invaded, and I think we should get out. I can't think of any better way to support the troops than not sending them into a no-win situation and getting them stuck in the middle of a civil war.

Oh, and how are those oil revenues doing at paying for this debacle? Three years and still nothing, except BILLIONS from us. Great use of our tax dollars.

Posted by: haha on March 15, 2006 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

Naturally AP asks the Iraqi insurgents for their version and emphasizes it. However, you can find the truth if you look hard enough.

from CNN: "A U.S.-led raid on a suspected site of terror network al Qaeda in Iraq killed 11 civilians -- including five children -- according to Iraqi police"

so, the police are the insurgency ?

(CNN) "A U.S. military spokesman said a suspected insurgent, two women and a child were killed."

at 3 civillians for 1 insurgent, the country should be pretty much unpopulated by the time the insurgency's gone. that'll be nice - for Iran.

Posted by: cleek on March 15, 2006 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. These questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today.

Posted by: Stefan on March 15, 2006 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

Never forget, there are two wars going right now.
I predict Iraq is winding down as the Shia death squads manage to actually eliminate the terror networks that have brought so much carnage to their neighborhoods. When Shiite communities are as quiet as Kurdish communities, you may take it as a sign this has been accomplished.

Actually, there is another reason for a lot of U.S. aircraft bomb attacks, and that is because we actually see movement from the Syrian and Iranian borders. A lot of bombs are going into extremely rural areas, apparently. Another reason for this is that anything that looks like an ambush or a roadside bomb may be bombed as an expedient way to deal with the problem.

A few months ago we had a problem with insurgents shooting down a lot of our helicopters. That seems to have been dealt with.

Afghanistan is the "other" war, and that has resolved to being entirely a problem in the provinces closest to Pakistan. Technical progress in how not to get blown up by an IED has been coming rather more quickly in Iraq than Afghanistan, where the U.S. has truly been fighting a war at the very limits of our ability to operate.

Posted by: Michael L. Cook on March 15, 2006 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

They are rising up and fighting NSA, hence the non-existent major up-rising or civil war which has, so far, been successfully suppressed by the Iraqi security and military. Not every single person in the country can join the battle, especially 58 year olds, so what am I doing about? Paying taxes and cherring on the 8 million Iraqi's who voted for a new future for their country, remember them? Thise are the ones were trying to help.

Stefan, you're usual tripe is in full bloom today and mirrors that of derek. Wars are unpredictable derek and fluid. Ground situations can change daily. A year ago a massive civil conflict would have broken out had we left, today the Iraqi security and military have show the capacity to thwart those events. That being said, it would not be in the best interest of the US to be in front of those Iraqi efforts. And Stefan, Sadr does make a lot of sense, in fact please tell your representatives to relay that message to the voting public, that Sadr is the one in Iraq who is trying to protect the innocents. Should play well.

Posted by: Jay on March 15, 2006 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.

Posted by: Stefan on March 15, 2006 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, let's trust the generals:

Abizaid says U.S. may want to keep bases in Iraq

Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:06 AM IST164

By Vicki Allen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists in the region and protect the flow of oil, the Army general overseeing U.S. military operations in Iraq said on Tuesday.

While the Bush administration has downplayed prospects for permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, Gen. John Abizaid told a House of Representatives subcommittee he could not rule that out.

Abizaid said that policy would be worked out with a unified, national Iraqi government if and when that is established, "and it would be premature for me to predict."

"Clearly our long-term vision for a military presence in the region requires a robust counter-terrorist capability," Abizaid said. "No doubt there is a need for some presence in the region over time primarily to help people help themselves through this period of extremists versus moderates."

Abizaid also said the United States and its allies have a vital interest in the oil-rich region.

"Ultimately it comes down to the free flow of goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody else in the world depend," he said.

Hmmm, the "flow" of goods and resources on which our nations depends.

I wonder what it is that "flows?"

Wasn't there a thread a few weeks back where the trolls accused us of being paranoid and crazy for believing we'd be keeping permanent bases in Iraq? And that our presence there has nothing to do with oil?

I'm not sure if it's the case that General Abizaid simply hates America or if it's time for the Ministry of Truth to tell us that permanent bases and access to oil are necessary for liberty, have been part of the plan all along, and are implied in the AUMF.

Posted by: Windhorse on March 15, 2006 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK


Any estimate on the number of abortions performed by precision bombing?

Posted by: tad on March 15, 2006 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

This has been an unmitigated disaster. Ask all the people in Baghdad that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals.

Posted by: Stefan on March 15, 2006 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

A few months ago I viewed a Seymour Hersch talk where he discussed the the attempted "Iraqification" of the ground war (not unlike the concept of Vietnamization) -- which Hersh translated in the following way: as Iraqi regulars take on more of the ground combat responsibilities, the U.S. will, in order to keep the balance of power from tipping to the inusrgents, continue with -- if not expand -- its massive bombing campaign (which Hersh called the most intense bombing war in world history).

The only problem is, less than 10% or the ordinance being dropped in Iraq is of the "smart bomb" variety. Hersh tranlates this to mean that Iraqi civilian deaths at the hands of indiscriminating bombs will continue to grown by the thousands over the coming months and likely by the tens of thousands over several years.

Of couse, our government doesn't do Iraqi body counts. So we have no idea what the real death toll is. Journalists -- Hersh included -- can't get out there to verify the effects of the bombings due to the lawlessness that pervades every inch of Iraq outside the green zone.

Posted by: smedleybutler on March 15, 2006 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan, I guess in your demented little liberal world that's true. In fact, that is a great message of optimism that your party needs to bring to the '08 election. However, I think you just did sum up the Democratic '08 strategy: No contingency, no plan, no timetable, and no legitimate definition of victory. Howard Dean has done a great job for you guys.

Posted by: Jay on March 15, 2006 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

...implied in the AUMF

i'm waiting for them to tell us a Republican election 'victory' in 06 is implied in the AUMF.

Posted by: cleek on March 15, 2006 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan, you and your ilk are an unmitigated disaster. You must be a real inspiration for those around you. When things get a little difficult, just give up. When someone threatens you, run away. When someone takes the life of a freind or loved one, try and understand them. Remember, making peace only works if you are alive.

Posted by: Jay on March 15, 2006 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan's Ilk - Mighty fine folks, those ilks of his - be proud to be associated with them any day, any time.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on March 15, 2006 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

Me at 10:43 AM: I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. These questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today.

Cut 'N Run Jay: Stefan, I guess in your demented little liberal world that's true. In fact, that is a great message of optimism that your party needs to bring to the '08 election. However, I think you just did sum up the Democratic '08 strategy: No contingency, no plan, no timetable, and no legitimate definition of victory. Howard Dean has done a great job for you guys.

Ah, Cut 'N Run Jay: Gotcha! The post above beginning "I cannot support a failed foreign policy" is not actually mine -- it was said by Tom "Cash 'N Carry" DeLay in 1999 while he was criticizing President's Clinton's bombing campaing against Serbian forces in Kosovo. So I guess that quote is actually an example of the demented little conservative world....

Posted by: Stefan on March 15, 2006 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan: Ask all the people in Baghdad that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed.

I love ya, sweetie. I'm right with your position re this war...but who you gonna get to do this all this polling of the dead?

Mr. Gallop is recently deceased...

Posted by: CFShep on March 15, 2006 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

Not every single person in the country can join the battle...

especially not cowardly pussies such as yourself.

Posted by: haha on March 15, 2006 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

oh that's classic--Stefan burns Jay the Cowardly Pussy with the Repubs' own words!

I love it!

Posted by: haha on March 15, 2006 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan, how have we survived this long without the wingnuts protecting us? The ilk thanks you wingnuts for protecting us againest countries that pose us no threat and the Quakers.

Posted by: Neo on March 15, 2006 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

Me at 10:48 AM: This has been an unmitigated disaster. Ask all the people in Baghdad that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals.

Cut 'N Run Jay: Stefan, you and your ilk are an unmitigated disaster. You must be a real inspiration for those around you. When things get a little difficult, just give up. When someone threatens you, run away. When someone takes the life of a freind or loved one, try and understand them. Remember, making peace only works if you are alive.

Gotcha again! The above "This has been an unmitigated disaster" quote was not originally mine, but was said by Joe Scarborough in 1999, when he was still a Republican congressman, about the US bombing campaign in Serbia -- just substitue "Belgrade" for "Baghdad." So I guess it's really the Republican way to give up when things get a little difficult....

Posted by: Stefan on March 15, 2006 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

Jay:Not every single person in the country can join the battle, especially 58 year olds

Jay, take heart: I've called the Army and they're definitely interested in you signing up and putting your money where your mouth is. Here's the guy they benchmark with:

McALLEN Hes 57 years old, afflicted with skin cancer, partially deaf and suffers from high blood pressure. But the U.S. Army still wants Master Sgt. Luis Jaime Trevio.

On July 14, the Vietnam and Desert Storm veteran received his third order to report to active duty mobilized for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Trevio, a Rio Grande City native, served in the U.S. Air Force during the Vietnam War, and then joined the Army reserves in 1972. The former middle school teacher also served during Desert Storm in 1991. And though Trevio is willing to serve again, he wonders why the military wants him.

"Im honored to go, but Im disabled and Im too old," he said.

But the Army disagrees.

Reservists under the age of 60 are being activated, said Public Affairs Specialist Julia Collins of the Human Resources Command in St. Louis.

"I know many guys who are in that position," she said. "Its not unusual."

Posted by: Windhorse on March 15, 2006 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan's Ilk - Mighty fine folks, those ilks of his - be proud to be associated with them any day, any time.

Thanks, thethirdpaul. You'll always be thefirstpaul in my book. Consider yourself part of my ilk from now on.

Posted by: Stefan on March 15, 2006 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

Ittelligent
Liberal
Koallition

ILK Party

Posted by: Neo on March 15, 2006 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.

Stefan,

Let's face it. The only people really upset by this are the Western Europeans and the fact is they really don't count. We found out before this started they're not our friends and can't be trusted.

Nations have permanent interests, not permanent friends. Adults recognize when changes in the environment necessitate changes in the company we keep. Why even think aobut trying our fortunes to an economically weak and socially decaying Western Europe when India and the rest of Asia is booming and just as concerned about global terrorism as the anglo-world?

We really have little choice. Thus GWBs aggressive and successful approachment of the Asian world. The Free Trade deals with Singapore and Australia though small are important. The Free Trade discussions with South Korea and Malasia are also important. The diplomatic, security and trade advancements with Japan, India, Indonesia and Pakistan are historic. Even the announcement by Intel to build a manufacturing plant in Vietnam significies the dramatic and wide ranging efforts to improve American - Asian ties.

There's no going back.

By comparison relations with Western Europe are at a post-WWII low and will clearly continue to weaken. While Intel is expanding rapidly in Asia Dupont announced today the closing of 4 plants and elimination of 1,500 jobs in Europe they can hardly afford to lose. Dupont announces record profits in America and a Kyoto induced transfer of manufacturing capacity out of Europe.

This is the world as it is. We have to adjust accordingly.

Besides, casualties so far in March are running 60% lower the average of the prior 12 months. We need to see more of this not less.

Posted by: rdw on March 15, 2006 at 11:06 AM | PERMALINK

And you haven't used those words yourself to describe Iraq? Fucking liar. Nobody supports a failed foreign policy, the issue is knowing the difference between failed and successful (which none of you have the mental capacity to understand). Three successful elections, a freely elected representative government, a 200,000+ security and military and Saddam on trial by his peers = successful. Although I am no big fan of Delay's, what he was referring to was the carpet bombing of Kosovo which resulted in thousands of deaths from a tepid foreign policy effort. Again, I would expect anyone possessing your liberally blinded knowledge to understand that. Carry on morons.

Posted by: Jay on March 15, 2006 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

I'm just curious what the target of these bombs are. I here a lot of "they" and "them" talk; who are "They?"

Eventually, we'll "train" several dozen battalions of Iraqis who at least show up five days out of seven, and don't flee the scene at the first shot. We'll scrupulously avoid the dicey question of where their real loyalties lie. And of course we'll teach them the mechanics of calling in airstrikes, so they can conjure the Miracle of American Firepower. This will allow our troops to hunker down in nice, safe, armored cloisters -- and allow our favored Iraqis to settle some old scores.

So in the end, the "they" and "them" catching the bombs will be the bastards in the next neighborhood. Worked that way in Vietnam*, and it'll work that way in Iraq.

* In fact, in Vietnam some of our freedom-loving allies ran a novel, jet-age kind of protection scheme: Pay me, or I call the American planes down on your village. So in that war, we did at least succeed in teaching the locals the value of a sound business model.

Posted by: sglover on March 15, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

Although the American forces will never be defeated in the battlefield, the insurgents win when Iraq becomes ungovernable. Governance is not a battlefield theater. The Americans can no longer determine the outcome of this internal Iraqi conflict.

We are trapped between a rock and a hard place, and the best victory strategy Administration supporters can come up with is the Defeatism(tm) boogieman.

What a disgrace.

Posted by: Jon Karak on March 15, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

The military announced this (idiot) strategy some time ago.

As in Vietnam, it's a way of minimizing American (cough, excuse me, "coalition") losses while pretending to be engaged in meaningful combat. In short, it's a retreat to the skies.


Of course, substantial "collateral damage" is unavoidable so it will tend to make freinds for the insurgents.

Posted by: BroD on March 15, 2006 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

RDW,
Just wait until America's interests run smack dab into India's, Indonesia's and Pakistan's nationalism. The west Europeans will start to look like angels

Posted by: Botecelli on March 15, 2006 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

"Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."

Stefan, let's stop pretending that Bush is the first U.S president to bomb a country for vague reasons. This has been a common practice since the end of WW2 -- Johnson in Vietnam, Nixon in Laos and Cambodia; Reagan in Libya; Bush I in Pannama; Clinton in Yugoslavia (on behalf of the Bosnian Muslims, who enlisted the support of Bin Laden and AQ with Clinton's full backing); Bush in Afghansistan and Iraq.

Anti-Americanism has been alive and thriving for decades across the globe, precisely because the world perceives us as a bully that will not hesitate to unleash its massive military in order to impose its will in a region or state. Bush hasn't altered world opinion about the U.S. In their eyes, he's simply the most recent -- and ruthless -- version of the rougue cowboy president. He may have intensified the world's anger toward us, but that rage was present long before this presidential twit seized power.

Posted by: smedleybutler on March 15, 2006 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

Besides, casualties so far in March are running 60% lower the average of the prior 12 months

that couldn't have anything to do with the fact that US troops are patrolling less.

Posted by: cleek on March 15, 2006 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

Bush is not trying to beat the insurgency, he's trying to hand the war off to someone, and that someone is the new Iraqi army he is "standing up" since no one else will take it.

Failure. Catastrophe. It's unbelievable. Only in a zero-accountability environment could he possibly keep his job.

Posted by: grytpype on March 15, 2006 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

They are rising up and fighting NSA, hence the non-existent major up-rising or civil war which has, so far, been successfully suppressed by the Iraqi security and military.

Then why are we still there? If these Iraqis are so successful, then why are our troops still fighting? And why is Rumsfeld sending in MORE troops?

Face it - the Iraqi military and police forces are complete jokes. Without us, they'd be even more corrupt and worthless than they are now.

Iraqi will go to hell in a handbasket when we leave - which looks like sometime in the next two decades or so, unless America has the balls to tell the Iraqis to manage themselves before then.

Congrats on paying your taxes and cheering from your 'puter. Those are some real sacrifices. I mean, stroking a check once a quarter to Uncle Sam (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you don't have your taxes automatically withdrawn) shows real moxy.

So does fighting on the blog front. You should get a Purple Heart for the CTS you'll get from spouting Bush Talking Points so often.

Posted by: NSA Mole on March 15, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

Me: The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.

Cliff Clavin: Stefan, Let's face it. The only people really upset by this are the Western Europeans and the fact is they really don't count. We found out before this started they're not our friends and can't be trusted.

Again, Gotcha! The above "The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly" quote is not really mine, but was said by Tom DeLay during the Kosovo bombing campaign in 1999. It was the Republican DeLay whose heart was bleeding for the "international respect and trust" of other nations.

Posted by: Stefan on March 15, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

Koalition is exactly right Neo, the KKK party led by KKK Robert Byrd. Now that's a party to be proud of. Just take a look at your strong leadership:
KKK Robert Byrd - defending white's rights
Teddy "Chapaquidick" Kennedy - defending his own rights
Nancy "No Ports" Pelosi - who has no idea who owns what ports. Ports?
Harry "I need a spine" Reid - who opposes opposition to opposing side.
Howard "Screech" Dean - who is still trying to trace the Abramoff money

Quite a bunch - good luck in '08

Posted by: Jay on March 15, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

Well, there are two wars going on now. A civil war between the Sunni and Shites and another war between AQ and the Amer. The use of bombs is probably to take out AQ targets. The terrible calculus is probably that a bomb is a safer approach to killing QA then sending in troops, even knowing the bomb will kill innocents too. The idea being that they are not innocent if there are harboring AQ. Witness the Pak bombing last month.

Posted by: the fake Fake Al on March 15, 2006 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

That is exactly the optimism from your party that will win '06 and '08 NSA. Well Done!

Zero faith in the Iraqi people and zero faith in the American military and you think that's a winning strategy. Good luck on that.

Posted by: Jay on March 15, 2006 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

Cut 'N Run Jay: Three successful elections, a freely elected representative government, a 200,000+ security and military and Saddam on trial by his peers = successful.

Actually, victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what his exit strategy is.

Posted by: Stefan on March 15, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

Jay I think they mislabeled your meds. Hate to see your head explore all over a perfectly good keyboard. Oh, you do know were watching you.


Support The ILK Party

Posted by: Neo on March 15, 2006 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

Democrats trust loud-mouth politicians (Kennedy, Murtha) who bloviate from thousands of miles away.

Bush trusts the generals actually on the ground in Iraq.

I think Bush-the-dummy is smarter than the Genius Democrats!

Posted by: Paddy Whack on March 15, 2006 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

Michael L Cook,

I give you credit for not comparing Iraq to WW II, but still . . .

The Roman Empire and the capture of America from the Indians were both invasions. Are we invading Iraq, populating it with our own people while we suppress the Iraqis?

I don't think so. Hell, we won't even pick a favorite and wipe out their enemies. Instead we are caught in the middle of a ancient conflict trying to keep the sides from killing each other by, ummm, killing members of both sides.

The whole idea was stupid and our problems were totally predictable from the start.

Mark my words, when we finally withdraw in failure, wasting thousands of US lives and billions of US dollars we are going to say "We brought peace and democracy to Iraq and they blew it."

I've said this from before the invasion and it continues to hold true.

Posted by: Tripp on March 15, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

Uh, Paddy, Bush is the chief bloviator here. He started an unwinnable war apparently out of pride and greed for oil. And you trust him.

Posted by: Ace Franze on March 15, 2006 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

Now that Jay has been outed as the idiot he is by Stefan, he's resorted to bleating out Limbaugh talking points about Byrd and Kennedy. I think it's time for this troll to be put out to pasture.

Posted by: Botecelli on March 15, 2006 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

Zero faith in the Iraqi people and zero faith in the American military and you think that's a winning strategy. Good luck on that.

Your damn right on the first point. I have ZERO faith in the Iraqi people. Why? They've given me no reason to have faith. They don't give two shits about democracy or fighting terrorists and insurgents. If they did, they would have captured/killed the insurgents and terrorists by now. And they sure wouldn't be voting for some of the corrupt and partisan losers sitting in their parliament right now.

Mark my words: Iraqi will splinter and freefall into civil war once we're gone.

As to the second part - I have complete faith in our military to do its job, which is to fight and win wars. I have NO faith in the military's civilian commanders, who have relegated the finest military in history to a heavily-armed, nation-building nanny. The military isn't made and trained to nation-build, nor should it be.

As I've hammered home previously - Iraqi nation-building should be undertaken by Iraqis. Might sound like a shock to you, but that's generally how it works. People help themselves. They pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. You know - you tell libs to do this when debating welfare and entitlements. Strange how you can't tell a whole fucking country to do the same.

Posted by: NSA Mole on March 15, 2006 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

The west Europeans will start to look like angels

Doubtful. They have the more severe problems. They have a demographic time bomb set to go off as a surging, hostile minority gains traction. All of this complicated by a weak economy they are incapable of improving. They speak of higher taxes, higher regulation and higher protectionism and each will compound their problems.

I'm not exactly sure of the timeframe but estimates vary from 2050 to 2100 when the average Frenchman prays 5x's a day. Some think it's already the case more muslims are religiously active than any other group. It's very clear France and the rest of Western Europe are headed into a very traumatic period and it's not at all clear if the France of 2050 will be more like the France of 2005 or more like the Saudi Arabia of 2005.

At the same time Asia has recognized capitalism works where socialism is a disaster. It will also be a chaotic process but they are at least moving in the right direction. Last year Intel received 18% of it's sales from Europe and 60%
from Asia. Doesn't that say it all?

Posted by: rdw on March 15, 2006 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

Why the fuck don't you move to goddam China, rdw? They won't let you see Washington Monthly, but by god, you can buy all the Intel processors you want. And doesn't that say it all about what life is all about?

Posted by: Ace Franze on March 15, 2006 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

estimates vary from 2050 to 2100

when's the last time anyone accurately predicted anything 50+ years in the future?

Posted by: cleek on March 15, 2006 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

Again, Gotcha! The above "The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly" quote is not really mine, but was said by Tom DeLay during the Kosovo bombing campaign in 1999

Not even a little bit. This has been the classic liberal whine since GWB has been elected and he's been very actively doing something about it. The libs today are talking about Western Europe. Delay wasn't. The problem Delay was referring to was the video game aspect of Kosovo. Clinton was terrified of putting anyone in harms way which is what emboldened Osama.

Delay wasn't talking about being popular which is the liberals great fear. Tom was talking about being respected. There's a big difference.

Posted by: rdw on March 15, 2006 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

when's the last time anyone accurately predicted anything 50+ years in the future?

Well, there was "2001: A Space Odyssey," "1984," "Space 1999"....


Posted by: Stefan on March 15, 2006 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

when's the last time anyone accurately predicted anything 50+ years in the future?

Demographics are generally easy and they do a fair job. We know how many Frenchmen will turn 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, etc. in 30 years. They know how many will be of North African heritage and very, very likely islamic.

it's all baked in the cards

Posted by: rdw on March 15, 2006 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

RDW, this growing Asian dominance in world affairs may not have such pleasent consequences for the US. Chomsky in today's Guardian:

"China, unlike Europe, refuses to be intimidated by Washington, a primary reason for the fear of China by US planners, which presents a dilemma: steps toward confrontation are inhibited by US corporate reliance on China as an export platform and growing market, as well as by China's financial reserves - reported to be approaching Japan's in scale.

In January, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah visited Beijing, which is expected to lead to a Sino-Saudi memorandum of understanding calling for "increased cooperation and investment between the two countries in oil, natural gas and investment", the Wall Street Journal reports.

Already much of Iran's oil goes to China, and China is providing Iran with weapons that both states presumably regard as deterrent to US designs. India also has options. India may choose to be a US client, or it may prefer to join the more independent Asian bloc that is taking shape, with ever more ties to Middle East oil producers. Siddharth Varadarjan, the deputy editor of the Hindu, observes that "if the 21st century is to be an 'Asian century,' Asia's passivity in the energy sector has to end".

The key is India-China cooperation. In January, an agreement signed in Beijing "cleared the way for India and China to collaborate not only in technology but also in hydrocarbon exploration and production, a partnership that could eventually alter fundamental equations in the world's oil and natural gas sector", Varadarjan points out.

An additional step, already being contemplated, is an Asian oil market trading in euros. The impact on the international financial system and the balance of global power could be significant. It should be no surprise that President Bush paid a recent visit to try to keep India in the fold, offering nuclear cooperation and other inducements as a lure."

Posted by: Botecelli on March 15, 2006 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

Delay wasn't talking about being popular which is the liberals great fear. Tom was talking about...............

Yup I don't know about anymore else but I am always in FEAR of someone not liking me. I love the folksy way that the gop prattles about with each other. Especially when they're up on charges.

Posted by: Neo on March 15, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

According to two sources involved in the discussions, some veteran Republicans have been quietly trying to convince White House chief of staff Andy Card to bring in at least one "adult," like a former senator or another "experienced hand," to help him reach out to congressional leaders, troubleshoot and, in the words of one source, "just be in the loop and give advice."

Even the GOP itself disputes the claim by Bush's conservative lemmings (rdw, Jay, FF, etc) that "the adults are in charge" of our government.

Worst president ever, rdw.

34% approval rating - 19 points below Clinton's second term worst.

Worst president ever, since he can't fall back on personal morality and character as a point in his favor, like Carter could, and clearly has all of the paranoia but none of the brains of Nixon.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 15, 2006 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

rdw, you are successfully upholding the banner of troll idiocy on Political Animal. Only an idiot takes what "Tom" DeLay says as anything but self-serving horseshit.

Posted by: Ace Franze on March 15, 2006 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

rdw: Not even a little bit. This has been the classic liberal whine since GWB has been elected and he's been very actively doing something about it. The libs today are talking about Western Europe. Delay wasn't. The problem Delay was referring to was the video game aspect of Kosovo. Clinton was terrified of putting anyone in harms way which is what emboldened Osama.

Another classic rdw opinion full of lies, half-truths, and illogic.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 15, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

The number of local tips leading to insurgents and terrorists has been steadily increasing.

Now you work a Tip Hotline for the Army? (Where do you get your talking points from?)

Even if it were true, isn't it just as probable that it means that the number of insurgents is increasing? A "target rich environment" in a civil war isn't particualry unexpected.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on March 15, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

And so the trolls retreat into sarcasm and both the past and the future.

I can't really blame them. The present totally sucks for them and Bush. "Remember when" and "You just wait" are a lot safer than living in the here and now.

I love the 'be happy or you won't win an election' "advice."

Bwahahahahaha. A politician's job is to rock the boat and convince you only he can save you from the storm.

Posted by: Tripp on March 15, 2006 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

We know how many Frenchmen will turn 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, etc. in 30 years.

we don't know how many people will immigrate to France i the next 50 years. we don't know how many will leave. we don't know what the social conditions in France will be in 50 years. we don't know what the social conditions in the Muslim world will be in 50 years. we don't know if there will be war, plague, famine, revolution or depression. we don't know a damn thing about the world 50 years from now - except that we'll all be hearing Mandarin at our company meetings.

Posted by: cleek on March 15, 2006 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

Alright, more military analysis from lefties.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

Ah and conspiracy nut makes his appearence. The man who believes there is still genocide going on in the Balkans. The great conservative mind at work.

Posted by: Botecelli on March 15, 2006 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

All of the trolls here are "terrified" of ever being in harm's way. The old "let someone else fight 'my' wars, let someone else pay my taxes, let someone else be a decent human being", because I've got mine.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on March 15, 2006 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

except that we'll all be hearing Mandarin at our company meetings.

Posted by: cleek on March 15, 2006 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

Or Hindi.

Posted by: McA on March 15, 2006 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

which is whether we are any better when we murder a dozen innocents every time we kill one terrorist.

Smarter trolls, please.

Posted by: Joel on March 15, 2006 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

Depends on the likely damage potential of the terrorist.....

Posted by: McA on March 15, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

The great conservative mind at work.
Well, take heart. You moonbats have nearly convinced me that the long standing French military tradition of "Surrender First!" is a good plan. I'm nearly ready to sit down to cookies and soy-based milk substitute and sing Kumbya with the terrorists.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

Ask all the people in Baghdad that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed.

Posted by: Stefan on March 15, 2006 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

Strangely enough, dead people are remarkably quiet.

Posted by: McA on March 15, 2006 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

except that we'll all be hearing Mandarin at our company meetings.

Or Hindi.

I'm already living that. It is neither. It is badly accented English.

Posted by: Tripp on March 15, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

And I repeat: conspiracy nut, the man who believes there is still genocide going on in the Balkans.

Posted by: Botecelli on March 15, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

Alright, more military analysis from lefties.

As opposed to the brillinat right wing military
analysis that thought up Iraq ?

By the way, where is Osama ? You know, they guy who actually attacked the US.

Posted by: Stephen on March 15, 2006 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

Alright, more military analysis from lefties.


How about this guy:

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=0078--

Is he right wing enogh for you ?

Posted by: Stephen on March 15, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

These bombing runs are why I despise my homeland. Indiscriminate killing by air dropped bombs and missiles makes every US citizen a murderer.

Posted by: Hostile on March 15, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

Ask all the people in Baghdad that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed.
I sense a lot of well placed grief for the Iraqi victims of this war. Too bad you moonbats don't have the same level of grief for the US citizens and their families that have been killed over the years.

By the way, where is Osama ?
Oh ya, I remember him. The world's only terrorist. Man, if we could catch that guy the deserts of the world would bloom and global warming would cease.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

How about this guy:...Is he right wing enogh for you ?
Well, I was certainly aware that all the military analysis ever done supports the lefty viewpoint. It's unexplainable to me that with every single piece of military analysis urging one thing, we keep doing another.

Gosh, it's enough to make you think the moonbat presentation of facts is one-sided, isn't it?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

By the way, it's time I shared something with you lefties: I work for Karl Rove. He pays me to come here, write these posts, piss off you liberals, and sow confusion and doubt. Ha, ha, ha. I can't believe how stupid some people can be. The truth is, I get a fresh set of talking points from Karl every morning at 6 a.m. And throughout the day, I'm in touch with Roger Ailes of Fox News to make sure we have our messages coordinated. When are you suckers going to wise up? Geez.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, you know, I work for the DNC; rallying the base. How am I doing?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Looks like we have an "evil twin" problem, kind of like ol' Claude Allen. Or is it just a split-personality psychosis?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan: Ask all the people in Baghdad that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed.

conpiracy nut: I sense a lot of well placed grief for the Iraqi victims of this war. Too bad you moonbats don't have the same level of grief for the US citizens and their families that have been killed over the years.

And once again, Gotcha! The above "ask the refugees that we've killed" is not from me but from Joe Scarborough in 1999, deploring America's bombing campaign against the Serbs -- I merely substituted "Baghdad" for "Belgrade." Too bad Scarborough and his fellow Republicans didn't have the same level of grief for the Muslim Kosovars and Bosnians that were killed by the Serbs over the years.

Oh ya, I remember him. The world's only terrorist. Man, if we could catch that guy the deserts of the world would bloom and global warming would cease.

No, if we could catch that guy we'd catch the man responsible for the largest mass murder in American history. But somehow Republicans don't seem to think that's important, which is why Americans don't trust them when it comes to national security.

Don't you love it? Completely unable to catch bin Laden, so now the radicals' talking point has gone from "Wanted: Dead or Alive!" to "Osama who?" It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

Posted by: Stefan on March 15, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

Botecelli: And I repeat: conspiracy nut, the man who believes there is still genocide going on in the Balkans.

What's even funnier is his belief that the Republican Party and the governments of the G-8 are part of an international socialist conspiracy and that Ronald Reagan was a Marxist....

Posted by: Stefan on March 15, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

Or is it just a split-personality psychosis?
I'm completely sane, I cannot speak for my alter ego.

Completely unable to catch bin Laden
I know, it's a shame. The cure for global warming is hiding in a cave eating boiled goat, and we can't find him.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: ... a Kyoto induced transfer of manufacturing capacity out of Europe.

There is no "Kyoto induced transfer of manufacturing capacity" from anywhere, to anywhere. You are a stupid, ignorant liar.

Particularly on the subject of the Kyoto treaty, and the issue of anthropogenic global warming which it addresses, you are completely full of shit, completely wrong, and everything you have to say is fake, phony, lying rubbish.

Having said that, US corporations have been transferring manufacturing capacity to the developing world, including Asia and Central America, for years, where they can take advantage of slave-labor wages, repressive governments that ban unions, and the absence of environmental regulations. You seem to think this is the greatest news in the world -- for example, you praise Intel for building factories in Asia. But if European corporations transfer manufacturing capacity to the developing world, you cite this as evidence of Europe's impending economic collapse. Again, you are completely full of shit.

The only thing you really care about is worshipping your fake, phony little god-king George W. Bush and chanting "Red Team Wins! Red Team Wins! Red Team Wins!" over and over again. You are a puerile idiot.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 15, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

And Stefan
While your making shit up, make me sound like Charles Dickens. I really like his writing.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

"I'm completely sane, I cannot speak for my alter ego.

Look, if I'm heading to the psychiatrist for a head-check, that means you're coming too. So get your hands outta your pants and come on. Can't keep the doc waiting . . .

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Alright, more military analysis from lefties.

President Bush is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.

Posted by: Stefan on March 15, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

I completely sane, and I ain't going to no psychiatrist with you. And my hands are staying right here in my pants where they belong.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

You know I repect the loss felt by the victims of 9-11 and the deaths of our troops. We can not bring them back to life.
We should spend our efforts on the living, be they ours or theirs.

Posted by: Neo on March 15, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

"I completely sane, and I ain't going to no psychiatrist with you. And my hands are staying right here in my pants where they belong."

Yes, yes, of course you/we are. Everyday, and in every way, you're/we're getting better and better. Now pull up your Depends and let's get in the car. The nice man is waiting.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

It's terribly frustrating that there's no endgame here. If the bombing doesn't work, what then? The administration will not answer that question. There's no Plan B.

Posted by: Stefan on March 15, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

Now pull up your Depends and let's get in the car.
Ain't happenin' captain. How will "The Scream" get along without me? Any lapse in shoring up the base could be devastating. Besides, you're the insane half; I'm not the one that needs help.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

"Besides, you're the insane half; I'm not the one that needs help."

Then how come you're brandishing that knife at me/us? Tell me that.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Oh ya, I remember him. The world's only terrorist. Man, if we could catch that guy the deserts of the world would bloom and global warming would cease.

Well, that's what Bush proclaimed after 9/11, by declaring his capture as the number 1 priority.

Why are you blaming the Lefties?

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 15, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmm, been away for a while.

I see the increase in bombing as no big deal. Bombs dropped in the city are precision munitions, and they are basically targeted by ground troops that, rather than use their own weapons, use the airborne weaponry to smite from above. Saves our lives. With modern targeting methods, every soldier basically has the firepower of an F-18 at his beck and call.

Also, as Iraqis take over patrols, they do not have the heay weaponry that our ground forces do, and so more air is needed to augment. Iraqi troops are accompanied by advisors who can call up air assets for support. It would make absolute sense that as Iraqis assume more of the load, our actions would shift to support air.

So I would be loathe to draw the conclusions that folks are seeming to draw here.

Posted by: Red State Mike on March 15, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

Then how come you're brandishing that knife at me/us?
I'm not brandishing this knife at you, you just interrupted me making my peanut butter and banana sandwich. I'm merely waving it around while making a point.

Trust me. And stand still.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

Oh ya, I remember him. The world's only terrorist.

More wing nut logic: ignore the parts of reality you don't like.

Man, if we could catch that guy the deserts of the world would bloom and global warming would cease.

Is that what you expect to happen if Iraq ever works out ?

Posted by: Stephen on March 15, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

Look, evil other half, you may keep us from going to the shrink, but you're NOT going to get the last word here. I know that's one of your hangups, your quirks. But I'm sick and tired of it. So bring it on.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike: I see the increase in bombing as no big deal.

Which is to say that you see the mass murder of innocent Iraqi civilians as no big deal.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 15, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

It would make absolute sense that as Iraqis assume more of the load, our actions would shift to support air.

Does it make perfect sense that we are running twice as many airstrikes now than a year ago ?

Does it make perfect sense that we are bombing the cities we are trying to "rebuild" ?

Posted by: Stephen on March 15, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

I got no quirks. And I'm gonna be commenting on this thread every day for a month or more if that's what it takes for me to get in the last word.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

Many Americans see the mass murder of Iraqis as no big deal.

Many Americans saw the mass murder of Nicarguans as no big deal.

Many Americans consider the mass murder of any ethnic or political group by American soldiers as no big deal.

Posted by: Hostile on March 15, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Does it make perfect sense that we are running twice as many airstrikes now than a year ago ?

Assuming the fighting is at a constant level, yes. We're really not bombing that much. We're not talking linebacker raids with the sky full of B-52s and multiple carriers anchored off the coast ala Viet Nam. No strategic bombing campaign. No carpet bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail. Just ground support. Small fighter-bombers and helicopters.

And there has been an amazing explosive growth in how ground forces can target air assets in real time, brought about by the war. The difference in how we target bad guys now versus at the start has changed immensely. War continues to be THE main engine of technology change for humanity, like it or not.

The separate questions is...why is the combat static and not declining?

Posted by: Red State Mike on March 15, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

The separate questions is...why is the combat static and not declining?

Right.

*crickets*

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on March 15, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

The separate questions is...why is the combat static and not declining?

Or maybe: Is the combat declining ?

No strategic bombing campaign.

If the bamb is big enough to blow up a house, I'm sure its big enough to damage the surrounding infastructure, ie. the stuff we are rebuilding.

Posted by: Stephen on March 15, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

"I got no quirks."

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Look at yourself/us in the mirror. What do you see? A twitching eye, index finger stuck up the nose, trophy-hunting, pair of Depends, laptop, empty pizza boxes and cans of Jolt cola scattered about, 20 years worth of Soldier of Fortune magazines stacked from floor to ceiling in 3 rooms, dirty dishes in the kitchen and the fridge, and 143 sacks of garbage on the back porch. And you/we have no quirks??!!! I sneer at your/our obliviousness.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sure its big enough to damage the surrounding infastructure, ie. the stuff we are rebuilding.

cue "Circle Of Life" music

Posted by: cleek on March 15, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK


cn: Alright, more military analysis from lefties.

"We are not killing them faster than they are being created." - Brig. Gen. Robert Caslen, the Pentagon's deputy director for the war on terrorism. 3/2/06

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 15, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

There is no "Kyoto induced transfer of manufacturing capacity" from anywhere, to anywhere. You are a stupid, ignorant liar.

It's a fact. It's only common sense. it's much easier and cheaper to buy energy in China and anywhere else in the undeveloped world versus the developed world. NO manufacturer is going to expand in the USA or Western Europe if they can avoid it. They know liberal lawyers will be waiting to sue them for pollution regardless of their guilt.

This was also widely precided in advance by GE and a boatload of other large manufacturers.

Posted by: rdw on March 15, 2006 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

The key is India-China cooperation. In January, an agreement signed in Beijing "cleared the way for India and China to collaborate not only in technology but also in hydrocarbon exploration and production, a partnership that could eventually alter fundamental equations in the world's oil and natural gas sector", Varadarjan points out.

All good news for global capitalism. As is the Asian-Pacific partnership obviously designed to replace Kyoto. This includes China, India, USA, Japan, S.Korea and Australia for starters. This group will also share technology. Anything that helps India or China to consume less or pollute less is good for everyone. There is nothing remotely negative for the USA here.

An additional step, already being contemplated, is an Asian oil market trading in euros. The impact on the international financial system and the balance of global power could be significant. It should be no surprise that President Bush paid a recent visit to try to keep India in the fold, offering nuclear cooperation and other inducements as a lure."

Trading in Euro's or the Yen or Pounds or anything else is likewise meangingless and if anything might be an advantage. There is no real value to the USA if the Saudi's price oil in dollars or not.

The lure of India for nuclear power is a huge advantage for the USA. We have uranium and technology to sell and we need a test bed for new powerplant designs. If we are to build more plants in the USA Americans will have to get over the China syndrome. A positive experience in Asia with new construction will do that nicely. In addition the huge plants already scheduled for completion in China and India will slow demand for oil and assist each economy. Both represent huge markets for American goods and services. The healthier Asia is the better for the global economy the better for the US economy.

This is ALL good news for the USA.

Posted by: rdw on March 15, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

Especially when they're up on charges.

It's kind of a shame Tom Delay lost his leadership position. I wonder who misses him more, the GOP or DNC fundraisers?

Posted by: rdw on March 15, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

cans of Jolt cola
Some alter ego you are, I get my caffeine from chocolate covered coffee beans; Columbian Milk Duds. And pick me up some more Depends on your way home from the shrink.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

But if European corporations transfer manufacturing capacity to the developing world, you cite this as evidence of Europe's impending economic collapse. Again, you are completely full of shit.

I have never cited Europes transfer of manufacturing capacity to Asia as a sign of economic collapse. I always cite their chronically weak GDP growth and their high unemployment rates as signs of economic weakness. I cite the fact USA per Capital GDP is over 40% higher and expected to reach 100% higher by 2020. I cite the fact the dumb bastards are talking about raising taxes, and increasing regulations are a way to solve their problem.

That's why were running, not walking, but running away. Europe is going to be an economic basket case.

Posted by: rdw on March 15, 2006 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

I wrote: There is no "Kyoto induced transfer of manufacturing capacity" from anywhere, to anywhere.

rdw replied: It's a fact. It's only common sense.

No, "Kyoto induced transfer of manufacturing capacity" is not a fact. It does not exist. You cannot provide even one documented example of one single "transfer of manufacturing capacity" that was "induced" by Kyoto, because no such thing has ever happened. It's another one of your hallucinations.

The reason that US and European corporations are transferring manufacturing capacity to the developing world is cheap labor. Cheap labor -- preferably slave labor -- and workers who are powerless to organize unions because they are prohibited from doing so by authoritarian governments -- are the cornerstone of "global capitalism".

I have come to the conclusion that you are a paranoid schizophrenic. You live in an elaborate, detailed, entirely fictional fantasy world which has absolutely no relationship to reality, in which real information is screened out, and phony information is invented out of nowhere, and everything that happens the world is interpreted in some bizarre fashion so as to reinforce your central organizing pyschotic delusion that low-grade thugs like Reagan and Bush are heros and geniuses.

Therefore, I withdraw my previous accusations that you are a liar. Since you are clearly incapable of distinguishing fact from fantasy, you are in a sense incapable of "lying" which implies the ability to deliberately tell an untruth. You simply don't know what is real and what is not.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 15, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

It's a fact. It's only common sense. it's much easier and cheaper to buy energy in China and anywhere else in the undeveloped world versus the developed world. NO manufacturer is going to expand in the USA or Western Europe if they can avoid it.

Yes, energy is the reason that companies move manufacturing to China. The fact that Chinese workers make about 10 cents/hour, with no bennies, probably doesn't hurt, either.

Posted by: NSA Mole on March 15, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

"I get my caffeine from chocolate covered coffee beans;"

Yeah, just like you/we get our booze from the liquor store! Right! Fugettabout the hooch we buy from the gnarly old dude back in the woods, right? That's just in the alternative universe that exists on the Dark Side of your/my brain! Right?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

It's a fact. It's only common sense. it's much easier and cheaper to buy energy in China and anywhere else in the undeveloped world versus the developed world. NO manufacturer is going to expand in the USA or Western Europe if they can avoid it.

This doesn't even make sense. It costs the same to "buy" energy wherever you are in the world; a barrel of oil costs the same in China as it does in London -- it's a worldwide market. There are, of course, some additional costs in transporting energy, but those factors favor the developed world due to its superior transportation infrastructure.

Posted by: Stefan on March 15, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

This doesn't even make sense. It costs the same to "buy" energy wherever you are in the world; a barrel of oil costs the same in China as it does in London -- it's a worldwide market. There are, of course, some additional costs in transporting energy, but those factors favor the developed world due to its superior transportation infrastructure.

All true. However it's also true China, India, Indonesia to name a few also subsidize the cost of fuel/electricity and issue guarrantees to attract business. With rapidly expanding populations they need to create jobs and learned a long time ago socialism is crap. It isn't just lower cost energy but the entire infrastucture.

One of the reasons the increase in future demand has been overstated is that many of the middle eastern and Asian nations provide such a heavy subsidy at the retail level. Some resources are not even metered. As it come clear these nations can no longer afford the subsidy's they will be gradually removed to reduce demand.

Posted by: rdw on March 15, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

No, "Kyoto induced transfer of manufacturing capacity" is not a fact.

It IS a fact. American and European Corportions can easily see the future in this regard. Liberals will absolutely use the failure of Kyoto to blame them and then charge them. Canada is going to miss their targets by 50% How can they possibly pay for that? They'll blame business and then try to charge them. The only protection for manufactures is to move their asets where they can't be touched. That's to the 3rd world.

You might be aware the govt had a very healthy surge in tax collections. There are many reasons but one was a temporary break on the taxation of cash held by American companies in foreign companies. They were able to bring it back into the country. If not for this break they would have held it outside the USA FOREVER.

That means away from Uncle Sam and US criminal and civil courts. European companies do the same. When Intel opens plants in Ireland, India, China and Vietnam they also open bank accounts. The French can sue Intel but they can't touch their physical or financial assets. The EU can't touch them either. Ireland won't let them.

So in 2012 when the doors blown off of Kyoto and the World Court goes after corporate assets they will not have much to get. Asia and the US pay no attention to the world court or to the UN or to Kyoto or any of these agencies.

GE, Intel, IBM, Dow Chemical, Dupont are ALL moving aggressively away from Kyoto believers. There's far too much risk.

Posted by: rdw on March 15, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

Fugettabout the hooch we buy from the gnarly old dude back in the woods, right?
Are you drinking my medicine! Just a spoonful for the jitters is all you need. If you're drinking that stuff wholesale no wonder you need a shrink.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, the news of increased air attacks in Iraq is old new.....Read Seymour Hersh months ago in the New Yorker.

Posted by: Bills on March 15, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: It IS a fact.

Then why can you not give even one single example of a "Kyoto-induced transfer of manufacturing capacity" to the developing world? Not one single example! Because there are none, because no such thing is happening. It's a figment of your paranoid schizophrenic imagination.

rdw: GE, Intel, IBM, Dow Chemical, Dupont are ALL moving aggressively away from Kyoto believers.

Again, you are full of shit, completely ignorant, and you don't know what the hell you are talking about. For example, the CEO of General Electric recently re-oriented the entire company towards producing Kyoto-compliant energy efficient, climate-friendly technology:

the Kyoto treaty on climate change went into effect earlier this year in 140 nations but not in the United States, the country that is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. However, a growing number of business leaders -- most recently GE Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Immelt -- have called for the United States to set clear goals on carbon emissions. Most industry supporters would prefer a market-based system like that in the Kyoto treaty, one that would cap carbon emissions and create a market where businesses can buy pollution credits from the government and then trade them among one another [...] with nine northeastern states contemplating regional regulations on carbon emissions, potentially putting their own utilities at a competitive disadvantage, some utilities in those states prefer the idea of a federal regime that creates a level playing field nationwide. "I think we're very close to a tipping point of support in the business community," says Ralph Cavanagh, codirector of the energy program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "And clearly that is what it will take to do it with this administration and this Congress."
-- US News & World Report 6/6/2005

Smart corporations, as well as state and municipal governments in the USA, have already ditched the fossil fuel lackey Bush administration's anti-Kyoto stance and are moving forward with Kyoto-compliant technology and regulatory initiatives. That's where the world is headed -- both the industrialized world and the developing world, both governments and private industry. Those who don't embrace the principles of the Kyoto treaty are deadenders and will fall by the wayside as they are weeded out by both markets and government regulation.

You are a clueless ignoramous on the subject of Kyoto. Your devotion to a fake, phony pseudo-libertarian ideology propounded by cynical white collar crooks and their bought-and-paid-for propaganda mouthpieces has made you incapable of dealing with facts.


Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 15, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

That means away from Uncle Sam and US criminal and civil courts. European companies do the same. When Intel opens plants in Ireland, India, China and Vietnam they also open bank accounts. The French can sue Intel but they can't touch their physical or financial assets. The EU can't touch them either. Ireland won't let them. So in 2012 when the doors blown off of Kyoto and the World Court goes after corporate assets they will not have much to get. Asia and the US pay no attention to the world court or to the UN or to Kyoto or any of these agencies.

This is, in a word, insane. Companies and governments file cross-border suits all the time in which they are able to recover and attach assets in foreign countries. Consider, for example, UNCITRAL, the UN Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, which allows member countries to attach off-shore assets of parties claiming insolvency.

And the notion that Ireland, whose entire economy was built up on EU subsidies, "won't let" the EU, of which it is itself a member, touch Intel assets is so absurd that I can't believe that I even have to correct it.

Posted by: Stefan on March 15, 2006 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan wrote: This is, in a word, insane.

That is the word, all right. It has become obvious to me that rdw is, in fact, insane. Specifically, I think he may be a paranoid schizophrenic. He hyperactively lays out these quite detailed and elaborate fantasies that have nothing to do with any reality, makes up "facts" that are not true, and denies or screens out facts that don't fit his psychotic delusions. When confronted with information that completely shoots down his claims, he sputters, offers some irrelevancy, and starts again with his elaborate fantasies, with the contradicting information having been eliminated from his consciousness.

There are plenty of sycophantic, brownshirt-like strongman-worshippers of Bush and Reagan who post here, regurgitating scripted Fox/Rush propaganda, but rdw goes well beyond that, into genuine nutcase territory.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 15, 2006 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK
. It has become obvious to me that rdw is, in fact, insane...Posted by: SecularAnimist
Possibly bi-polar disorder or hebephrenia . Maybe we can have Charles Krauthammer give a diagnosis over the internet. Posted by: Mike on March 15, 2006 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK

And the notion that Ireland, whose entire economy was built up on EU subsidies, "won't let" the EU, of which it is itself a member, touch Intel assets is so absurd that I can't believe that I even have to correct it.

Irelands growth had NOTHING to do with EU subsidies and EVERYTHING to do with low taxes which attracted companies like INTEL.

In fact Intel's assets in Ireland cannot be subjected to US criminal and civil penalties except for bankruptcy which is a company wide event. Intel profits held outside the US and already taxes are not claimable by the US Govt or US citizens.

Posted by: rdw on March 16, 2006 at 8:19 AM | PERMALINK

11 Iraqis killed in U.S. raid on village

Associated Press
Mar. 16, 2006 12:00 AM

BAGHDAD - A U.S. airstrike north of the capital Wednesday killed 11 people, mostly women and children, said police and relatives of the victims. The U.S. military said it captured the target of the raid, a man suspected of supporting al-Qaida fighters.

But the military said only four people were killed.

"Troops were engaged by enemy fire as they approached the building," said Tech. Sgt. Stacy Simon, a military spokeswoman. "Coalition forces returned fire utilizing both air and ground assets."

Police Capt. Laith Mohammed said the attack near Balad, 50 miles north of Baghdad, involved U.S. warplanes and armor that flattened a house in the village of Isahaqi. An Associated Press reporter at the scene said the roof of the house had collapsed, three cars were destroyed and two cows were killed.

Relatives said the 11 victims were wrapped in blankets and driven in three pickup trucks to Tikrit General Hospital, about 45 miles to the north.

AP photographs showed the bodies of two men, five children and four other covered figures arriving at the hospital accompanied by grief-stricken relatives. The victims were covered in dust with bits of rubble tangled in their hair.

Riyadh Majid, who identified himself as the nephew of Faez Khalaf, the head of the household who was killed, said at the hospital that U.S. forces landed in helicopters and raided the home early Wednesday.

Khalaf's brother, Ahmed, said nine of the victims were family members who lived at the house and two were visitors.

"The dead family was not part of the resistance, they were women and children," he said. "The Americans have promised us a better life, but we get only death."

The American military said they caught the target of the raid, a man suspected of supporting foreign fighters of the al-Qaida in Iraq terrorist network.

Posted by: Hostile on March 16, 2006 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

"The dead family was not part of the resistance, they were women and children," he said. "The Americans have promised us a better life, but we get only death."

The American military said they caught the target of the raid, a man suspected of supporting foreign fighters of the al-Qaida in Iraq terrorist network.

As the folks in the Pakistan Territories learned, housing bad guys can be hazardous to your own and your family's health.

Posted by: Red State Mike on March 16, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike loves to masturbate and come on the faces of dead Iraqi children.

RSM, are you a child of the BTK guy?

Posted by: Hostile on March 16, 2006 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

Hostile is Saddam Hussein's bitch. Osama's slambeast. Mullah Omar's spunkbucket. Do they make you bark like the dog you are?

Hostile, are you the illegitimate bastard child of Neville Chamberlain, or just a worshipper from afar?

Posted by: Red State Mike on March 16, 2006 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike,

The real question for the war-apologists, is what YOU would be thinking and doing if YOU were Iraqi!

Clearly one with such a macho, patriotic, manly conservative, and TOUGH attitude would be either out there setting IED's if you were Sunni. Or in a Shia police death squad if you were in the other mob. Though maybe you just talk tough, as a substitute for lacking real courage.

Hence it would be YOUR family getting wasted by the bombs. Would it still be OK?????? Tough guy!

Understand that and I think you might twist your head around why your line of argument fails.

Basically the war is just fucking IRAQ up more and more.

There is no shame in changing your opinion at any time, and conceding that you may be wrong.

Please don't rush to trivialise deaths that are the direct result of your national foreign policy as SOMETHING GOOD, or necessary. This kind of racism is basically a failure of both experience (in the world) and imagination.

So this great disaster. For what poltical gain? what strategic gain? What diplomatic purpose? What greater good? Serving the interests of whom?

What gain? at What cost? (human, material, infrastructure, trust faith and joy).

To be an apologist for this.

To argue an ethical "rightness' about this.

Is I think mistaken.

And if you think all this is going to reduce terrorism, or achieve anything positive at all, that will take some explaining.

Imagine your enemies could reduce America to the literal state that Iraq is in now! What a horror!

I think you lack imagination.

You remind me of the guards in that prison. When the CIA guys had tortued some dude to death. The ghoulish guards opened up the body bags and took smiling photos of themselves with this dead Iraqi guy! Well if we killed him, I guess the logic of it is he must HAVE BEEN BAD!

Sorry dude all the bad guys in this to true tale are on your side.

Check out the photos yourself and tell me you are proud to be American!

Tantrum.

Posted by: Tantrum on March 16, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

Oh yeah,

I'm no "democrat" either. The same is true of Clinton's airwar over Sebia too.

We have profound problems that stem from REALPOLITIK patterns. These in turn derive from a corrupt exploitation of natural "patriotic" sensibilities. Leaders learn to turn human instincts for herd loyalty into service of secret private aggendas.

True as much of Osama Bin Laden as of George Bush.

We lend out the power of our loyalty too easily. We follow too readily. We are too easily swayed, convinced, and fooled into supporting shit like this.

Until humanity matures to transcends "us-them" group think, and achieves some kind of true maturity, based on functioning LAW, actually legitimate government, and universal justice...

We seem set to repeat the same mistakes FOREVER!

Its scary to what NEW horror this whole Iraq business will lead. Can anyone see how it can end in our lifetime?

T.

Posted by: Tantrum on March 16, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

And Mike,

You can always throw darts at Bin Laden, try to tie everyone who disagrees with you to Bin Laden! Claim we are helping Bin Laden.

Which is rude, wrong and untrue!

That line of argument is also not sound in terms of who we should be blaming as the real Bin Laden lovers, as history can prove: Republican Americans. The US national interest and REAL POLITIK.

It was the CIA that got him going as an anti soviet mujahadeen back in the 80s. President Reagan! He wasn't evil then, he was USEFUL! Ah shucks maybe it turned out later to be a bad idea to show him that he could help bring down one evil empire. Got him thinking he might try again.....

Same as it was American foreign policy that supported and encouraged Saddam, just so long as he appeared to serve a US interest in beating up IRAN. So these devils are the devils of your own old experiments. Ignore these facts and blunder around in arguments and points of view that are nothing but your own wishful fantasies of national virtue. She ain't no virgin Mike, she is the original whore!

My point is NOT that America is evil.

But that doing a whole load of unholy evil shit with evil fuckers because it is expedient.... may get exposed eventually as a BAD idea.

Or going to war and killing a whole lot of people cos Cheney thinks he wants the oil for his friends... may actually come back and bite you.

If you want to play "us and them" about 20% of Americans might truly think that this is all going dandy. Mostly Israel lobbyists for which the more arabs killing arabs the better.

In a world population of 6, billion, that is what? How many percent? Because Mike, nationalistic us and them puts everyone else in the THEM catagory.

Unpopular and bad for America doesn't even start to describe it!

You gotta stop imagining the goodness in badness, and just see shit for what it actually is! War don't make people love you and trust you and want to kiss your hands and go to bed with you. It pisses people off!

NOT a good idea! Stop playing the tough mr RIGHT. This war is not good for your people. It is not good for the Americans who die, and its not even good for those who kill. Ever heard the phrase, 'blood of innocents on your hands'. Pity the veterans of this disaster as much as the innocent! How many American families will suffer from this shit for years to come!

Wake up man!

It ain't no good to have an illiterate ignorant Texas oil man, lapdog of the Christian mad-lobby running such a thing as the principle diplomacy of the world.

He is not up to it.

He also lacks empathy and imagination.

Indeed the entire US government system is being severely exposed as a system that may not be up to serving a world leadership role!

It is just too CORRUPT! It don't even serve a notion of US national interest no more. It serves some tiny percent of the Nation. Some little groups of FUCKS like Congress men, (both parties) and company CEOS who spend every waking hour imaging how great they are, talking shit, and loading their pockets with lucre from wherever they can get it. WOW! Die for that! Kill for that!

Turn your anger into intelligence and seek the source of the disaster.

Good may come of all this mess yet.

T.

Posted by: Tantrum on March 16, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike reacted to my comment angrily because he knows it is true that he sides with the BTK Americans rather than with Americans who have Christian values. RSM's rejoicing in the killing of innocent civilians, women and children just because they may have some passing association with enemies of the Bush Regime, is proof that he is a degraded individual. Now he knows I know he knows it, which led to his angry reaction. Call me anything you like Mr. Mike, I know you know you love mass murder of children, and I will condemn you for it.

Posted by: Hostile on March 17, 2006 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike reacted to my comment angrily...

I react to your comment angily because you would consider that children killed collaterally in an attack on evil Al Qaeda members who should know they endanger everyone who is near them with their mere presence is an act equivalent to the cold, calculated killing of 500,000 Iraqis by Saddam Hussein with a mixture of poison gas and bullets and in the back of the head, and who would gladly kill the children just to make their parents suffer. Your moral cowardice and feckless truth-dodging gives aid and comfort to evil-doers everywhere. Without people like you, there would be no Hitlers.

Posted by: Red State Mike on March 17, 2006 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly