Well, everything would be all right, if it weren't for you Jihad-loving librul media commie traitors undermining the march to freedom and democracy.

How come you don't post about all those schools being painted, huh?

Cheney nails it!

Freedom, Freedom, Schools, Purple Fingers, Easter Bunnies! What is there to be morose about? We can just keep borrowing trillions from China!

Richard Holbrooke is seriously gloomy about our prospects in Iraq.

Richard Holbrooke is a liberal Clintonite Democrat who served in the Clinton administration. The same liberals that refused to liberate Iraq when they had their chance in the Clinton Administration and is now joined with Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan in attacking George W Bush and our troops. And yet you expect us to take his views on Iraq seriously?

Dems have to get control over the message on Iraq. Otherwise they have no political advantage of being right because the meme will become that the situation is bad when the "hawks" said it was; this cedes control of the policy message to the people responsible for the mess in the first place.

It's like watching someone die. It takes a while to accept the reality of the situation. But enough people have been saying this was a huge strategic tragedy from the beginning.

Hope springs eternal, and most of the semi-optimism came from hope rather than from any really positive developments.

Can you really think of anything that has transpired over the past three or four years that was really a step forward? The elections were a sham in terms of actual progress, because there is no consensus agreement by Iraquis on what constitutes progress.

This was a fantasy, wrapped in disingenuousness, and fueled by manufactured fear and a lust for a security unachievable by brute force.

I'm not even sure what withdrawal would look like, with us building four huge permenent bases, and a fortress in the Green Zone.

Al nails it!

Attacking our troops! More people die in car wrecks! 9/11! 9/11! America haters! Fight them there not here!

Why can't you learn, Kevin??

The troll/non-troll ratio has increased substantially on this site.

Let us first kill all the trolls.

After our own civil war, reconstruction is generally agreed to have taken about twelve years (65-77). The Republicans of the day wanted to stay the course, and the Democrats of the day wanted to give up and simply leave the south to their fate (including the newly liberated blacks). The left also wanted to appease the soviet union, before Reagan outspent and crushed them.

The ability of the Democrat Party to give up when freedom and democracy are on the line is truly unparalelled. Never before have so many been willing to forsake so much for so little reason.

Even if the American people are ready for a change of leadership, how are they supposed to vote for a party that advocates hiding under the bed?

Hey what's to be so gloomy about? Even now, Bush has his "war cabinet" hunkered down for two days to figure out a, err, umm, a strategy or, um, maybe a new speech, or something.

Slideguy: There will be no withdrawal. We will be there for the forseeable future, spending money and lives.

I'm pretty sure this is a blocking move in a chess game against the Chinese. But that's not my insight, so I have no real support for it, other than to say it makes sense to me.

Slideguy nails it.

There is not going to be any real withdrawl at least for a generation. When Bush is certifiably and officially lame duck, he will announce his plans for formal occupation of Iraq.

The next 6 months in Iraq will.........

bugger off, A-Hawk

As someone who grew up in the region as a young child, and with basically no no other frame of reference or institutional insight other than that the Bush administration were a bunch of incompent and mendacious cretins, yeah, this was pretty easy to see back in late 2002.

bugger off, A-Hawk

GOOD ARGUMENT!!!!!!!!

GOOD ARGUMENT

like you know anything about what constitutes a "good" argument.

If Bush buck-passes as is his stated intent, it now looks like the 2008 election may be a referendum on Iraq.

Well, yeah, that's the whole idea. The GOP wants to be able to paint dems as "cutters and runners", even if the war is vastly unpopular.

The Republicans of the day wanted to stay the course, and the Democrats of the day wanted to give up and simply leave the south to their fate (including the newly liberated blacks).

Ah, you've got to love the unerring sense of history of the rightards, exemplified here by Chickenhawk. Um, Chickenhawk, in 1865 the Republicans, and their Whig forebearers, was the progressive party, dems were largely conservative. So is it liberalism you hate, or democrats?

I saw all of this prior to the invasion. It was inevitable. Everything became black after 9/11 because of the planned US response to engage in war. The part I did not think about, however, was that it would be worse than Vietnam - there is no North Vietnam to pick up the pieces and provide political stability in the region.

The only thing worse than my dismay is that pundits only care about the few dying Americans, not the hundreds of thousands of future dead Iraqis. Perhaps the only solution to preventing more bloodshed is to allow Iran to take over in Iraq.

From Kevin's link: "Fischer's up. America is indispensible. He says it not because he wants it to be so, but having witnessed it. If we give up our traditional role in the world, it will be a disaster. We all but invented international law, international organizations. He cannot imagine a peaceful world without these instruments - - this is the most rousing defense of American exceptionalism to be sounded this morning. But it's being made by a foreigner."

The pessimists may prove to be right; the optimists may turn out to be right. Or, Iraq may muddle along for many years with a weak democratic government unable to put down an ongoing insurgency. At this point, nobody knows.

I'm pretty gloomy these days too.

Gloomy about what? Look, do you have any idea what a huge mess that unquestioned US dominance in Iraq would have caused? We'd be knocking on the door of an invasion of Iran, and ever two-bit legislator who "supported the Iraq war" would be talking up the wisdom of his foresight and the wondrous future of "preemtive war." "Out prospects in Iraq" are to leave. Any other outcome would do even more damage to the USA than it already has.

AH, on the 12-year occupation timeline-- "don't do the crime if you can't do the time." We can't sustain a 12-year occupation. You might as well ask for a pony.

In Lebanon (per my recollection) a coalition of countries got together to basically give the existing warlords pardons + political power in a newly formed state. Those who didn't buy in were prosecuted as war criminals by the war criminals that did buy in. It's an ugly solution, but not nearly as ugly as civil war itself.

So I suspect that eventually grown-ups will look at Lebanon as a model for how things might work out in Iraq. Given the political environment in Iraq this is not currently an option. (Nor was it an option in Lebanon in 1980.)

Can anybody else think of a relevant model? (And no, it doesn't look a whit like US Reconstruction. Please.)

If videogames have taught me anything, its that sometimes you have to face the consquences of bad decisions, accept your failings as a commander, and reload at an earlier save point.

So, I suggest we release Saddam, pull back out to the border of Kuwait, take a month to get our ducks in a row, and reinvade.

The Appropriations conference removed a provision from the bill funding continued operations in Iraq that would have not permitted funding for permanent bases in Iraq. Reuters

This has always been the plan--a permanent occupying force of tens of thousands. I've been saying 30-40 thousand based on reporting by Fred Kaplan and George Packer, but now it is known that they are planning for 50,000 troops permanently based there.

America plans to retain a garrison of 50,000 troops, one tenth of its entire army, in Iraq for years to come, according to US media reports.

The revelation came as George W Bush summoned his top political, military and intelligence aides to a summit on Iraq's future today at the presidential retreat at Camp David.

Telegraph

via Firedoglake

These plans have always been in place, and they have gone almost unreported in the media. The plan to base troops permanently in Iraq makes any discussion of withdrawal dishonest and contentless. Kerry's proposal, Murtha's redployment simply don't reflect the actual plans.

Moreover, this makes it very clear that the notion of Iraqi sovereignity is exaggerated. No government will be permitted to take power that will not allow the US to occupy these bases. And the Iraqis will not be permitted to create a functional army. The logistical resources will not be provided. They will be permitted no armor, no air force and no capability for defense against air strikes. All those capabilities will remain in American hands indefinitely.

That's the plan. That's always been the plan. And neither the president nor the defense department have ever been called on it. The stand up stand down thing was a patent lie, and nobody would say so. Now that this out in the open, is there some chance someone will?

If GWB is smart and cognizant of the need to salvage his legacy as well as the chances for the Republicans in 06 and 08, he would immediately appoint John Murtha the Secretary of Defense and listen to him.

Taking your two last posts together, here's an idea: how about finally reformulating American policy priorities for the post-Cold War era. Withdrawal from Iraq would be justified if our candidates argued that our massive military spending is long since anachronistic. We need to return to forcing on important domestic issues such as universal health care spending and securing our homeland and citizens against terrorism.

But, but Kevin, what about the death of Zarqawi and the final formation of a government? Surely we've turned the corner now? No? Can't you see the light at the end of the tunnel?

ckelly

It'll all be fine in 6 months.....

not that it matters,not that it's relevant, but american hawk, you're twisting history. you might recall, the election of 1876 was deadlocked, and the repubs made a deal to get the florida delegation to change its vote in order to give the presidency to their candidate, rutherford b. hayes. it's just another case where the repubs eschewed principle to retain power.

Tilden won the popular vote in '76 as well.

American Hawk (aka asshole): After our own civil war, reconstruction is generally agreed to have taken about twelve years (65-77).

The south was part of a democracy and republic (the Union) before the Civil War. They were a democracy and republic during the Civil War. And they rejoined the Union (a democracy and republic) after the Civil War.

Comparing Iraq (a dictatorship) with Reconstruction of the south (a democracy and republic) is not helpful.

I don't get the conservative "vision" on Iraq at all. Let's say it's a good idea - we need a couple of police stations in the Middle East, we like cheap oil, etc. Oh, and it will prevent terrorism (chuckle) - how could I forget that one.

If all those things are true, and if we "must win", then the way forward seems crystal clear:
- Increase taxes to pay for this "war"
- Institute a draft to put 500,000 Americans on the ground there full time
- By doing the above, convince Europeans that we are serious, and so get them to commit another 500,000 people to actually be in Iraq
- Explain that this will take a generation

Since there are no conservatives, in or out of the government, advocating any of the above, I conclude that they are not serious about Iraq, and instead that Iraq is just a big campaign slogan for the GOP, that got out of control and is now threatening to eat its master.

Keep your chins up, Lefties!

You'll have to root for failure in Iraq for a few days, yet.

Keep the faith.

I'm not even sure what withdrawal would look like, with us building four huge permenent bases, and a fortress in the Green Zone.

Yes, but when we withdraw we won't get to keep them. We had lots of "permanent" bases in Vietnam, as well, such as Cam Ranh, but we lost those when we were chased out in ignominious defeat. The reason we were able to keep bases in Germany, Japan and South Korea is because we won (or, in Korea's case, tied) those wars -- that won't be the case here.

Since there are no conservatives, in or out of the government, advocating any of the above, I conclude that they are not serious about Iraq, and instead that Iraq is just a big campaign slogan for the GOP, that got out of control and is now threatening to eat its master.

Look, craigie, if you understood this stuff you'd get that cutting taxes creates an incentive to revitalize the economy for every company engaged in war profiteering. Or that we don't need more soldiers in Iraq; we need fewer big-mouth libs playing "gotcha" here. Get rid of the latter and I think you'll find you have enough of the other.

The master's foot is the last body part hanging out of the mouth of the beast at this point.

It'll all be fine in 6 months.....

No one could have imagined that Iraq would be a country with so many corners.

Birkel: Keep your chins up, Lefties!

You'll have to root for failure in Iraq for a few days, yet.

Go watch Baghdad ER and tell me what you're rooting for Birkel. Me, I'd like to see less senseless death and maiming in Iraq, but I guess you can accomplish that just be ignoring what's going on.

cyntax,

You're right.
An HBO Special will clear it all up.
Thank goodness they made "ROME" or I'd not know about Caesar's campaigns and murder in the Senate.

Oh? What's that? You were serious?

I'm not even sure what withdrawal would look like, with us building four huge permenent bases, and a fortress in the Green Zone.

Easy, they'll just turn them into big box retail outlets. They'll be able to get car parts, sushi and RPGs all in one convenient location!

The human toll of Vietnam was so much worse that it's inappropriate to say Iraq is a bigger disaster.

Birkel,

Cut out the middle man - forget the HBO special and go to Iraq yourself. Its wonderful there these days. But, as always, the best way to see a place is the way the locals do, staying away from the tourist traps and the like. Don't use the US military as a taxi service, and just wander out on the street and see the sights.

We're not rooting for failure in Iraq. We're damn unhappy about the situation now. If you think things are going well (how many corners have been turned after all), go over there, take some pictures, and tell us about it.

After our own civil war, reconstruction is generally agreed to have taken about twelve years (65-77). The Republicans of the day wanted to stay the course, and the Democrats of the day wanted to give up and simply leave the south to their fate (including the newly liberated blacks).

And at the time, the Republican party was the progressive party and the Democrats were the conservatives, a party that, at that time, dominated the South. Is it in any surprise the South wanted the occupying federal forces out?

There are parallels to be sure -- by pulling a retreat, the federal government left the South to sink back into a 100-year morass of Jim Crow laws and a reign terror -- yes, terror -- against the former slaves. If we withdraw from Iraq we face the same thing -- sure civil war. But if we stay -- we also face civil war. That's the point of the post: Bush doesn't have a clue how to fix it or how to get out; so he's just going to stay and let the next president figure out. Great leadership!

The ability of the Democrat[ic] Party to give up when freedom and democracy are on the line is truly unparalelled.

Uh, I believe it was a Democrat who led this country through World War II? And it was another Democrat who refused to withdraw from Viet Nam -- that was left to a Republican president to pull off, in his second term.

The party-bashing propaganda doesn't work here, A.H.

At any rate, you side-step the question: What the hell do we do now? Seems to me -- as a person who thought the war was one huge strategic blunder from the get-go -- we've long since missed the oppotunity to make a difference by significantly increase the troop numbers on the ground.

This what galls me about this whole mess: If you want to start a war, go in there with enough troops to win the damn thing. And if you don't have the troops -- raise them. It's called a draft. That's what you do when you find yourself in war of necessity. Since this was not a war of necessity, but a politically calculated war designed to boost the Chimp's poll numbers -- it was done on the cheap. The Big Lie the Bush Administration has pushed on us is the "Painless War." No Fuss, No Muss.

Well, we're gonna feel some pain. It's a comin' --- if 'stay the course' means "I don't have a damned idea what to do different," then we're looking at more lives lost in postponing the inevitable: a nasty civil war in which the Iranian mullahs ultimately prevail. And in the process, we undermine civil liberties at home, are knee-deep into a constitutional crisis here, and face the very real possiblity of a financial meltdown because of the explosion of debt, the fiscal irresponsibility of tax-cutting Republicans in war time -- something no Democratic president ever was foolish enough to do -- and the complicity of millions of Americans who are still so rattled by 9-11 that they would trade away the first and fourth amendments happily in the name of Homeland security.

I like how, when the magic "rebuliding fairies" failed to materialize in Iraq, the Buh Administration decided it was still possible to continue its plan to build huge, permanent military bases in a nation that was becoming increasingly unstable and hostile to the US.

It's like there's no realization that if, three years from now we've got a hostile populace that's lousy with bombs and small arms, we can't effectively use the multi-million dollar military bases in that country, no matter how well-built the damn things are. They'll be a string of isolated fortresses. Might as well build 'em in the South Pacific, for all the good they'll do us.

I haven't seen a strategic plan so mired in wishful thinking since operation Typhoon--where the Germans didn't bring along coats or antifreeze because, hey, it's just an invasion of Russia. No need for contingency planning, just count on everything going perfectly! Rebuilding a country fractured by sectarian violence, ethnic strife, and awash in small arms, bringing a coat in case that Russia campaign drags on into winter...not the kind of thing great strategic minds should worry themselves about.

... [T]he notion of Iraqi sovereignity is exaggerated. No government will be permitted to take power that will not allow the US to occupy these bases. And the Iraqis will not be permitted to create a functional army. The logistical resources will not be provided. They will be permitted no armor, no air force and no capability for defense against air strikes. All those capabilities will remain in American hands indefinitely. That's the plan. That's always been the plan.

I think JayAckroyd has it mostly right. The principal objective was to put a big US cop-shop square in the middle of Oil Country. Iraq was the logical place to do it, because of its location, its natural resources, and its political and military weakness.

The political future of Iraq has always been secondary. Yeah, Democracy (pause to genuflect) there would be nice, but given the history and culture of the region, building a functioning democracy would be a generation's work, and the Bushies were always forthright about their scorn for "nation building." That they've sold this particular candy-land vision to their supporters is testament only to the Bushies' mendacity and their supporters' stupidity.

I'm guessing, though, that some Iraqi military capability WILL be permitted, a la South Korea or perhaps Japan, just to keep local order and to put somebody else's bodies on the front lines. We'll fund them, supply them (in carefully limited ways), and allow them to be the local veneer on the colonial military machine.

Ironically, building and carefully controlling a national Army with limited capabilities might well be a good way forward to politically stabilizing the country and bolstering relatively secular institutions. But that's certainly not the reason for doing it. If a military strongman -- Saddam II, say -- were a more effective choice, these guys would do it in a heartbeat.

cactus,

The chickenhawk argument is SO 2005. So you went and updated it.

Well played.

Your rhetorical kung fu is powerful.

Have you ever noticed how much trolls and terrorist act alike. All follow some motivation blindly. When one dies another jumps right in to replace them.

Bush speaks of an Iraq ready and able to defend itself. This capability is linked to our leaving. Why isn’t he asked to define this ability? Iraq is surrounded by nations sharing simmering hostilities towards each other. They’ve waged war against Iran. When will Iraq be permitted the type of military able to repulse another nation’s aggressions? Where will they get the money and who will they be permitted to buy weapons from? They’ll properly need advanced fighter jets, mechanized artillary, short range missiles, attack helicopters and all the advanced training and supplies to support it all. In short they need to be on par with their neighbors and Israel. When does Bush plan to enable and assist in this? And finally, how does he plan on keeping all that weaponry from being turned on American troops once it’s in Iraqi hands? The answer? Iraq isn’t getting such a military. Ever. And Bush’s professed desire they have the ability to defend themselves is nothing but a pack of gaudy lies. Lies the press and Congress won’t call him on.

Birkel, as most trolls do you resort to false equivalencies. Baghdad ER is a documentary not fiction.

Those people on the screen are the real people that are dying and being maimed, and this will continue to happen until the administration you support comes up with a solution to its mess. And of course a documentary doesn't "clear it all up" but I didn't suggest it did. I just don't believe that you have any visceral idea or experience of what's happening over there.

Birkel,

Are you trolling this blog again? Do you like lying? Does it make youi feel good when you look in the mirror? God watches you. Dont forget that.

Birkel,

I wasn't suggesting you sign up for the war. The Chickenhawk argument is played out because everyone knows the Chickenhawks won't enlist. Thus, why bother.

But... if you believe something, put your money where your mouth is. Forget about enlisting - none of the "Iraq is going great" crowd ever goes to Iraq for a nice vacation. I've spent a lot of time in South America, including places that at times the news reports indicated were extremely unsafe. I thought they were safe - so I went.

Again, I'm not suggesting you enlist, I am suggesting you take your family there for a nice vacation. I'm also asking that you do it the way I did it when I to places that were supposed to interesting - see it the way the locals see it. Don't abuse the US taxpayer and use the military as a taxi service.

BTW - I keep hearing that Afghanitan is doing well these days too, so that's another fine vacation spot you might pencil in.

cyntax,

I see. Because it's a "documentary" it's, like, totally not got a point of view.

Just like "Farenheit 911" or that McDonald's movie.

I will counter your rhetorical drunken master with my tiger's claw.

Birkel, what's the point of view being expressed and how is it unaccurate in your opinion?

Again, I'm not suggesting you enlist, I am suggesting you take your family there for a nice vacation. I'm also asking that you do it the way I did it when I to places that were supposed to interesting - see it the way the locals see it. Don't abuse the US taxpayer and use the military as a taxi service.

You know what, that's such a good idea that I'll even offer to spring for the ticket. If Birkel wants to go to Iraq for vacation I'll pay for a round-trip economy class flight (assuming he'll need a return, that is). All he'll have to do is bring back a few photos verifying he was really there (and no, photos from Istanbul won't count).

troglodyte,
What is this "god" of which you speak? Seriously, point out the "facts" that support your assertion of some "god". (And you're right. I shouldn't feel good about picking on the short bus kids. I feel really bad about commenting here.)

cactus,
No. The chickenhawk argument is played out because you're sitting at a computer instead of taking up arms against the McBushitler Halliburton neocon Christianist cabal. So I know you're not really serious about your support.

Birkel's waiting for the REAL Iraqi documentary "Baghdad PS101- The Model" a real-life drama of painting a public school in Baghdad.

"Because it's a "documentary" it's, like, totally not got a point of view."

Again... see the place yourself. Go there on your next vacation. I bet its pretty cheap - the damn liberal media has scared most people off, so the prices have to be low. And when you go, see it the way the locals see it.

Tell us what its like - maybe if you give us a first hand view of the place untainted by the liberal media you'll convince a lot of people. But my guess is that you can't even convince yourself.

Go easy on him, Cyntax. He can't tell whats reality and what isn't - is fundamental to right wing nature. Reality has a left wing bias.

Besides, how can that be real? Everything is great over there, so a show that has US soldiers bleeding and dieing at a rate more than 1 a day or so has to be fabricated. Casulaties only refer to the dead anymore, after all.

A REAL-GOP version would have a bunch of doctors being fed peeled grapes by hardworking KBR employees, and every couple of days or so a perfectly intact soldier's corpse would be brought in and everyone would shake their heads sadly for a few seconds, until the soldier's buddies pointed out that they still got that school painted. For Johny.

cyntax,

I have no idea how it's unaccurate (sic). Please advise.

Birkel, what's the point of view being expressed and how is it unaccurate in your opinion?

It's all that biased, leftist blood and guts and dead people. They conflict with Birkel's world view.

Really Birkel, your cute little Quentin Tarrantino-isms about kung-fu aside, where does the opportunity for editorializing come in, when the only ones doing the talking are the troops?

I can't even figure out what Birkel is arguing about. Is he just muttering that liberals "are rooting for bad news"? What do you say about policymakers who simply *ignore* bad news? Do you think that the news from Iraq really isn't bad?

It's painfully obvious that the news from Iraq is terrible. Rather than shooting the messenger, what should we do about it? Kevin is saying - we can't do much; all of our options are bad ones. I agree. So Birkel, what do you think we should do?

cactus,
Thanks for the offer.
However, you may want to save your money to help some struggling Hollywood actor make it to Canada or Europe if this election doesn't go their way.

In the meanwhile, I'll read Michael Yon, et al, or Iraq the Model for my info.

(makes kung fu noises)

"No. The chickenhawk argument is played out because you're sitting at a computer instead of taking up arms against the McBushitler Halliburton neocon Christianist cabal. So I know you're not really serious about your support."

Hey. I'm in the US. That's how I have an idea about what's going on here. Once again - head on outo Iraq and Afghanistan and see what those places are like.

As "taking up arms against the McBushitler Halliburton neocon Christianist cabal" - there's such a thing as a loyal opposition. You, presumably, didn't take up arms against that evil Clinton - does that mean you supported Clinton? I note that you probably aren't willing to go to Iraq because you don't expect the loyal opposition behaves the same way in iraq.

sitting at a computer instead of taking up arms against the McBushitler

psst. this is America - we don't take up arms against political rivals (unless you're a rightwing radical shooting at doctors or blowing up federal buildings).

I have no idea how it's unaccurate (sic). Please advise.

You're the one denigrating the value of seeing exactly what the sacrifices are that are being made. Tell me why you think it's appropriate to trivialize what's happening. And tell me how we can stop this.

Cleek....if American Hawk buggered off he'd have to use that orifice for something other than speaking out of and we can't have that.
Holbrooke a liberal? Yeah, that's pretty funny. Realistic & pragmatic? Pretty much.

I'm pretty gloomy these days too. A year ago, I thought (or maybe just hoped) that a milestone-related withdrawal plan might improve Iraq's chances of avoiding complete chaos.

Actually, you refused to distinguish between "milestone-related withdrawal" and "scheduled withdrawal", and you were gloomy then as well. And that was before the elections and before the fighting between Sunnis and foreign Jihadists.

Meanwhile, the Kurdish economic expansion continues to be the envy of the Islamic Middle East, followed closely by the economic expansion of the Shi'ite regions of Iraq.

And cooperation between the citizens and the Iraqi military continues to increase as well.

Don't be such a perpetual gloomster! Even Haditha is not as bad as you think.

I have a feeling that a thought has begun to sink in: the Democrats are not going to retake the Congress this fall. Now there is a source for your gloom: you will be at maximum uncertainty throughout the summer and fall.

cactus, Thanks for the offer.
However, you may want to save your money to help some struggling Hollywood actor make it to Canada or Europe if this election doesn't go their way.

It was cactus who suggested the trip but I was the one who offered to pay for it. And please don't worry about the cost to me, I have more than enough that it won't be a burden -- I'm happy to pay for you to go. In fact, I'll even book the flight for you -- but once you land, I'm afraid, you're on your own to make arrangements. So what do you say -- doesn't a week or two in Iraq sound like a better deal than just sitting around reading Michael Yon?

Birkel

God does not base His power on whether you believe in him. He is not Tinker Bell. The smirk on your face will not last long when the time comes.

Those you profess to support say that He exists and that He judges sinners. Have your handlers told you that God doesnt exist? Did they tell you that only the fundy rubes believe in him? That He is a convenient tool?

Do not believe them. He will judge you. Prepare for that.

cactus,
I did like Clinton. However, as an officer of the court I didn't appreciate his lying under oath (for which he lost his license to practice law for 5 years).
And I worked for Harvey Gantt in 1996 against Jesse Helms.

Not a Christianist.
Not a knee-jerk Clinton hater.
Wanna try for another stereotype?

cleek,
I meant you should go to Iraq to fight for your side.

Meanwhile, those anti-abortionist lunatic bombers of women's health clinics should be locked up forever -- or executed. Thankfully that's already happened with McVeigh.

When was the last abortion clinic bombing, btw. I can't remember one recently. Of course, I might have missed the reports and would appreciate being so informed if that is the case. Thanks in advance.

aWol did us a major, major quagmire. We all should be gloomy.

troglodyte,

Save your breath, sweetheart.

We can't sustain a 12-year occupation. You might as well ask for a pony.

Posted by: Constantine on June 12, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

The issue is not that the US cannot sustain a 12-year occupation, we clearly can. The real issue is do we want to sustain a 12-year occupation if that is necessary to achieve our stated goal of a "free and democratic" Iraq. In the end, the debate over Iraq becomes a simple cost-benefits analysis.

You clearly don't think that the incurred and future costs required to achieve the goal of a free and democratic Iraq are worth it. The neocon's argument is that the costs are worth it because it would be a huge change for the better in the Middle East and for US as well if we can leave Iraq with a political and economic life similar to that of Turkey or Indonesia at the end of our occupation.

I supported the war because it removed an enemy of the US from power. And because I agree with Bush that in order to reduce terrorism, you must go after the states and governments that give terrorists protection or support.

I too am gloomy. Don't any of you wish you could be proud of your government again? I wish I could say with certainty that my government stands for the highest ideals of good governance. As long as the Republicans are in power I can't, because they don't.

I meant you should go to Iraq to fight for your side.

you first, chickenhawk.

And because I agree with Bush that in order to reduce terrorism, you must go after the states and governments that give terrorists protection or support.

Great! So when do we invade the US allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?

The issue is not that the US cannot sustain a 12-year occupation, we clearly can.

Well no, we clearly cannot -- at least, that is, unless we do so at the expense of all our other goals and interests, sacrificing our military might, economic security, and influence and authority in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America in the process.

I supported the war because it removed an enemy of the US from power. And because I agree with Bush that in order to reduce terrorism, you must go after the states and governments that give terrorists protection or support.

Posted by: Chicounsel on June 12, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

I take it you support invasions of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Isreal. Three countries who give terrorists protection and support.

Yes, I said Isreal. Lobbing shells into a family picnic is just as much terrorism as a suicide bomber going off on a crowded street corner.

So, let me guess: republicrat thinks that things are going well in Iraq. It's hard to respond to such sentiments, except to note that they represent a willful blindness to what is actually occuring there. 1400 violent deaths in Bagdhad in the last month. The massacre at Haditha, and the Iraqi PM condeming the US for killing civilians in general. Repeated reports on the collapse of civil rights for women, especially in the south. Rampant kidnappings, civil strife, and ethnic cleansing. A government that has taken months to form and which still cannot fill key posts. I could go on, but I shouldn't have to...

So what about that trip to Iraq? I find it odd, to say the least, that I offered to fund the whole thing out of my pocket and yet I'm getting no response -- it's almost as if he's not willing to put his money where his mouth is.

Marc,

Perhaps you missed the news of those key posts you mention being filled because of the celebration you put on about Zarqawi's demise. But, uh, I'm pretty sure you don't know what the heck you're talking about.

Some of the other particulars you mention are also wrong, btw.

Remember the good old days of the Afghanistan War when after three weeks the NYT declared it a quagmire. (Ditto the Iraq invasion.) Ah, yes. Those were the days.

Stefan,
Feel free to mail those tickets to me.

"The stand up stand down thing was a patent lie, and nobody would say so. Now that this out in the open, is there some chance someone will?"

No. This Iraq stuff is getting boring, let's talk about Hillary and Bill's sex life!

Stefan, he's not even willing to put your money where his mouth is.

Holbrooke is a very partisian democrat who essentially was a mouthpiece for Kerry in the last election.

Why should we pay any attention to his assessment of Iraq and speculations about what will be the effect of the 2012 election?

Signer's report actually is quite critical of Holbrooke for his pessimism and obsession with Vietnam. It is obvious that Iraq and more generally the war on terror will be huge issues for the next president. Holbrooke seems to have no ideas on how to address those issues. It apparently is a very good thing that he is not our secretary of state or in some other significant position.

Boy, that's nice and vague Birkel. Facts don't matter to you; the only thing you care about is defending Dear Leader and the Party. All of the major posts in the government are still not filled, by the way. Six months after the election. So, I gather that you think things are going just great in Iraq?

Holbrooke is a very partisian democrat who essentially was a mouthpiece for Kerry in the last election. Why should we pay any attention to his assessment of Iraq and speculations about what will be the effect of the 2012 election?

Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney are very partisan Republicans who essentially were mouthpieces for Bush in the last election.

Why should we pay any attention to their assessments of Iraq and speculations about what will be the effect of the 2012 election?

Brian can't address the substance, so he dismisses the person involved - e.g. since Holbrooke supported Kerry, there is no reason to bother to respond to what he actually said.

Typical.

Feel free to mail those tickets to me.

Great. When would you like to travel and which airport will you be flying out of?

I am boring. Blah blah blah.

Democrat party.

3:33 PM was a name hijacker.

Marc,
I can't fix your stupid. And you're still incorrect.

When will the democrats learn that people vote for the candidate with a positive attitude?

Stefan,
I'd like to fly out of Sydney, Australia. That means I'll need tix to Sydney first. Thanks.

I'm sure glad the "intellectual" Democrats at Democracy Arsenal took the pro-war arguments seriously.

They did a bang-up job of proving that they were "adults" and willing to spill others' blood to prove their tough guy credentials.

So this is how the 101st keyboarders do it. Challenge posters on a center left blog.Is this right. We are the enemy because we do not support{fill in mission}there by giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Since there are only 9 terrorists left in Iraq since {fill in name}is dead. We give hope to the dead enders. Victory is around the corner.Blah blah blah
This is how you guys fight the fight? And you wonder why we think you guys are a bunch of pu**ies!

folks,

Now that I know I've lost you I just don't know if I'll be able to carry on. (puts back of left hand to forehead and sighs)

/feigning giving a damn

I'd like to fly out of Sydney, Australia. That means I'll need tix to Sydney first. Thanks.

OK, but from where in the US?

So Birkel, I was asking you upthread where the opportunity for inaccuracy was in a documentary where the only people speaking are the wounded soldiers and the medical personnel that treat them.

Should I infer that you haven't seen the documentary you've been denigrating? Or is this all about "rhetorical kung-fu" for you?

Birkel, looks like your approval rating is down to 30%. Better get busy and supersize those numbers.

Confessions Of A Traitor

They are going to blame the failure of the Iraq war on me. They always blame me for these things. I’m almost used to it by now. I almost don’t mind being called a traitor.

I was a traitor in 1950 when I said that the military decision to push beyond the 38th parallel, after expelling the North Korean army from South Korea, was foolishly inviting disaster. I believed that China would surely intervene to keep us from threatening its borders. My commanding officer called me a traitor for predicting the bloody retreat and disaster that followed.

I was again a traitor in 1965 when the group I belonged to, Veterans For Peace, warned that the growing military adventure in Vietnam was doomed to end in failure and disgrace. We were accused of treason for not supporting our troops. But it was not us who failed to support our troops. It was the foolish and deluded men in the Pentagon, State Department, and White House who sent 65,000 young Americans to die in an unwinnable war fought under impossible circumstances.

Now it is happening again. After it became clear three years ago that Iraq was a target for invasion, tens of thousands of my fellow traitors and I began protesting against the persistent stupidity of pursuing this tragically failing war. We see the same old vehement ignorance at work once more. We can hardly be blamed for believing that Iraq is Korea and Vietnam all over again. And once more we are called traitors for “not supporting our troops.”

I said I’m almost used to being called that. Almost. Considering the sort of people doing the accusing, I should be content to wear the label, but I prefer to think of myself as a patriot. After all, my ancestors were called traitors in 1776, but today are thought of as great patriots. So I prefer to think of my kind of treason as a family tradition. And to paraphrase an old family friend: If this be treason, then I shall try to make the most of it.

buddy66,

You are not a traitor, just an ignorant, idiot.

NRO commentator jumps on the Iraq is a disaster bandwagon?

Let’s start from the fact that the whole thing, taken in one piece—attack plus follow-up nation-building effort—has been a huge negative for the USA. Is there anyone, really, who is glad we did it? Most of my NR colleagues are still talking up the administration’s Iraq policy. It’s hard not to think, though, that if wired up to a polygraph and asked the question: “Supposing you could wind the movie back to early 2003, would you still attack Iraq?” any affirmative answers would have those old needles a-jumping and a-skipping all over the graph paper.

We are stuck there in that wretched place with no way out that would not involve massive loss of geostrategic face. Getting on for 3,000 of our troops have been killed, and close to 20,000 maimed. We’ve spent untold billions of dollars. For what? ....

Since the Iraq war was obviously a gross blunder, is it time for those of us who cheered on the war to offer some kind of apology?... For those of us down at the bottom of the pundit pecking order, the stakes aren’t so high. I, at any rate, am willing to eat some crow and say: I wish I had never given any support to this fool war.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmYxNjgzMjFkMTQ3MDE1ZTIyYzFlNDc3ZWFlZjY4NzI=

I wonder how the Bush apologist shills around here are going to spin this one?

Why is he a idiot clinton era, I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for this little tidbit of wingnut wisdom.

*sigh* Why does The National Review hate America?

Stefan,

he's not only unwilling to put his money where his mouth is, he's not even willing to put YOUR money where his mouth is.

heh.

Birkel, as buddy66 has eloquently pointed out, very often the people who are most cavalier about starting and supporting wars are the ones with the least experience.

I've no idea if you have any experience of war and combat. If you don't, I really recommend that as a gesture of solidarity and support for our troops you watch Baghdad ER every week that we have troops in harm's way, so that you can have some small sense of what they're going through.

I think doing that would also make apparent to you how impossible it could be for anyone to as you put it: "...root for failure in Iraq for a few days, yet."

Birkel,

You are backpeddling, fear in your eyes. You will not go to Iraq. You know that you are weak. You know that you lie. You fear that you are clinging to the lies of others.

It is not my breath that you fear.

What do you expect from the party of ann [fill in blank] coulter

Supported the war, for better or worse, but not sure why we are staying. They have a new govt, democratically elected, Zac the terrorist is dead and Al Queda in Iraq is on the run. Seriously, why not bring the guys home or at least atart. 50K troops at 4 bases is enough. If iraq wants to decend into the hell of civil war, and they are coming real close, let them. But don't ask our men and women to die when the mission is accomplished.

Catch22

Golly, that Darbyshire essay is quite a document. Has this fellow ever thought beyond the logic of a barroom brawl? If even folks like this are coming to regret the Iraq war, I wonder who will be left in The Base.

Yes, I said Israel. Lobbing shells into a family picnic is just as much terrorism as a suicide bomber going off on a crowded street corner.

Thank you Mr. Byers.

What did Clinton do wrong??

Remember the good old days of the Afghanistan War when after three weeks the NYT declared it a quagmire.

Citations, please. You're a fucking liar.

Four understandings of history and human nature were missing from the minds of those who counseled war to achieve what they saw as laudable goals. I desperately hope Iraq has taught them something. If through this gigantic mistake we can learn a big lesson, all the senseless deaths will not have been completely in vain.

The first understanding is that war is by far the largest breeder of unintended consequences that exists. Anyone who believes they can predict what is going to happen in war is a fool. History is brimming over with examples of nations who went to war sure of their superior force and certain of a quick victory, who were bogged down, outlasted and finally defeated. Going to war when it can be avoided is simply the dumbest thing a human being can do.

The second understanding missing from the minds of the warriors who hoped to impose a democracy in Iraq is that democracy cannot be imposed. It has to be won by the people themselves or it will not be appreciated enough to be protected. An understanding that I must protect your beliefs as zealously as I protect my own must be firmly rooted for democracy to work, but that idea is largely missing in the middle east. Every nation that is now a functioning democracy has had many missteps on the way. The process takes generations. Japan after WW2 is the one exception that, to me, proves the rule. I’m sure you know Japan’s unique situation.

The third understanding comes in the form of a delusion—that a violent incursion can actually change minds. Did we really think we could go in with “shock and awe” (a completely odious concept), kill thousands of sons, uncles, fathers and brothers, and their surviving relatives would lay flowers at our feet in gratitude? Violent incursions never change minds. You may control the situation for awhile, but violence breeds only hatred. It may be forced underground for a time, but eventually it will come out from under its rock and bite you. In the Middle East hatreds last for millenniums!

Another delusion is a pillar of American foreign policy—a belief that we can actually do something to force history to speed up. It took more than 2000 years for government of, by and for the people to firmly take hold in the West. Even today, democracy’s highest ideal, one-person-one-vote, is far from being realized in America.

Americans have the world’s shortest attention spans and no understanding of history. It is a toxic combination. Just as the world can only achieve democratic government a mistake at a time, it seems Americans must learn human nature a mistake at a time. Vietnam and Iraq—wars of absolute futility—have taught us much, but I suspect the belief that we can use war to effect any kind of a desirable outcome will raise its ugly head again before it is finally done.

Yes, I said Israel. Lobbing shells into a family picnic is just as much terrorism as a suicide bomber going off on a crowded street corner.

Except Isreal didn't lob shells into a family picnic although leave it to Palestinian butchers to lauch rockets from a crowded beach. Leave it to the same morons to blow themselves up mishandling their munitions.

BTW: Your Palestinians friends are on a roll. Their praise of Zarqawi hasn't been well recieved in Iraq or Jordan and each government is demanding an apology. Seems like they don't see people who butcher their citizens as heroes. Go figure!

Hopefully they'll contniue to bleed the Europeans dry.

rdw

So . . . violent deaths of innocent people are OK as long as you have an excuse? Some bad guys nearby, perhaps? Or is it that no one in the other tribe is innocent, and all deserve to be slaughtered?

James,

Leaving aside Iraq for a moment, history offers many examples of democracy being imposed, violent incursions changing minds, and the use of force speeding up history.

You are right though that Americans in general seem to pay too little attention to history. But that cuts both ways. Holbrooke can only claim Iraq is worse than Vietnam by closing his eyes to history and hoping his readers will do the same. And, unsurprisingly, many of those readers have been happy to oblige him.

MeLoseBrain?,

http://www.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/Vietnam/apple-afghan.html

I'll thank you in advance for apologizing for your spurious ad hominem attack.

Al Queda in Iraq is on the run

in what way ?

Even if the American people are ready for a change of leadership, how are they supposed to vote for a party that advocates hiding under the bed?

When are you enlisting ?

Oh no!
Not the dreaded chickenhawk argument.
Ahhhhh...

When are you enlisting for the side you support?

There is some good news about Holbrooke being depressed. He's never been right about anything.

It's an especially good sign he sees Iraq in terms of Vietnam and that his primary fear is our international standing.

Where exactly are these standings? Can we look them up?

No doubt Richard is upset at what he's seen these last 4 years. He should be. His European friends are beyond dismayed. They're so toast. Schroeder left in disgrace. Chirac remains in disgrace. Blair will be gone in a year and probably lose power for his party. Martin lost in Canada and his party is still in collapse. The strongest Int'l leader is from Australia and Howard is more conservative than Bush. Arafat is a disgrace and Sharon is the stateman of the middle east. Israel has defensible borders and Palestine their own state and it didn't happen at all the way Holbrooke predicted.

At the same time GWB has dramatically improved relations with Japan, India and Pakistan. Sam Nunn and the libs are very upset with that nuke deal with India and then of course GWB has a dozen free trade deals done and another dozen on deck.

GWB is doing all this and there isn't anything the libs can do to stop it. Holbrooke understands that even if a Democrat wins in 2008 and he gets the State slot he will inherit a world vastly different than a short 8 years ago. His favored Europe will be in the background along with the UN.

Holbrooke is watching Europe struggle with Islamic fundamentalism knowing he's got nothing to offer. In 3 more years Europe will be that much closer to Islamic domination. Richard has been wrong about everyhing.

When are you enlisting for the side you support?

right after you, chickenhawk

cleek,

There's no need for you to wait for me.

Get on with it, if you're
1) physically able
2) age eligible

You'll make us all proud when you join the side you support.

So . . . violent deaths of innocent people are OK as long as you have an excuse?

NO. the deliberate killing of innocents is murder and it's always wrong.

In the example cited on the beach is Gaza the Palestinians fell to their usual practice of manipulating the MSM, especially in Europe. That is they blamed the deaths cause by their own incompetence on Israel.

What the Palestinians and Europeans haven't quite figured out is the ability of Israel to document via film. In Gaza the Palestinians on the beach were killed by Palestinians. This happens frequently. Although these Palestinians probably didn't intentionally kill that family they put them in jeopardy recklessly. It's murder.

republicrat thinks that things are going well in Iraq. It's hard to respond to such sentiments, except to note that they represent a willful blindness to what is actually occuring there.

You could start by quoting my exact comments. I have never said that "things are going well in Iraq" without specifying which "things" and which parts of Iraq. I also usually write about comparisons, or rank orders: such as, the Marsh Arabs and the Kurds are definitely better off now than they were under the Baathists.

for Iraq as a whole I have used the words "mess" (as occurs when remodeling a house, though obviously on a larger and more gruesome scale) and "chaos" (where every action, for good or ill, has maximum impact on the eventual outcome.)

On the whole, "things" are probably better "in Iraq" than in Syria, Pakistan or Iran, though reportage is too spotty for certainty.

The rate of killing is approximately 1/8th of what it was in the US civil war (same size populations), and about 1/10th what it was during the Spanish Civil War.

The economy of Iraq, on the whole, is growing faster than the economies of Syria, Pakistan, Iran and Indonesia. That doesn't define "well" for sure, but it is also much better than the frequently repeated "FUBAR".

Al Queda in Iraq is on the run.

Al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist prior to the invasion, so that it is "on the run", even granting arguendo that that is the case, is hardly a positive effect that can be credited to the invasion.