Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Kevin,

I found these two pieces while trolling a few military blogs this past weekend, they are the closest I've found to explaining Bush and his administration and their actions in Iraq.

Col. Lang of Sic Semper Tyrannis had a discussion over the weekend on the differences between "warriors and Warrior Wannabes" and how the Warrior Wannabes have impacted our military and our policies in regards to Iraq. His discussion was led off by a reference to a screed by Fred of "fredoneverything" who titles his piece "Of Recent Wars", Fred gives his take on how we got into our splendid mess in Iraq and why we can’t get out.

As a former military man I found this discussion to be very interesting as it seemed to encapsulate my feelings on our current administrations policy makers and their misuse of our military. In particular, I found the comments on the Warrior Wannabes usage of language to garner support for their war to be prescient in regards to what has been said in the recent past of those who questioned the Iraq war and what is currently being said about the NY Times and others who question the president and his polices.


Sic Semper Tyrannis:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2006/07/warriors_and_wa.html#comments


Fred On Everything
http://www.fredoneverything.net/TheWarrior.shtml


Col. Lang and his commenters are primarily military/ex-military (warriors with a small w) who are shaken by the abuses going on in their military and they discuss how this could have come about. Fred speaks from his personal experience as a small town boy who served his country through one “bad” war and is now seeing it going through another one. The both give their explanation of why we are where we at and whose to blame.

P.S.

Also, I think the reference to the special place being reserved for Rumsfeld in the Robert Strange McNamara Wing of Hell is appropriate.

Kevin, of course you know that "fixed" means something else in England than it does in the US. Also, several Republicans have recently found WMDs in Iraq so there is nothing Dearlove can add.

Kevin, of course you know that "fixed" means something else in England than it does in the US.

As an American who learned English while living in England as a child, no, it does not. The meaning of Dearlove's statement is the same in colloquial American as in colloquial English.

Also, several Republicans have recently found WMDs in Iraq so there is nothing Dearlove can add..

What...the....fuck???

Did Weldon go digging after all?

Carl,
Take your head out ____, wash, rinse, repeat!! Did you know that they removed the word gullible from Webster's Dictionary, too!?!?

Further from Media Matters:

British Sunday Times reporter Michael Smith, the reporter who first disclosed the memo on May 1, ridiculed the notion that "fixed" has a different meaning in Britain in a Washington Post online chat: "There are number of people asking about fixed and its meaning. This is a real joke. I do not know anyone in the U.K. who took it to mean anything other than fixed as in fixed a race, fixed an election, fixed the intelligence. If you fix something, you make it the way you want it."

mediamatters.org/items/200506210004

Bullshit,Styve - I looked it up and it's STILL in there!

But I suppose it would be rude to ask pointed questions like that at a fancy conference, wouldn't it?

Your Liberal Media™ at "work."

Carl demonstrates why an administration that couldn't solve Blues Clues still has some supporters left clinging on like, well, clingons.

Also, several Republicans have recently found WMDs in Iraq

By the way, that is fucking hilarious. I hope it's meant to be satire.

I suppose this guys know more about terrrism than anyone here, but it makes you pause then he makes the fancy point that "terrorism is an extreme form of political communication." It may be semantical, but I see blowing up innocents as an exercise in power or perhaps coercion, not communication.

I am afraid Kevin's post reflects a weakness of current liberals. He want to focus backwards to find additional ways to bash Bush, not on the present or future to find ways to protect innocents and defeat terrorism.

brian, it was that well know liberal Clauswitz who said "war is diplomacy by other means."

Try not to be distracted by the "fancy points" of intelligent people.

He want to focus backwards to find additional ways to bash Bush, not on the present or future to find ways to protect innocents and defeat terrorism.

Yes, we don't need to know anything about how we got into this mess. It seems only fair that since Bush has got us this far that the liberals take us the rest of the way.

CARL: Kevin, of course you know that "fixed" means something else in England than it does in the US.

Kevin, I hope you will let me get away with cheating a little bit. This is in response to your post about Jonah Goldberg's comment on terrorists being covered by the Geneva Conventions. (There are already 300 comments following that post; I missed out as a result of a 4 day weekend.) The problem is that you and J. are talking about two different classes of people. You are talking about "terrorists" caught on a battle field: If they are caught there, they are soldiers on a battle field, not terrorists caught placing a bomb or gassing a subway. If they are caught doing the latter, then the Geneva Conventions should not apply; the criminal law of the place where they are caught, or where the act took place, should apply. J. and his ilk have successfully bamboozled liberals like yourself into accepting the characterization of all people who are fighting the US and its puppets as terrorists, no matter where they are caught or what they have done. And anyway, terrorists by definition, almost, do not fight on battle fields. Suggest you get out "Little Drummer Girl" and read it again.

Adding to F's post above about the Warrior/warrior dichotomy and Dearlove's former assertion that he thought "just about everything in the American approach to the war on Islamic terrorism had been ill-conceived," Colonel Hackworth (deceased) has a post SFTT about fighting a guerrilla enemy:

But unless we get real and bend our brains around what motivates our enemy, we will never prevail against the increasing millions of polarized Muslims who are becoming more united with every explosion of smart bombs and every Yankee occupation boot stumping across their turf.

This strikes me as exactly the kind of problem that the current adnministration, who prefers sloganeering to strategy, just can't tackle.

I rented the film Red Eye over the holiday and one thing that caught my attention was the Director of Homeland Security was staying at a very fancy hotel, the concierge new him by name, the room he and his family were staying in was presidential, and he and his family were flying to the destination on some super fancy executive jet. What bothers me is that a public servant is being treated like Saudi royalty. Is this common practice among big shots in DC to use the public trough to feed their needs for luxury?

The reason I bring it up, is this "Ideas Festival" seems to be taking place or sponsored by Aspen, CO, playground of the rich and the place where disgraced CEO's go to die. Wonks and pundits and big shots never go to non-luxury destinations or stay at tourist class hotels. We all pay for this extravagance.

"I am afraid Kevin's post reflects a weakness of current liberals. He want to focus backwards to find additional ways to bash Bush, not on the present or future to find ways to protect innocents and defeat terrorism."

Defeat terrorism ????

Terrorism has been with us since we crawled out of the caves and terrorism will be with us until we crawl into our nuclear graves.....

We represent 5% of the worlds population and even though we have the perponderance of nuclear weapons at our disposal you just can't really believe you can kill them all....

You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope pal....time for a "re-education" before someone with a chinese accent or a russian balilika converts your ass into a hat...

If he's concerned about amplifying the terrorist message, he might support stronger censorship of media coverage of terrorism and the military. The UK is much less free in that regard than the US. It's terribly short-sighted to embrace the guy just because he's critical of Bush.

brian:I suppose this guys know more about terrrism than anyone here, but it makes you pause then he makes the fancy point that "terrorism is an extreme form of political communication." It may be semantical, but I see blowing up innocents as an exercise in power or perhaps coercion, not communication.

Granted, Dearlove may have used a more British parsing of the problem than our ears are used to, but is what he said all that different from this?[emphasis added]

In insurgency warfare, taking real estate – mountain or city – means zilch. Long-term winning is all about getting the people over to our side. As a Marine sergeant wrote last week from Fallujah, “ ... for every one killed five more are recruited.”

This gets back to F's post about Warriors and warriors, reducing this conflict down to "smoking 'em out"; "dead or alive"; or "bring it on" are disastrous over-simplifications.

"several Republicans have recently found WMDs in Iraq"

and

"Bullshit,Styve - I looked it up and it's STILL in there!"

LOL!

Carl, thank you, I needed that laugh. It was at your expense, but it did alleviate the tension.
Now, if you don't mind, lets get back to reality.

The critic always has a superficial advantage short term in their arguments against any action (in this case, the Iraq war) because: (1) they ignore the potential cost of inaction (i.e., what Sadaam and his sons would have done if left in power), (2) they seize upon short term problems (terrorist attacks in Iraq), and (3) they ignore the potential long term benefits (democratic Iraq, 250k Iraqi Muslem soldiers and 25 million citizens joining with Americans in defeating Al Quaeda in Iraq, freedom spreading across the region, etc.).

So the supporters of the action are left with arguments largely about unknowns -- the cost of inaction and the long term benefits of action -- while the critics can focus on the known short term problems.

One historical example would be Reagan's military build up which proved to be such a great long term success, but was the subject of intense criticism. Another would be FDR's military build up and support of Russia/England prior to WWII. Another would be Lincoln's perseverance in the fact of multiple fiascos during the Civil War. All these were subject to intense short term criticism, but achieved magnificent long term benefits.

I would like an honest answer to the following question: Isn't it possible Iraq falls in the same category of an action that was subject to intense short term criticism (some justified) but will achieve very good long term results? [sorry, I asked a version of this question late in a previous thread, but too late to get a response]

if you check out the attendees/sponsors et alia

http://www.aspeninstitute.org/site/c.huLWJeMRKpH/b.1421007/k.7231/Speakers_and_Moderators.html

i think you might note that this conference is the continuation of the bilderburger event held a month ago in ottawa, canada.

we know that dearlove was/is a spook. i wonder how many other spooks were attending.

this conference commenced on 3/7/06. interesting isn't it how ken lay[a spook, i think]became disappeared in aspen within hours after the assemblage of this bunch of bilderburger wannabees/are alsos.

i wonder if ken lay was partying with any of the attendees on 4/7/06? richard dearlove, perhaps?

there are medications that can induce an apparent cardiovascular catastrophe. often used by the assassins in the intell community.

similarly, it would be interesting to review the departure logs of private jet aircraft late 4/7/06 and early 5/7/06.

i wonder if ken lay was spirited out of the usa to his property holdings in argentina?

three card monte at a conference consisting of lots of intell assets, i think. and that includes jim fallows.

I would like an honest answer to the following question: Isn't it possible Iraq falls in the same category of an action that was subject to intense short term criticism (some justified) but will achieve very good long term results?

Maybe, but it's more likely Bush just f*cked up and now he doesn't know what to do about it and is just hoping that something will work out. You claim one long term benefit would be "25 million citizens joining with Americans in defeating Al Quaeda in Iraq", but the Iraqis are largely fighting against each other, not against Al Qaeda. By the way, Saddam did not attack us on 9/11, and was not part of Al Qaeda.

I would like an honest answer to the following question: Isn't it possible Iraq falls in the same category of an action that was subject to intense short term criticism (some justified) but will achieve very good long term results? [sorry, I asked a version of this question late in a previous thread, but too late to get a response]

Anything is possible, so the better questions would be "Isn't it probable Iraq falls in the same category....etc." And so while my answer to your first question would be yes, it's possible, in the same sense that all things are possible, my answer to the second would be no, it's not probable at all.

I would like an honest answer to the following question: Isn't it possible Iraq falls in the same category of an action that was subject to intense short term criticism (some justified) but will achieve very good long term results? [sorry, I asked a version of this question late in a previous thread, but too late to get a response]

Sorry, but the answer would be no.

Firstly, there was no al Qaeda in Iraq before you invaded (I can't believe we are still having to repeat this!) as Saddam suppressed most challengers to his authority and Baathism is a secular movement. So one 'positive outcome' is sorta beyond the point.

Secondly, 'freedom spreading across the region' is a) a lovely dream like a worldwide workers revolution, and b) unlikely while the US supports repressive regimes such as those in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

It's interesting being of a liberal mindset and arguing for a return to hardheaded realism in foreign affairs against dangerously starry-eyed and naive 'conservatives'.

One historical example would be Reagan's military build up which proved to be such a great long term success, but was the subject of intense criticism. Another would be FDR's military build up and support of Russia/England prior to WWII. Another would be Lincoln's perseverance in the fact of multiple fiascos during the Civil War. All these were subject to intense short term criticism, but achieved magnificent long term benefits.

They are also in no way connected to the current situation, in which America has unilaterally invaded and occupied a country for reasons which have all been discredited. Let's look at the French in Algeria, and then consider the possibilities of 'magnificent long term benefits'.

I'd say it's time to drop the comforting dreams, Brian, and face up to the cold reality of what's happening. Heartwarming comparisons with FDR or Reagan, in which you can continue convincing yourself of the essential moral goodness of America's mission (which, let's be honest, is really what you are concerned about) are foolish and dangerous. It would be better to acknowledge mistakes (oh no - talking about the past again!) and change tactics, brian.

I'm halfway through Risen's "Secret War," and he's just mentioned Dearlove and the Downing St. Memo on page 106 or so. We'll see what else he has to say about Sir Richard.

Dearlove said, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"

Kevin seems to think that quote that means that coalition forces will plant WMDs and blame them on Saddam.

Kevin also quotes Dearlove as concluding, "hard evidence of WMD in Iraq would never be found."

Doesn't the latter quote refute Kevin's interpretation of the former quote?

This understanding, he said, explained why his country approaches counter-terrorism in so different a way from America’s.

It was certainly black and white in Iraq. Couldn't be more different.

I would like an honest answer to the following question: Isn't it possible Iraq falls in the same category of an action that was subject to intense short term criticism (some justified) but will achieve very good long term results? [sorry, I asked a version of this question late in a previous thread, but too late to get a response]

No, I really don't think so. We are fighting a holding action right now while the administration hopes to get the Iraqi army and police force up to snuff enough to start drawing down troops. If this war was worth fighting, then it was worth fighting right. Not preparing for an insurgency was ridiculous. Rumsfeld's statements about the war taking not months but weeks betrays a complete lack of understanding of this entire endeavor, and the fact the GWB hasn't replaced the people responsible for this "strategy" shows his lack of credentials as a leader.

At some point in the future Iraq may limp into a semi-functional democracy, but it won't be because we helped birth a nation. It will because by some lucky chance they didn't implode into civil war after we left.

One historical example would be Reagan's military build up which proved to be such a great long term success, but was the subject of intense criticism. Another would be FDR's military build up and support of Russia/England prior to WWII. Another would be Lincoln's perseverance in the fact of multiple fiascos during the Civil War. All these were subject to intense short term criticism, but achieved magnificent long term benefits.

Another historical example would be the US war in Vietnam, which resulted in millions of casualties to achieve the same result that could have been achieved years earlier for far less blood and treasure. Another would be the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, an invasion which helped speed-up the USSR's economic and military collapes. Another would be Germany's invasion of Yugoslavia in 1941, an invasion which tied down 40 Wehrmacht and Waffen SS combat divisions in a fruitless fight against the partisans. All of these were subject to intense short term criticism, and in all of these the intense short term criticism was right, and the illusory magnificent long term benefits never materialized.

Beware the dangers of facile and ill-informed historical analogies.

We are fighting a holding action right now while the administration hopes to get the Iraqi army and police force up to snuff enough to start drawing down troops.

But, of course, they're not really trying to train an Iraqi army and police force. The fact that the Iraqis aren't being provided with tanks, APCs, artillery, helicopters, fighter jets, ground support aircraft, or any sort of quatermaster corps or logistics -- all of which they would need to defeat the rebels -- proves that the Americans have no intention of actually developing a coherent and self-supporting Iraqi military -- at best, we're training a few thousand guys with AK-47s who ride around in trucks. That's not a military, that's a militia. We claim to want them to "stand up," but our actions speak otherwise.

Dearlove retired what, about a year before the massive terror attacks in London?

I would also like to hear what the "British approach" to counterterrorism would be. Anything like the British approach to southern Iraq? there the Iran-backed militias pretty much did whatever they wanted to in Basra while smiling and waving at the nice British soldiers who bragged about being able to walk around in berets instead of helmets.

mr. jayarbee: Exactly. It's just like when Blair said, "I know that President Bush will be a friend to Britain and a friend to Europe, a friend to free trade, new technology and solid defence." It turns out that in England "friend" actually means "laughingstock."

You're not taking regionalisms into account here, hon. In London, it does mean "laughingstock." In the north, people are more likely to use it to mean "utter and total tool."

...what had been done via executive action in the United States “would be illegal in Great Britain, as a matter of common law.”

Silly C! Our Declaration of Independence trumps your Magna Carta!!

Kevin: "But I suppose it would be rude to ask pointed questions like that at a fancy conference, wouldn't it?"

You're damn right that it would be rude.

And, pray tell, how would characterize right-wing darling Ann Coulter's recent description of Democratic Congressman John Murtha as "the reason soldiers invented fragging"?

I'm tired of watching Democrats and their allies turn the other cheek, only to get that cheek slapped as well. Aren't you?

It's high time that we go out there and kick some lying GOP ass, and stop worrying about whether voters will think that we're rude. They already think that we're pussies -- wouldn't it be nice to change that to something else?

我向大家推荐:中国 粉末涂料 网，打造粉末涂料领域专业搜索平台，提供全球粉末涂料品牌公司及产品展示。要想寻找粉末冶金信息请访问 粉末冶金 网，各种粉末冶金应有尽有。上海 水性聚氨酯 公司专业生产水性聚氨酯产品，欢迎选择水性聚氨酯。您想要了解 反应锅/反应釜 吗？请到中国反应锅/反应釜网来寻找反应锅/反应釜。要想寻找聚氨酯合成材料信息请访问 聚氨酯合成材料 网，各种聚氨酯合成材料应有尽有。聚氨酯包装材料 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的聚氨酯包装材料,丰富聚氨酯包装材料行业资讯助您成交。北京 导热油 厂向广大客户提供导热油产品及导热油服务。铝材 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的铝材,丰富铝材行业资讯助您成交。中国 铝型材 网，打造铝型材领域专业搜索平台，提供全球铝型材品牌公司及产品展示。北京 聚氨酯硬泡 厂向广大客户提供聚氨酯硬泡产品及聚氨酯硬泡服务。要想寻找聚合MDI/聚氨酯黑料信息请访问 聚合MDI/聚氨酯黑料 网，各种聚合MDI/聚氨酯黑料应有尽有。您想要了解 橡塑发泡材料/橡塑保温材料 吗？请到中国橡塑发泡材料/橡塑保温材料网来寻找橡塑发泡材料/橡塑保温材料。光稳定剂770 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的光稳定剂770,丰富光稳定剂770行业资讯助您成交。北京 水性复膜胶 厂向广大客户提供水性复膜胶产品及水性复膜胶服务。中国 试剂/试纸 网，打造试剂/试纸领域专业搜索平台，提供全球试剂/试纸品牌公司及产品展示。上海 热熔胶 公司专业生产热熔胶产品，欢迎选择热熔胶。北京 螺旋藻 厂向广大客户提供螺旋藻产品及螺旋藻服务。上海 脱氢醋酸钠 公司专业生产脱氢醋酸钠产品，欢迎选择脱氢醋酸钠。您想要了解 泡沫包装/发泡包装/现场发泡设备 吗？请到中国泡沫包装/发泡包装/现场发泡设备网来寻找泡沫包装/发泡包装/现场发泡设备。北京 聚四氟乙烯生料带 厂向广大客户提供聚四氟乙烯生料带产品及聚四氟乙烯生料带服务。上海 特富龙 公司专业生产特富龙产品，欢迎选择特富龙。上海 防腐木 公司专业生产防腐木产品，欢迎选择防腐木。北京 有机玻璃/压克力制品 厂向广大客户提供有机玻璃/压克力制品产品及有机玻璃/压克力制品服务。中国 包装用聚氨酯泡沫塑料 网，打造包装用聚氨酯泡沫塑料领域专业搜索平台，提供全球包装用聚氨酯泡沫塑料品牌公司及产品展示。润滑脂/密封件/油封/大亚密封 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的润滑脂/密封件/油封/大亚密封,丰富润滑脂/密封件/油封/大亚密封行业资讯助您成交。

Some random thoughts...

I would like an honest answer to the following question: Isn't it possible Iraq falls in the same category of an action that was subject to intense short term criticism (some justified) but will achieve very good long term results? [sorry, I asked a version of this question late in a previous thread, but too late to get a response]

I believe so. I believe it's going to be a long slog, as Iraq tries to pass through the stages that traditional democracies go through. A generational thing. I spent the 4th with an Army bud who just got back from 6 months in Iraq. He was an advisor to an Iraq unit, spending every day with interpreters and Iraqi Army. He feels similar. In fact, I'm really just echoing him.

For the British gent, I really worry about Britain and their muslim population. Especially when I read

As I brought up 9/11, I was taken aback when he began to talk about a “western conspiracy against Muslims”. I had been in London on the day of the 2001 attacks and like everyone else had watched in amazement and horror as the twin towers fell. I had never doubted that Osama Bin Laden had inspired the atrocity and that Islamic terrorists had perpetrated it. Jabbar doubted it. He told me the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy and that he had a DVD which proved it. So were the London bombings, he said.

The milblog link is a new one for me. Not Fred Reed, the other guy.

I believe so. I believe it's going to be a long slog, as Iraq tries to pass through the stages that traditional democracies go through. A generational thing.

Except that Iraq has alre4ady had an elected government - a functional democracy. Shall i tell you what happened to it after it tried to nationalise the country's oil?

For the British gent, I really worry about Britain and their muslim population.

I'm sure they appreciate it greatly.

Thanks for the respectful responses to the question of whether Iraq might still be an action, like some historical ones, that is subjected to intense criticism and then produced very good results.

I found the more negative answers to be very focused on the past, rather than the present or future. And I don't think the examples of other past failures (like Hitler[?], Vietnam and Russian invastion of Afghanistan) have much relevance to whether Iraq turns out to be a success. There are always going to be both successes and failures in history.

I just think there are historical successes that Iraq could turn out to parallel (Lincoln, FDR and Reagan) in terms of the contemporary criticism. I also think you don't put enough weight on what a great result it would be if a Muslim country joins with America in defeating a jihadist movement, i.e., Al Quaeda in Iraq, which I think is very likely to happen in Iraq.

I don't want to hog the thread, but no one addressed my point about how short term criticism has a superficial advantage in a situation such as Iraq, Reagan's military buildup, FDR's pre-WWII actions, and Lincoln's fiascos for three years of Civil War. The critics can always find mistakes to criticize, while the proponents must rely mostly on arguments about what would have happened without the action and what will happen with future success.

Fascinating reading, for those who have an open mind...

http://www.irism.com/pubs/advstudy.htm

Stefan, this one touches on logistics...

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2006/20060513_5127.html

This guy is a blogger and an advisor to an Iraqi logistics unit.

http://www.fyste.com/

Google on "Iraq" and "MTT" (military transition team) to find out what's being done with them.

I think the most interesting comment by Dearlove is
"Terrorism is an extreme form of political communication,” he said. “You want to be sure that, in your response, you don’t end up amplifying the messages that terrorists are trying to convey.”

The successful examples of dealing with terrorists are mostly European (Baader Meinhof, Red Brigades, Black September). The not so successful example is the Brits in Northern Ireland and it can be argued that an important reason for their lack of success was using the military.

Sending a traditional army to fight a "war" on terrorists is the kind of thing you would dream up if you never served in the military and have watched too many Rambo movies. Like Bush. And Cheney. And Rumsfeld.

Al Qaeda was an excuse. What they wanted, consciously or not, was a splendid little war. What they got, sadly for the rest of us, is a clusterfuck.

Stefan:

The fact that the Iraqis aren't being provided with tanks, APCs, artillery, helicopters, fighter jets, ground support aircraft, or any sort of quatermaster corps or logistics -- all of which they would need to defeat the rebels -- proves that the Americans have no intention of actually developing a coherent and self-supporting Iraqi military -- at best, we're training a few thousand guys with AK-47s who ride around in trucks.

Somehow I have completely missed this story, although now that I'm confronted with it, it's a forehead-slapping, "Of course!" moment. Has this been in the public discourse and I missed it?

A link to flesh it out would be much appreciated ...

I found the more negative answers to be very focused on the past, rather than the present or future.

And I find the more unrealistic views to be focussed entirely on the future, rather than the present or past.

And I don't think the examples of other past failures (like Hitler[?], Vietnam and Russian invastion of Afghanistan) have much relevance to whether Iraq turns out to be a success. There are always going to be both successes and failures in history.

You say this, and yet you immediately follow it with:

I just think there are historical successes that Iraq could turn out to parallel (Lincoln, FDR and Reagan) in terms of the contemporary criticism.

So the examples where it didn't work don't have much relevance, yet those when there was a positive historical result (no matter how tenuous the situational similarity) somehow have much to teach us?

I also think you don't put enough weight on what a great result it would be if a Muslim country joins with America in defeating a jihadist movement, i.e., Al Quaeda in Iraq, which I think is very likely to happen in Iraq.

So I'm not sufficiently hopeful? Maybe I'll try clapping louder so Tinkerbell can hear me, then.

A wonderful and hoped for result is one thing, yet at what point does starry-eyed optimism get tempered by mature realisation?

BTW, has it excaped your notice that you're not (primarily )fighting 'al Qaeda in Iraq'? You are fighting a range of religious and/or nationalist resistance movements (in which foreign fighters play a tiny role) and which are also fighting each other.

You just have the best armed faction, brian.

I think the hardest illusion to give up will be that belief that the US can remake other countries and/or cultures in their own image. Kissinger knew this - whatever criticisms I have of him (and they are many!) at least he wasn't naive.

Well-armed naivety is still naivety - and America has stumbled naively into a maelstrom.

I don't want to hog the thread, but no one addressed my point about how short term criticism has a superficial advantage in a situation such as Iraq, Reagan's military buildup, FDR's pre-WWII actions, and Lincoln's fiascos for three years of Civil War.

Well, one point to consider in the success criteria is the intention with which you embark on an edeavour. Were your initial assesments correct, and if not, did you adjust to a new situation on the ground, or did you just muddle through? Remember that Rumsfeld said he thought it would take weeks not months, so by the terms he defined are we really in a short term situation three years in? Obviously not. By initial assesments we should have been done years ago.

So if the administration's initial assesments and plans were off by such large magnitudes (I'm also thinking of the Shinseki/Wolfowitz dust-up about troop strength), what have they done to correct? From what I read on milblogs there seems to be a dearth of understanding within the administration and at high levels of the military on how to fight an insurgency, and very little seems to have been done to change how we fight the war.

For these reasons, I don't think any net positive result can really be credited to GWB. Success in this endeavour will come despite him (mainly through the blood and sweat of the troops), not through any contribution he has made as a leader.

A functional democracy in Iraq would certainly be net positive result, but that wasn't how the war was sold to the American public, and the execution of the war does not lead me to believe that much thought or effort was put into this nation building project.

The critics can always find mistakes to criticize, while the proponents must rely mostly on arguments about what would have happened without the action and what will happen with future success.

In other words, the critics deal in reality, while the proponents get to live in fantasy.

In other words, the critics deal in reality, while the proponents get to live in fantasy.

Ouch.

Brian, I think the likely result of our time in Iraq is that a bunch of hardened and experienced insurgents (whose friends or family members were killed in the recent conflict) will become a significant, albeit decentralized, international terrorist force. They'll mostly attack tourists, businessmen, and diplomats, but they'll have enough successful attacks to keep the US spending billions of dollars on security and intelligence for decades. They might even figure out how to take out a dam or large building in the US.

I don't see the analogy to Reagan as you can't bankrupt or "outscare" a suicidal dude with a knife.

I don't see the analogy to WWII as we didn't fight a serious insurgency in Japan and Germany. pre-WWII analogy?? Do I compare that with the lead up to Iraq?

I don't see the analogy to Lincoln either. He ended up freeing the slaves but he didn't stick around for three years killing them at checkpoints and bullying their religious and political leaders. Bush is popular with the kurds! Woohoo! Is that what you mean?

Alf: In other words, the critics deal in reality, while the proponents get to live in fantasy.

Red State Mike: I believe so.

Belief is all there is. This is where our self-mythology serves us badly. "We're America! We can do anything!" Except that we can't. Being merely human has its drawbacks.

mp3铃音 mp3手机铃声 mp3铃声下载 诺基亚铃音 搞笑图片 诺基亚免费铃声 诺基亚下载铃声 下载铃声 诺基亚手机铃声 诺基亚铃声下载 三星乐园手机铃声 三星mp3铃声下载 三星论坛 三星手机 三星铃声下载 三星铃声 铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声免费下载 免费铃声 江苏移动铃声 下载铃声 浙江移动铃声 北京移动铃声 深圳移动铃声 移动铃声 移动免费铃声 移动下载铃声 下载铃声 搞笑铃声下载 搞笑手机铃声 搞笑图片 搞笑动画铃声 搞笑歌曲铃声 搞笑图片铃声 搞笑免费铃声 搞笑下载铃声 有情人终成眷属铃声 手机铃声下载 移动彩铃下载 小灵通铃声下载 酸酸甜甜就是我铃声 免费铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 小灵通铃声下载 MP3铃声下载 免费铃声下载 三星铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 牛皮癣治疗 脂溢性皮炎 斑秃脱发炎 白癜风,外阴白斑 鱼鳞病 脂溢性脱发 阴虱病 治疗疱疹 各类皮癣 湿疹,皮炎 青春痘,痤疮 螨虫性皮炎,酒渣鼻 烧伤烫伤 中国文秘网 治疗牛皮癣,阴虱特效药 癌症肿瘤新药 工作总结 工作汇报 八荣八耻 开业开幕讲话 竞聘演讲稿 就职演讲 心得体会 工作汇报 2006年入党申请书 思想汇报 鼻咽癌治疗 乳腺癌治疗 肺癌治疗 肝癌治疗 结肠癌治疗 直肠癌治疗 胃癌治疗 食管癌治疗 恶性黑色素瘤治疗 皮肤癌治疗 恶性淋巴瘤治疗 胆管癌治疗 胆囊癌治疗 甲状腺癌治疗 脑瘤治疗 白血病治疗 宫颈癌治疗 肝复乐 天蟾胶囊 健脾益肾颗粒 破壁灵芝孢子粉 复方斑蝥胶囊 慈丹胶囊 参丹散结胶囊 珍香胶囊 抗癌平丸 金复康口服液 清肺散结丸 手机铃声下载

Alf: In other words, the critics deal in reality, while the proponents get to live in fantasy.

Red State Mike: I believe so.

Belief is all there is. This is where our self-mythology serves us badly. "We're America! We can do anything!" Except that we can't. Being merely human has its drawbacks.
Posted by: craigie

My belief is based on interactions with people who have "ground truth", i.e., they've been to Iraq and seen it up close and personal. Including advisors who spent their days elbow to elbow with their Iraqi counterparts.

mp3铃音 mp3手机铃声 mp3铃声下载 诺基亚铃音 搞笑图片 诺基亚免费铃声 诺基亚下载铃声 下载铃声 诺基亚手机铃声 诺基亚铃声下载 三星乐园手机铃声 三星mp3铃声下载 三星论坛 三星手机 三星铃声下载 三星铃声 铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声免费下载 免费铃声 江苏移动铃声 下载铃声 浙江移动铃声 北京移动铃声 深圳移动铃声 移动铃声 移动免费铃声 移动下载铃声 下载铃声 搞笑铃声下载 搞笑手机铃声 搞笑图片 搞笑动画铃声 搞笑歌曲铃声 搞笑图片铃声 搞笑免费铃声 搞笑下载铃声 有情人终成眷属铃声 手机铃声下载 移动彩铃下载 小灵通铃声下载 酸酸甜甜就是我铃声 免费铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 小灵通铃声下载 MP3铃声下载 免费铃声下载 三星铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 牛皮癣治疗 脂溢性皮炎 斑秃脱发炎 白癜风,外阴白斑 鱼鳞病 脂溢性脱发 阴虱病 治疗疱疹 各类皮癣 湿疹,皮炎 青春痘,痤疮 螨虫性皮炎,酒渣鼻 烧伤烫伤 中国文秘网 治疗牛皮癣,阴虱特效药 癌症肿瘤新药 工作总结 工作汇报 八荣八耻 开业开幕讲话 竞聘演讲稿 就职演讲 心得体会 工作汇报 2006年入党申请书 思想汇报 鼻咽癌治疗 乳腺癌治疗 肺癌治疗 肝癌治疗 结肠癌治疗 直肠癌治疗 胃癌治疗 食管癌治疗 恶性黑色素瘤治疗 皮肤癌治疗 恶性淋巴瘤治疗 胆管癌治疗 胆囊癌治疗 甲状腺癌治疗 脑瘤治疗 白血病治疗 宫颈癌治疗 肝复乐 天蟾胶囊 健脾益肾颗粒 破壁灵芝孢子粉 复方斑蝥胶囊 慈丹胶囊 参丹散结胶囊 珍香胶囊 抗癌平丸 金复康口服液 清肺散结丸 手机铃声下载

mp3铃音 mp3手机铃声 mp3铃声下载 诺基亚铃音 搞笑图片 诺基亚免费铃声 诺基亚下载铃声 下载铃声 诺基亚手机铃声 诺基亚铃声下载 三星乐园手机铃声 三星mp3铃声下载 三星论坛 三星手机 三星铃声下载 三星铃声 铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声免费下载 免费铃声 江苏移动铃声 下载铃声 浙江移动铃声 北京移动铃声 深圳移动铃声 移动铃声 移动免费铃声 移动下载铃声 下载铃声 搞笑铃声下载 搞笑手机铃声 搞笑图片 搞笑动画铃声 搞笑歌曲铃声 搞笑图片铃声 搞笑免费铃声 搞笑下载铃声 有情人终成眷属铃声 手机铃声下载 移动彩铃下载 小灵通铃声下载 酸酸甜甜就是我铃声 免费铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 小灵通铃声下载 MP3铃声下载 免费铃声下载 三星铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 牛皮癣治疗 脂溢性皮炎 斑秃脱发炎 白癜风,外阴白斑 鱼鳞病 脂溢性脱发 阴虱病 治疗疱疹 各类皮癣 湿疹,皮炎 青春痘,痤疮 螨虫性皮炎,酒渣鼻 烧伤烫伤 中国文秘网 治疗牛皮癣,阴虱特效药 癌症肿瘤新药 工作总结 工作汇报 八荣八耻 开业开幕讲话 竞聘演讲稿 就职演讲 心得体会 工作汇报 2006年入党申请书 思想汇报 鼻咽癌治疗 乳腺癌治疗 肺癌治疗