Don't listen to those Marines, Kevin. They're on the ground, in the middle of things, so they can't see the big picture.

I'm sure if you go to the Air Force, they'll tell you how they can bring it all under control.

Kevin Drum >"...And next year? Don't ask."

Does the term "last throes" mean anything to you ?

"The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist thinks it will change; the realist adjusts the sails." - William Arthur Ward

Col. Pete Devlin, a man who has "the reputation of being one of the Marine Corps' best intelligence officers," has concluded in a secret assessment that the situation in Iraq's Anbar province is hopelessly lost:

Why does this guy want to encourage the terrorists? Dick Cheney should explain to him the importance of never admitting defeat.

CLICK THE LINK. ALWAYS CLICK THE LINK. As even the liberal Washington Post admits, no one interviewed has actually read the report. Shouldn't liberals wait till they actually read the report before they start pretending they know what's in it?

Link

"No one interviewed would quote from the report, citing its classification, and The Washington Post was not shown a copy of it."

Consider the source! The USMC is a well-known nest of hate-America radicals.

Looking at an Iraq map, it looks like Anbar province takes up about a third of the country, basically the western half of Iraq, but doesn't include Baghdad, which is in it's own province, I think. That's worse than I thought, since I had the vague impression that the most violent areas were concentrated in the cities and suburban slums. I'd be interested in what the assessment is for the other provinces.

Okay, Al, perhaps you can help out. Why don't you get your cronies to release the actual report so we can all satisfy ourselves whether the Post got the story wrong.

Until then, or until there is some kind of denial from the Pentagon, this is the best knowledge we have.

Why does COl Devlin and the Marine Corps hate America?

Al is wrong once again (but you knew that didn't you?).

He says, "As even the liberal Washington Post admits, no one interviewed has actually _read_ the report."

(emphasis added).

Wrong. They wouldn't _quote_ the report. Plenty of the interviewees read it.

From the article:

"said several military officers and intelligence officials familiar with its contents."

"One Army officer summarized it as arguing that in Anbar province, "We haven't been defeated militarily but we have been defeated politically -- and that's where wars are won and lost."

"'I don't know if it is a shock wave, but it's made people uncomfortable,' said a Defense Department official who has _read_ the report." (emphasis added)

"Another person familiar with the report said it describes Anbar as beyond repair; a third said it concludes that the United States has lost in Anbar."

Al's marching orders seem to be:

-comment early
-do not engage with other commenters.
-use smoke and mirrors wherever possible to introduce doubt as to the veracity of the post. For example use hyperbole (ALWAYS CLICK THE LINK!!) to draw attention to alleged inconsistencies in order to distract from the larger point.

You can't win back militarily what you've lost politically. What this means is that, even if the larger civil war goes away (unlikely), the Sunni insurgency will have a popular base of support far into the future, and therefore cannot be defeated.

Partition, anyone?

Nice try, Al. But no matter how badly you wish it were otherwise, a person's refusal to *quote* a report isn't an admission (and doesn't imply) that the person hasn't *read* the report.

JWR

drip...

drip....

drip...

At first glance, I'm not inclinced to believe claims regarding "al Qaeda in Iraq", given that that was Zarqawi's group, and it's significance vastly overstated as part of the Pentagon's disinformation campaign (to shift the blame for resistence and bombings to non-Iraqis, tie the WoT to the Iraq conflict, etc.)...

Just seems unlikely that al Qaeda in Mesopotamia could become Anbar's "most significant political force"...they're ex-Baathist Sunnis there. It's possible, but seems at least equally likely to be part of some spin operation.

The White House isn't concerned about Anbar Province, or even really about Iraq any more. Insofar as this is a problem, it can be solved by managing the media exposure in the US.

Look for somebody to be hung out to dry for leaking this report, and/or for Justice to threaten the WaPo for publishing about it.

And you can be SURE that Cheney and Rummy will be grumbling -- and the entire VRWC Noise Machine will be screaming -- about how the Librul Media is giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy.

The whole thing is kinda Dog Bites Man, actually...

The report was classified, yes? So are you saying that the military has lost the ability to control classified documents? - or that you are reporting hearsay and spinning it as you wish? The first would surprise me greatly - the latter, not at all.

That said, for a military officer to state that we have lost control of Anbar Provence would not be in the least unprofessional or surprising. Just as Eisenhower once had to state that a German counteroffensive had pushed back the allied forces around the Ardennes. But for a professional military officer to state that the situation is "hopeless" or "beyond repair" - nope, don't believe it. Sounds like spin to me.

So it's a "secret assessment" that Kevin Drum, a blogger, can access?

And in it the author thinks we've lost the war politically.

I'm sure the BDS Dems have displayed doesn't affect that one iota. Nothing to see here, move along.

Get out now. We shouldn't have went in in the first place. We havn't accomplised anything significant there. The situation could not get any worse than already is if we pulled out. Our presence does not help matters only inflames them. Thanks to our president we now have a new Iranian ally in the region. Good policy, great job... bush blows... so does Al

Birkel,

Why do I never read about the cheerleaders going on vacation to Iraq and Afghanistan?

Maybe Bush et al are just developing the pretext to finally nuke the Middle East.

Devlin reports that there are no functioning Iraqi government institutions in Anbar

WOW. That sounds an awful lot like Afghanistan.

How many countries can Bush screw up?

Why do I never read about the cheerleaders going on vacation to Iraq and Afghanistan?

Didn't someone here a few months ago offer to pay for Birkel's flight to Iraq if he'd agree to go on vacation there? And Birkel refused to take them up on it?

Boy, the fake Al is really off his meds today...The liberal Washington Post!

I laughed so hard, I almost plotzed!

And the Democrats should be hammering it home that while Iraq burned, Republicans were mindlessly and blindly focuses on trivial shreds of good news as political propaganda to bash Democrats domestically rather than making realistic assessments of the war, adjusting our strategy accordingly, and being honest with the American people.

Democrats should be arguing that you simply can't trust Republicans to be honest even about the most critical issues to national security: the 'War on Terror', homeland security, and the war in Iraq. If we want a chance to win any of these, or at the very least make honest assessments of where to go from here, we need to elect Democrats who will be honest with the American people in place of the GOP approach which markets baldface lies for purely political gain, reality be damned.

Oh, is that the chickenhawk argument again? Or is it the conservative fraidy cat argument?

If your grandmother didn't actually land on Normandy or Okinawa she was just a chickenhawk who was too scared to travel amongst those who would wish to kill her and 'her kind' because they didn't support the Axis. Fuck Rosie the Riveter's chickenshit scaredy cat ass. Right guys?

Grow up. Develop a decent argument; start with a premise and stand firm on it instead of moving the goal posts.

Birkel,

Its not a chickenhawk argument I'm making. What I'm saying is simple - we keep hearing how wonderful things are in Afghanistan and Iraq, but nobody wants to go there for vacation. What gives? Nobody is putting their money where their mouth is.

You stupid Dems need to close one eye and then everything will look just rosy.Try just once trust me and you will agree with all that AL says.

Birkel: "Or is it the conservative fraidy cat argument?"

It's the "conservatives who sit on their fat asses watching Fox News whining about liberals, while demanding that other people's kids should be sent off to die in Iraq to enrich Dick Cheney's cronies and financial backers in the military-industrial-petroleum complex" argument.

What? Sorry, got lost in all the anonymous sources. What was the point of the article again?

Actually the chickenhawk argument is quite legitimate because the Iraq war was a pre-emptive one and recommended and cheerled by the able bodied boys of the Weekly Standard and the Corner, etc. even though there was ample evidence even in 2003 to support the advisability of the opposite course of action.

I guess Col. Devlin has given up on the possibility of being promoted to General....

SecularAnimist,

Your great grandfather was a pussy for not getting off his old ass and fighting the Nazis. Fucking commie bastard.

There, I've said it.

Oh, is that the chickenhawk argument again? Or is it the conservative fraidy cat argument?

It's neither you chickenshit dumbass, it's the argument from empirical observation; if Iraq is as safe as you imply with your casual dismission of this officer's report who's actually BEEN there, people would G0 there.

Instead, people are LEAVlNG there, including over a million Iraqis

Y0U are the apotheosis of the chickenshit argument, being too chickenshit to go there yourself and proving you don't really believe it is safe OR a success.

Col. Pete Devlin, a man who has "the reputation of being one of the Marine Corps' best intelligence officers,

...which won't prevent him for being smeared by the Bush Cultists.

That the Bush Cultists don't hesitate to piss on honorable soldiers and public servants the minute they utter something embarrassing to the Administration is yet another reason Americans can't trust the GOP with national security. One only hopes our rank and file service members get the message that their blood is just nothing compared to Republican politcal ambition.

Augustus,

Re; "we need to elect Democrats who will be honest with the American people..."

First, for perspective, I'm not a Republican.

Second, honesty is hardly a characteristic I associate with the Democrats. To me, they seem to be willing to do anything or say anything to get their way. They don't think of themselves as anti-American because they don't see the rest of us as Americans. We are simply the opposition and therefore fair targets for their aggression. They ask why I refuse to vote for what they perceive to be my "best interests". Let's see - why would I possibly want to vote against the party of lying, thieving, arrogant self-serving bastards?

oy,

It's called reading comprehension. Find where I said anything about the safety of Iraq. I double dog dare you.

Blithering idiot, I crap both bigger and smarter stuff than you.

Birkel: "Your great grandfather was a pussy for not getting off his old ass and fighting the Nazis. Fucking commie bastard."

You are pathetic.

Birkel, have you had any head injuries lately? Any dramatic changes in caffeine intake? How about other substances you commonly ingest?

I'm totally serious. When I called you a Tourette's-stricken dingo on crack the other day, it was because you now sound like one. Get yourself checked out. The diagnosis will probably only be "completely loses grip as his revered administration goes down in flames," but better safe than sorry, right?

SecularAnimist,

What? You don't like your little rhetorical flourishes turned back against you as applied to a different war?

Develop an argument. This Lefty clap trap so many of you offer is tedious and only fun in that you're all so serious about being completely unserious. I mock you. My very breath is drawn so that I can utter a loud "Feh!" in your general direction.

Nov. 19, 2004 (Wash Times)

The top Marine officer in Iraq declared yesterday that victory in the battle of Fallujah has "broken the back" of the Iraqi insurgency, while another commander in the war on terror said Osama bin Laden is all but cut off from his terrorist operatives.
The twin statements declare success on the two main war fronts — Iraq and Afghanistan — where the U.S. military is fighting a deadly insurgency and trying to create lasting democracies.
Lt. Gen. John Sattler, who commands the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in Iraq, told Pentagon reporters that 11 days after invading Fallujah, the one-time insurgent stronghold is secure, but not yet safe. His ground troops were carrying out a "search-and-clear phase," he said.

shortstop,

I fart toward you. But not really at you.

Birkel whined: "So all those jack asses back in the late 1960s who were protesting Viet Nam but hadn't actually served should've ceded their moral authority?"

No, the protesters were acting righteously in accordance with their strongly-held values and beliefs regarding the Vietnam War.

However, the jackasses like Dick Cheney who were enthusiastically in favor of drafting young, mostly low-income, mostly African-American men and sending them off to die in Vietnam in an immoral, illegal and unwinnable war while the jackasses like Dick Cheney had "other priorities" ceded their "moral authority".

You know, the jackasses whose boots you love to lick.

When you aren't too busy whining about "liberals".

Which is pretty much the complete definition of the modern American conservative, like you for example: someone who does nothing but whine, whine, whine, whine, whine about "liberals".

If there's anything worse than a brain-dead, brainwashed, neo-brownshirt Bush-bootlicking mental slave of scripted right-wing extremist propaganda, it's a brain-dead, brainwashed, neo-brownshirt Bush-bootlicking mental slave of scripted right-wing extremist propaganda who whines all the time.

Like you.

Eventually someone of relative importance will come to the realization that the only hope for peace in Iraq, and Afghanistan is partition, which will mean living with Sunni thugs in charge of Sunnistan, Shiite thugs in charge of Shiatan, and Pashtun thugs in charge of Pashtunistan.

Let them have it.

Birkel whined: "You don't like your little rhetorical flourishes turned back against you as applied to a different war?"

You flatter yourself by imagining that your inane stupidity constitutes "turning back rhetorical flourishes".

But that's not surprising. Self-flattery is one of the definitive characteristics of know-nothing, brainwashed, neo-brownshirt Bush-bootlicking mental slaves like you.

Along with the constant whining.

Birkel whined: "My very breath is drawn so that I can utter a loud 'Feh!' in your general direction."

I hear you. That's the sound of whining, coming from a know-nothing, brainwashed, neo-brownshirt Bush-bootlicking whiner.

Feh!

If things keep collapsing in Afghanistan, we won't be worrying about Anbar, or the rest of Iraq.

Bush's concept of "Stay the Course" appears to be that he wants to wreck everything he touches.

Randy - I would go a sterp further and say that honesty is not a characteristic I would associate with politicians - of any political stripe.

Birkel whined: "The chickenhawk argument cannot be applied to liberals who protest against a war in spite of the fact that the warriors, who have served, support the effort."

You really are a dumbass.

To be a "chickenhawk" someone has to be a hawk, which means they have to support, advocate or otherwise be in favor of war, or of a particular war.

People who oppose war and protest against war are not "hawks". You can call them "chicken" if you want, but it's absurd to call them "hawks", whether "chicken" or otherwise.

You are just being plain old stupid at this point.

For whatever reason, it seems that the right-wingers who infest these comment pages are growing rapidly more stupid every day. It's really noticeable. You are a good example.

Birkel whined: "So SecularAnimist's great grandfather really was a pansy ass who ceded all moral authority to those who volunteered to fight while Rosie the Riveter was a chickenhawk for not storming Okinawa's beaches."

My great grandfather was dead long before World War II, long before any Nazis existed, and if I recall correctly, he was in fact dead before World War I.

My father and both of his brothers served in combat in World War II. Their father, my grandfather, was a career military officer.

I was draft age in the Vietnam War. I protested that war which I regarded as corrupt, based on lies (like the Iraq War), immoral and illegal. I would have gone to Canada or prison rather than go to Vietnam. As it happened, the draft had gone to a lottery system by the time I turned 18, and I got a high number so I was not drafted.

Today, over 30 years later, I am a pacifist and I will not take part in any war, regardless of whether anyone thinks it is "just" or not. If necessary I will give my life for nonviolence.

But in the case of the Iraq war, it is clearly a corrupt, illegal and immoral war of unprovoked aggression, based on the repeated, deliberate and sickening lies told by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the other career war-profiteering gangsters who make up the Bush Administration, which has killed tens of thousands of innocent people, and it does not remotely rise to the level of discussing whether it is a "just war" or not. It is a crime against humanity, conducted by a criminal gang masquerading as "conservative" politicians, for the private financial benefit of themselves and their cronies and financial backers.

No one should serve in Iraq. All of the US military personnel serving in Iraq are morally and legally obligated to lay down their weapons and refuse to obey illegal orders, beginning with the order to deploy there.

On the subject of who does or does not have a right to speak about war, I think only veterans. For or against - only veterans. I think we can safely assume that civilians lack expertise in military matters. I will allow that there may be exceptions (e.g., State Department officials, Law Enforcement and Intelligence officers, members of Congress, etc., and even those who have actually seen war though not in uniform). But definitely not devotees of political parties - these can be assumed to lack credibility as well as expertise.

Birkel whined: "I know better than to argue with fools."

That's good, since "fools" are much smarter than you are.

Kevin and the posters sound overjoyed that things are going badly in Anbar. There's not one word of pity for men, women and children being killed. It makes them happy to hear about these murders, simply because this report is bad news for President Bush.

When I was a liberal, liberals cared abou the well-being of victims as individuals. Now, they care about victims as means of making our President look bad.

ex-liberal wrote: "Kevin and the posters sound overjoyed that things are going badly in Anbar."

No, they don't. No one "sounds overjoyed" about it at all. That's fake, phony, scripted, Republican bullshit.

ex-liberal wrote: "When I was a liberal, liberals cared abou the well-being of victims as individuals. "

You were never a "liberal". You are a lying sack of shit.

You are just an ignorant dumbass who has nothing better to do than regurgitate scripted right-wing extremist lies on a blog.

You libs got it all wrong - again. What about those bright spots Fallujah and Ramadi. Like to ignore them I guess.

Semper fi.

Blithering idiot, I crap both bigger and smarter stuff than you.

Posted by: Birkel on September 11, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

I take this to mean you're full of crap.

Poke a yokel with a sharp stick, stiff from a visit to Niagra, and then the spittle will drool down the chin of the omimpotent, who write like animals. Zookeepers are not usually held in high esteem, you know better, but they feed the animals, not the trolls, who live under bridges, some have said, and clean the cages. Cleaning up can be fun to watch, but seething is believing, and arguing is not best left to fools, who can repeat the mantra but not live up to its expectations.

Kevin and the posters sound overjoyed that things are going badly in Anbar.

Well, "ex-liberal" seems to pride him/her/itself on dishonesty -- withness the inherent lie in the choice of handle -- but he/she/it has outdone him/her/itself.

"ex-liberal," point to one single post in this thread that supports your statement. We'll wait. Put up or shut up.

By the by, you just know that when the dishonest Bush apologists pull out the "Bush's criticis celebrate that things are going badly" bullshit, that they got nothin'. I guess the RNC blast-fax hasn't arrived.

Pathetic.

Birkel - lighten up - it's only a blog ...

If you really need to vent here's my number...

1-800-MARINES

Wow. What a dumb ad-hom flamewar over a diversionary issue. It's not whether you served or didn't serve. The issue is Devlin's assessment. Can anyone really criticize what we've heard about it on the merits?

Linus:

I think a three-way partition would doom Iraq to civil war for the forseeable future. The Sunnis will be left with a sandbox and a couple of date groves. They absolutely will not stand for it. They're about ready to walk out of the government over that very issue. If the Shia in alliance with the Kurds rams through this new piece of legislation to endorse a framework for "federalism" -- mark my words, they *will* walk out of the government.

Thank goodness for a few Shi'ite secular parties (and al-Sadr's faction) chiming in to stop this. It would truly spell the beginning of the end of Iraq.

And we all remember when that happened to Yugoslavia.

Bob

Al, AKA "The Al-bot": "Shouldn't liberals wait till they actually read the report before they start pretending they know what's in it?"

Why? That never seemed to stop you.

Randy;

I think I am qualified to speak about war, even though I never put on a uniform myself. My father retired from the USN a three-war veteran. My brother retired from the USA in April with the rank of Lt. Colonel, and he served in every pissing contest hot-zone from Grenada to the current Mess in Mesopotamia. My husband won the cold war for you, and retired from the USAF with the rank of Major. He refused to serve this chickenhawk president, and resigned his commission the day this president Bush was sworn in.

He aggonized over the decision for the entire time the Supreme Court deliberated. He predicted before the brain-damaged bastard ever took office that "he will get a lot of young men killed, and a lot of middle aged men like me will be responsible for their lives." (Prescient, huh?) I finally said "look, you have done your twenty, plus some. Resign your commission. I have never known you not to stand up, especially when everyone around you was looking for the closest chair. So do it now."

I can comment because - literally - since the day I was born, I have been a military dependent, and will remain so until the day I die. I did my part. I sacrificed too. So did our children. And I was never prouder of my husband than the day he took his uniform off.

Didn't someone here a few months ago offer to pay for Birkel's flight to Iraq if he'd agree to go on vacation there? And Birkel refused to take them up on it?

yeah, that was Stefan. He offered to pay for Birkel's airfare to Iraq if Birkel would come back with pics proving he'd been there. Needless to say Birkel didnt' seem too interested in the offer.

Can anyone really criticize what we've heard about it on the merits?

Of course not, Bob, hence all the handwaving from our Bush apologists.

Of course, like i said, I'm sure some GOP stooge will be along with a blast-fax impugning the good Colonel's credibility, or patriotism, or both.

Global Citizen:

Eloquent and moving.

Will:

"Seething is believing." Very nice :)

Bob

Who lost Anbar?

a) Michael Moore. He's fat and slovenly.

b) Jack Murtha. He didn't deserve his Purple Hearts.

c) The LIBERAL Washington Post.

I hear the argument that the Sunni will walk out if the Kurds and Shia vote to have partion.

So what. The Kurds can defend themselves, and the Shia outnumber the rest three to one with Iran as a back up. Who is going to back up the Sunni?

This is a question of the Sunni willing to live within an Iraq, or be pushed out by themselves. They do ot have the oil, their only support is the Saudis and Al Qeda. It is not our job to protect them.

I think a little more civil war is what the Sunni want, and so they should get a little more civil war.

walt:

You forgot Cindy Sheehan :)

Bob

This is an automatic response from Koreyel's
mail client:

Sorry I can't comment on this post today:
I am in mourning....

Well, reality (I don't get to make mine up as I go along) calls, and a colloquium requires my attendance. Back later.

Global Citizen,

I agree that you should have a say - and so would my wife and daughters. Military spouses and families do know the score - at least some of it. And I know lots of veterans who oppose this war in particular and often war in general. What I really can't stand are those who's stand on a war is determined by their political objectives. Those who would write off the mission and the soldier's sacrifice as meaningless simply to advance a personal agenda - or to win a debate.

Birkel you are a pussy ass chickenhawk, and that's the end of the argument not the beginning...

Sorry I couldn't be more articulate, I'm just a dumb ass ex-grunt.

> Those who would write off the mission
> and the soldier's sacrifice as meaningless
> simply to advance a personal agenda - or
> to win a debate.

So the sunk cost fallacy now requires us to continue killing our soldiers forever after the first casualty?

George W. Bush and his supporters took upon themselves the decision to start a war (and please don't respond with any nonsense about the "GWOT", a phrase even Tommy Franks says he doesn't understand). By doing so they took upon themselves the moral responsibility for the soldiers' deaths. I think Abraham Lincoln, FDR, even Truman can sleep in their graves bearing that responsbility. That GW and his supporters cannot is not reason for them to continue killing more of our soldiers, nor for calling those who hold them to account traitors.

Not Really

Q: Why hasn't Bush caught bin Laden yet?
A: Because bin Laden is not in Iraq.

elmo,

Fuck off. There, you feel better?

dee wrote:

"Get out now. We shouldn't have went in in the first place. We havn't accomplised anything significant there. The situation could not get any worse than already is if we pulled out. Our presence does not help matters only inflames them. Thanks to our president we now have a new Iranian ally in the region. Good policy, great job... bush blows... so does Al."
________________

Dee, things can always get worse. And turning away is often what makes them worse.

Not Really,

Your thought about sunk costs is valid. War is often a matter of cost/benefit analysis. But your need to mention the President and imply some sort of guilt leads me to believe that you are precisely the type I referred to in my previous post.

sportsfan79:

Why do you think it's important to pursue an ad hominem argument from another thread?

Do you really think any commenter's service has the slightest bearing on the issue under discussion -- namely Devlin's classified report?

If so, my man, you're just another Republican blowin' smoke.

Heh, where have we seen *that* movie before :)

Bob

So what if they have their own flag?

Until they have their own beer, and a football team, they're not a real country.

Global Citizen: "I think I am qualified to speak about war, even though I never put on a uniform myself. My father retired from the USN a three-war veteran. My brother retired from the USA in April with the rank of Lt. Colonel, and he served in every pissing contest hot-zone from Grenada to the current Mess in Mesopotamia. My husband won the cold war for you, and retired from the USAF with the rank of Major. ..."

Thank you.

I lost my father in Vietnam. He was a promising and unabashedly patriotic Marine serving as chief operations officer with the 2nd Marine Reconnaisance Brigade, and was considered by his peers as an expert in the art of counter-insurgency warfare. I have often wondered what he would have thought of the tragedy unfolding in the Middle East and South Asia.

What The Al-Bot and myriad other Bush apologists know about the contigencies and realities of war would fit inside a geltab, with ample room left over.

Such ignorant and servile fascist bootlickers deserve nothing but our contempt, for they betray the very principles upon which our country was founded and for which our family members fought and died to defend.

I have blood in my BM, Mommy. Can I stay home from school?

Zappa:

Don't forget an airline, too :)

Bob

What I fear in a partition is that the economic disenfranchisement (Anbar and Baghdad having no resources to speak of to develop) will simply drive that many more Sunnis to take up arms with the preexisting insurgency, to fight for what they believe (both rightly and wrongly) to be "their" country.

Joe Biden has proposed a two part plan whereby the Sunni's be alotted some of the oil revenue proportionate with their population in Iraq.

http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=12006

rmck1 wrote:
Do you really think any commenter's service has the slightest bearing on the issue under discussion -- namely Devlin's classified report?

The relevance of my comment to Jason is with regard to his earlier commentary (2:15ish) and leveraging of the term 'chickenhawk'.

Gee, maybe it's time for W to make the US military commander in Anbar province a 5 star general because they've never lost.

sportsfan79:

I saw those discussions. They're pointless.

What's relevant is in things like Jason's above post.

We can sit there and debate the names we call each other all day long.

Bob

Birkel's had a bad day. Mommy just explained that having a wet dream does not mean you've lost your virginity.

Do you think now we might get a serious debate? You know, since all those generals were just speaking out of turn and out of spite.

Last week there was some British officer in south Afgahistan pleading through main media for "a few hundred more troops -- boots on the ground would be nice -- and some more aircraft...."

Then in The Sunday Times this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2350795,00.html

You'd think we might want to win ONE war we started, wouldn't you?

This administration is pathologically incapable of admitting any mistake or failure. As a result they make them all and arrive unerringly at the latter.

NSA Mole:

Mommy *did* ask him, though, to quit hoarding her panty hose and good gloves, and use some lotion and tissues instead :)

Bob

Ex-liberal, great post of 2:55. You nailed it.

Gee, "sportsfan," if that's so then maybe you can produce a single post from this thread that supports "ex-liberal"'s claim. Certainly "ex-liberal" has failed to do so.

Or is this belief, like your apparent belief in Bush's competence, just another example of wishful thinking?

Well I sure as hell gave *that* one away ...

*red face*

I have entirely too much fun with those kinds of posts.

Bob

There is no way to win this argument with chickenhawks. If you did not serve, you lose the argument by definition. If you, or your near and dear ones, did, there is swiftboating waiting for you.

It's quite a futile exercise to engage the chickenhawks in a rational debate. The only way to win with them is to use with them their own tactics with a vengence.

}}}} On the subject of who does or does not have a right to speak about war, I think only veterans. For or against - only veterans. I think we can safely assume that civilians lack expertise in military matters. I will allow that there may be exceptions (e.g., State Department officials, Law Enforcement and Intelligence officers, members of Congress, etc., and even those who have actually seen war though not in uniform). But definitely not devotees of political parties - these can be assumed to lack credibility as well as expertise.

Randy {{{{

The funny thing is that history shows that the party that creates the military dictatorship doesn't benefit from it the way they think they will. Funny in a sick way, that is.

Will the Radicals being running on this platform from now through November 2006? In 2008?

Not Really

Trashhauler -

Having our troops stay around can make things worse as the extremely careless Bush Administration has proven.

We're there. We broke things. We upset a repressive balance. I can live with that even though I don't much like it. What I see no reason to excuse is that the people who did this made absolutely no attempt to plan for a successful occupation.

Surprise. The occupation has been remarkably unsuccessful with Iraq engaged in low grade civil war. It is totally clear that Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush (and their neo-con ankle-biters) are responsible for this failure to make the occupation work. And let's not forget that they are slowly losing in Afghanistan. George Bush may claim that the Taliban is gone, but the people being targeted in Afghanistan know that is another of his lies.

I am not angry at the people who supported the President when he was selling the lies that got us into the mess. Bush's claims were not so outlandish and the data wasn't so badly misrepresented that it was obvious to everyone that Bush was lying. Yes, today we know that Bush lied, but it wasn't as clear when there was far less evidence available to the public (by the way, is Cheney actually delusional or has he decided to stick with lies until he dies, like the whoppers he told on Meet the Press yesterday).

I am, however, totally angry at the people who have been making excuses for the failures of this Administration in Iraq and Afghanistan. If McCain were actually involved in straight talk, he would point out exactly why Bush should have fired Rumsfeld years ago. If Senator Frist wants people to think he is a real leader, he would remind President Bush what Lincoln did when his generals weren't delivering: fire them, in this case Rumsfeld and the brown-noses in DOD. Even Senator Clinton is unwilling to clearly criticize the incompetents who have failed us in these wars.

Walking away is a very bad idea. Staying there without making any changes is even worse.

SecularAnimist writes:

To be a "chickenhawk" someone has to be a hawk, which means they have to support, advocate or otherwise be in favor of war, or of a particular war.

Birkel, you're intellectually outgunned here. Take your straw man arguments and move along. It appears the only thing you're capable of is trading insults.

Not really, Not Really.

I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and though retired, I will continue to do so. My purpose is to oppose the argument that only those willing to serve should be allowed to support the war, which is no more meaningful than that only those who have served should be allowed to oppose the war. But still, in terms of how much credibility I give to an argument, I don't give much to those who begin by implying the worst possible motives to the President of the United States.

freelunch: "I am, however, totally angry at the people who have been making excuses for the failures of this Administration in Iraq and Afghanistan. If McCain were actually involved in straight talk, he would point out exactly why Bush should have fired Rumsfeld years ago. If Senator Frist wants people to think he is a real leader, he would remind President Bush what Lincoln did when his generals weren't delivering: fire them, in this case Rumsfeld and the brown-noses in DOD. Even Senator Clinton is unwilling to clearly criticize the incompetents who have failed us in these wars."

From a commentary published in the Kansas City Star (the emphasis is mine):

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole.

"Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

"Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

-- Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States, 17 May 1918

Randy,

What good motive would Bush have for lying?

I personally don't think service per se has anything remotely to do with being able to comment intelligently and objectively on a war. Not Really nailed it; this is a liberal democracy with a civilian military command, and every taxpayer is affected by the burdens of war in one way or another.

The problems come, like in commenting on anything else, with vested interests -- be they ideological or in the military as an institution. Wars are those sorts of things that are easy to start and inflame -- and sometimes terribly difficult to stop. It's very difficult to stop supporting a war short of victory -- because then you have to question all the sacrifice. Did our soldiers die in vain?

The best tools in judging warfare come from a good grasp of history, foreign affairs and human nature. And an ability to admit one's mistakes faced with new evidence.

I fervently opposed the Gulf War. I realize, in retrospect, that I was wrong.

Bob

When last seen, Col. Devlin was headed for Git'mo wearing an orange jumpsuit, shackles, and a headsack.

Randy:

You gave an oath to uphold the Constitution.

You didn't swear your loyalty to a King.

Bob

HEY DICK CHENEY HE WAS TALKING ABOUT YOU NOT THE ANTI_WAR CRITICS!!

1111u1100k 1101i1100k 1100h1110n1110y!!

OH WAIT DICK IS AL AND AL IS DICK

AL IS A WORD FOR KING OR SOME SUCH CRAP?
RIGHT
AL?

1111u1100k 1010l!

> But still, in terms of how much
> credibility I give to an argument,
> I don't give much to those who begin
> by implying the worst possible
> motives to the President of the
> United States.

Personally, I don't give any credibility to a politician who states, not implies, that criticism of an elected Administration by a Citizen is treason.

That would be Dick Cheney, in case it isn't clear to you.

Not Really

Jason,

Re; "...can you criticize the President and still be a patriot?"

Yes you can. But the criticism must be done with respect. The respect isn't so much for the person as it is for the office - and for one's fellow Americans. Perhaps we could even say that respect is the defining characteristic of the patriot.

But that said, I am under no illusions about the fact that Americans tend to be a people distinctly lacking in respect. This is actually quite encouraging. It means that the Constitution really does work - even under trying circumstances.

Puh-leaze. Anyone, regardless of whether they've served or not and reagardless of whether they've fought or not, can and should have an opinion about war. After all, those of us who did serve, served as citizen soldiers. In the history of nations and warfare, it's an important distinction that our military is (at least for now) an all volunteer force, not draftees, not foreign mercenaries. That's its strength. And since anyone can join, it's important that people think critically and intelligently about what warfare in general means and which wars are worth fighting, since at least theoretically any war could affect you or someone you know.

Certainly combat veterans know a bit more about warfare than people who have never fought and as a result the opinion of such should (at times) carry more weight. But everyone gets to speak, otherwise no point in the oath I took to defend the Constitution.

And I would just like to remind everyone that the enlistment age has been raised to 42 and the Army (my alma mater) is having trouble meeting recruitment goals. Do what your conscience dictates.

SecularAnimist wrote:

"I am a pacifist and I will not take part in any war, regardless of whether anyone thinks it is "just" or not. If necessary I will give my life for nonviolence."
__________________

This is a principled stance, though the the idea of giving one's life for nonviolence isn't really the issue. The vast majority of pacifists live lives of perfect safety. No, the real question is, how many other lives is the pacifist ready to give up for his or her commitment to nonviolence? The same question goes for war supporters.

Advocacy of a particular policy so as to satisfy one's personal beliefs is legitimate. But nobody should be deceived into thinking that others won't pay the price for our advocacy.

Bob,

Re; "You didn't swear your loyalty to a King."

Exactly. I have served with Presidents of both parties.

HEY DIDNT NOWATRASH ALSO WRITE A MOVIE ABOUT BLACK MEN AND UNIONS?
10,000 BLACK MEN CALLED GEORGE?
OR SUTHIN LIKE THAT?
=======

Now I have to go home and see if my new computer was delivered today. (Hint: never, under any circumstances, let yourself be talked out of buying a Mac like I was a few months ago. My relationship with PC's is like a bad marriage - we had five or six good years, but by the time the divorce is final, I'll have a quarter century invested.)
==
COMUPTERS,TODAY,ALL OF THEM, ARE LIKE MICROWAVE OVENS, THEY ARE DISPOSABLE.
I KNOW I HAVE 6 OF THEM USELESS DAMN THINGS. MAC LINUX XP KNOPPIX 98 NT....

ITS ALL 1's AND O's TO ME!!

Exactly. I have served with Presidents of both parties.

IS THAT YOU JEFF GANNON?

(joking) =}

Josh Marshall,

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009722.php

But what seems to me to be one of the greatest injuries of that day is the way we now sometimes seem to mistake optimism for pessimism and vice versa. Persistent fear and retreat from our own ideals and power isn't optimism. It is the deepest and most pernicious form of self-doubt. Yes, something terrible and unthinkable could happen tomorrow. But none of us has more than a probable claim to life from one day to the next. And as a country we are neither weak nor threatened. With apologies for a perhaps over-used line, I can't help thinking of Franklin Roosevelt's "firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."

Doesn't it have an uncanny claim on this moment?

So my regret for today is that the way that al Qaida has gamed us into doing great damage to ourselves. And my feeling of optimism is the sense that tide may at last be turning.

Trashhauler:

I think the only time that was strictly true in American history was the Civil War, and the closest it approached to truth since, WW2. Clearly the world couldn've ended up a far different place had Hitler the time to build the atom bomb.

All the other wars in our history -- and I'd include the Cold War in there, too -- haven't been existential fights, where our very survival and way of life is at stake.

SecularAnimist giving no support to the Vietnam War or the Gulf War does not mean that others died for his freedom if his freedom wasn't at stake to begin with.

Bob

Some dark humor on the subject:

US President George W. Bush rejects suggestions that Iraq be partitioned as a way of heading off worsening violence there, White House spokesman Tony Snow said today.

"He doesn't buy it," the spokesman said of an occasionally floated proposal to cut the war-torn country into separate states.

"It's not practical. Most Iraqis don't want it," he said.

August 16, 2006

And then there's reality:

BAGHDAD, Sept. 11 (UPI) -- Iraq's majority Shiite parliamentarians are seeking quick approval of legislation allowing the country to be divided up, The New York Times reports.

Shiites and Kurdish coalition partners made their first moves Sunday, which inflamed minority Sunni Muslims, the report said.

September 11

Just how disconnected are these guys from what's going on???

But the criticism must be done with respect.

Disagree, particularly when someone has egregiously abused the office and cost blood and treasure.

And I don't recall the respectful criticism of Clinton, do you? Also, see the Jefferson/Adams disputes.

Trashhauler:

The Revolutionary War, too, of course.

Bob

But the criticism must be done with respect.

Where is that written?

The respect isn't so much for the person as it is for the office

Again, as Americans, we elect a President, not a King. And if the individual holding the office does not deserve respect -- as Bush, IMO, does not -- then there's no reason at all to let him cower behind the trappings of his office to avoid the criticism richly due him.

Perhaps we could even say that respect is the defining characteristic of the patriot.

Well, inasmuch that I don't agree with you at all, no, "we" couldn't say that.

I'd contend that holding our government accountable is the defining characteristic of the patriot, and I suspect Thomas Jefferson would agree with me, not you. (Check out how "respectful" the Declaration of Independence is sometime.)

Birkel can't fight the Islamofacists because he likes cock in the ass. Until we change the idiotic don't ask, don't tell policy many Republican manly men are prevented from heroically sacrificing their lives for the country.

trashhauler = paid troll

Yes you can. But the criticism must be done with respect.

Fuck that.

Republicans get as much respect as they gave to President Clinton -- that is, none.

Bush works for us, remember, not the other way around. Take your "respect" and shove it up your ass.

LOL AT SITHLORD@WHITEHOUSE.GOV
{DICK CHENEY}

SNARKY!!

Gregory,

Re; Holding our government accountable.

"Our" government. Exactly. Mine as well as yours. So long as we respect each other, we can have a government that is truly "ours". And when that respect collapses... well, take a look at Iraq.

See ya Jason - I gotta go - the Metro waits for no woman.

Anyone, regardless of whether they've served or not and reagardless of whether they've fought or not, can and should have an opinion about war.

Of course. But individuals who insist that America is engaged in an existential struggle that must be fought, and yet conspicuously avoid serving, citing the same reasons (such as having young children) any soldier would have for wanting to stay home (see Goldberg, Jonah), do indeed lose any claim to moral seriousness.

But hey -- the fact that these same yo-yos evidently approve of Bush's insistence on paying for the war with a tax cut proves that they aren't really serious anyway.

For all Bush's rhetoric about sacrifice, the Republican Party evidently believes that sacrifice is for suckers. And Americans are waking up to the fact.

Randy:

No, not as long as we respect each other. Genuine respect is earned and conditional; unearned respect is sycophancy.

As long as we respect the institutions of government, starting with the Constitution.

Nation ruled by laws and not men sorta thing.

Bob

Mommy *did* ask him, though, to quit hoarding her panty hose and good gloves, and use some lotion and tissues instead :)

Bob

Ahh, so rmck1 has been the main doppelganger all along. There's a mystery solved.

So long as we respect each other, we can have a government that is truly "ours".

Need I point out how explicitly the modern GOP has rejected that philosophy?

But anyway, while I agree with your sentiment, I do draw a distinction between respecting each other and respecting the President. Again, if the President's actions merit disrespect, then disrespect is what he ought to have, and not hide behind the respect nominally due the office. I would assert that Bush has earned the contempted directed at him.

Arminius,

I liked Clinton. And I didn't appreciate the lack of respect then any more than I do now.

And seriously, what do you expect would happen if you and I were having this discussion face to face and you were to take on a similar attitude. I'd say we'd be takin it outside. And that's my point... Can we, as a nation, afford to be takin this outside?

sportsfan79:

Hardly. Just an occasional dabbler. You can probably pick out mine by carefully observing the rhetorical quirks.

Mine *do* tend to be a bit more graphically obscene than most, for instance :)

Bob

"I think a three-way partition would doom Iraq to civil war for the forseeable future."

Iraq is already doomed to civil war for the forseeable future.

One of the chief lessons of the early post-Cold War era is the primacy of state dissolution (along sectarian lines), and the need to manage the process of nation un-building. Iraq, like a great many Arab-Muslim countries (or for that matter the former Yugoslavia), is an immature political and geographical fiction that never cohered around a strong set of national institutions and national identity; it never had time. (It took centuries for most of the western nation-states we take for granted to become nation-states; England and France weren't anything like separate countries until at least after the 100 Years War. And even though Norman surnames began to disappear en masse then, Norman French was still being regularly spoken in English manor houses until at least the time of Elizabeth I.)

No one (in power) really wants to admit that liberal democracy is not a realistic possibility for Iraq, and it seems likely that a lot more people are going to have to die before Washington finally gets serious about organizing mass relocations to ethnic and majority religious zones, then going about the petty-ugly business of partitioning the country. But there is no other way.

The only way to avoid a full blown replay of Yugoslavia is to do the ethnic cleansing ourselves, make it a humanitarian imperative.

Randy:

If what you're saying is that there needs to be a baseline civility of conduct in any democratic society, that's of course true.

But what we're concerned about here is a conflation of civility, which is good, to deference, which isn't necessarily good at all.

Europeans believed that deference was owed to one's social superiors. Many early political thinkers, in fact, considered this the essential glue that held society together.

The American Revolution was predicated on the contrary notion that all men (sic) were created equal.

Social deference was smashed. And this was a *very* good thing.

Clearly you can't use American political history to argue for the mutual civil treatment of political opponents. Jefferson and Adams weren't exactly on speaking terms for a while, speaking of takin' it outside.

Bob

Randy:

If what you're saying is that there needs to be a baseline civility of conduct in any democratic society, that's of course true.

But what we're concerned about here is a conflation of civility, which is good, to deference, which isn't necessarily good at all.

Europeans believed that deference was owed to one's social superiors. Many early political thinkers, in fact, considered this the essential glue that held society together.

The American Revolution was predicated on the contrary notion that all men (sic) were created equal.

Social deference was smashed. And this was a *very* good thing.

Clearly you can't use American political history to argue for the mutual civil treatment of political opponents. Jefferson and Adams weren't exactly on speaking terms for a while, speaking of takin' it outside.

Bob