With the latest attack on a supply convoy in Iraq that resulted in the taking of U.S. hostages, it's getting perilously close to the point where a small unit in the field could be cut off from supplies, and then overwhelmed in a fight. Although I wouldn't doubt that our commanders in the field are already being very cautious about such a thing being sprung. But even an escalation of attacks on supply convoys would be bad enough.

Who cares what happens to the Iraqis? Our pundit class and the politicians should be well protected from any fallouts from the fiasco.

If we don't begin a planned exit, there's a good chance we'll find ourselves in an unplanned one I

Nonsense Kevin. Keeping troops in Iraq and staying the course is the best way to prevent a unplanned exit. By keeping troops in Iraq, we can use the troops to regain momentum in Iraq, momentum which was lost because of the Democrats victory in the Congressional elections and the terrorists now feel emboldened by the liberal victories. The troops can be used to foster a greater sense of stability and security in Iraq. This greater sense of stability and security leads to more jobs and lower unemployment, greater political cooperation among the Iraqi factions, and make it easier to train the new free and democratic Iraqi army. Once these good things happen in Iraq, we won't have to worry about a unplanned exit because the Iraqi people will see the wisdom and benefits of American troops staying in Iraq.

I agree, and have been saying for awhile it's better for us to make our own exit than to have it forced upon us.

Al - you are such a complete moron. For 3 straight years, post after post after post - you havebeen wrong. Completely, utterly wrong.

I can only assume you are ) George Bush 2 ) Karl Rove 3) Jeff Gannon.

Last Big Push

Nobody's gonna fall for this shit anymore*. It's late 2006. The repubs lost. Rumsfeld's gone.

Push from where to get to what with who to achieve ???? This is victory? Has history ever seen a stupider war plan.

Message to the shrubbery: Get yer tail between yer legs, prepare the mea culpas, get some reparation cash ready and leave already.

If they were planning a civil war, then they could claim success.

*("nobody" does not include the dead-enders who frequently post here)

Yes, Kevin, there is practically no upside left to "staying the course", but the potential downside ranges from more of the same into the infinite future to total geopolitical/military meltdown.

The solution: get out now. It's a no brainer.

aa

I think you are all missing the point here, Iraqi's don't think we are ever planning on leaving, because "facts on the ground" say we are staying - a billion dollar embasy, permanant air bases, etc.

They don't think we could be that stupid as to build these things and then just leave them, they just don't know us ;-)

What we need to do is convince them that we do NOT plan to occupy thier land forever, we need to stop construction of buildings and bases, we need to start taking actions that signal our intent, instead of just spouting words that fly in the face of reality.

It's nice to see, though, that McCain has made One Big Push the non-Bush Republican alternative.

It'll be nice to run against that insanity in '08.

Bob

J. in O.

Al is not a real person.

Al is short for algorithm.

This algorithm is regularly coded with updated (or not) GOP talking-points and has some kind of link-thingie to Political Animal.

If it ever fails to come in later than fifth in any of Kevin's threads then some poor asleep-at-the-switch, wet-behind-the-ears intern gets it in the ass from his genius-tactician repub overlord.

Literally. Gets it in the ass.

FoM -
I'm not in favor of Reparation Cash.

Because with this group in charge, you know who's pocket that's going to end up in?

Iranian Operative, master hypnotist, convicted embezzler, indicted murderer and US Currency counterfeiter, and close confidant of the Bush Administration, Ahmed Chalabi. Or one of his cronies.

And if not him, it will find it's way to some other miscreant. Bush's money always does.

NAME ONE MORE EFFECTIVE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (OR AS IT WAS CALLED SECRETARY OF WAR) IN USA HISTORY THAN DONALD RUMSFELD; JUST ONE.

There has never been one; he conquered two countries and worked to set up democracies in both under nearly impossible conditions - all with about 3000 military fatalities over 3 1/2 years (about the number of military fatalities during the 4 year Carter Administration when we were fighting . . . er, uh, no one - look it up; there were more soldiers then, but even the rate of fatalities during the Iraq/Afghanistan War is only 30% above peacetime levels). He's done an A+ job. Blaming him for the civil unrest in Iraq is like blaming FDR for kamikaze pilots. Why are irrational jihadis and blood thirsty Baathists his fault? And this troop levels business is a red herring. Doubling troops means at least doubling casualties, either then or now; to what effect is mere speculation. Is that what people want? And doubling troop levels maybe means tripling casulaties since it gives IED-makers and suicide bombers more targets.

DONALD RUMSFELD HAS BEEN THE GREATEST SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (OR AS IT WAS KNOWN SECRETARY OF WAR) IN USA HISTORY. ONLY DELUDED, IGNORANT, POWER-HUNGRY, DESPERATE, PARTY-FIRST-NATION-SECOND HACKS COULD CONCLUDE OTHERWISE.

TOH

The paranoid in me says _they_ want it to get worse. Like going to Mount Doom in the heart of Mordor, you have to be in the worst place to kill the evil.

NAME ONE.

It's a disgrace that such a fine, competent, noble man like Donald Rumsfeld has been so maligned.

For all the bah-bah-bah on this site, I'd like to see someone name one better Secretary of Defense/War in this nation's history. Put TOH in your post and I'll search for it. For the record, a Secretary of Defense/War should be judged by their execution of Administration policy. So who was better in the USA past? And then back it up with some credible facts.

TOH

Foundation of Mud on November 20, 2006 at 2:24 AM:

Push from where to get to what with who to achieve?

Well, the who part is being discussed:

Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) has long advocated returning to the draft, but his efforts drew little attention during the 12 years that House Democrats were in the minority. Starting in January, however, he will chair the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. Yesterday he said "you bet your life" he will renew his drive for a draft.

"I will be introducing that bill as soon as we start the new session," Rangel said on CBS's "Face the Nation." He portrayed the draft, suspended since 1973, as a means of spreading military obligations more equitably and prompting political leaders to think twice before starting wars.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," said Rangel, a Korean War veteran. "If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft."

I'm sure there's other options.

QUESTION:

If Al-Qaeda and/or the Baathists insist on fighting us, and they do, why is on-going warfare in Iraq bad? Even if it lasts 100 years. Al-Qaeda is dying at a rate of like 20 to 1 against our soldiers, they are losing the PR battle killing fellow Muslims in far greater numbers, and those para-military sectarians and non-combatants dying, while horrible, generally are anti-USA anyway. Iraq is a good field of operations for us; why abandon it? Why exit when it serves our purposes? We are dying there, yes, and that is a bad aspect of being in Iraq; but we are also winning there. If anyone is losing by our presence, it's Al-Qaeda and the militant-minded Sunnis and Shites.

TOH

TOH,
1 billion muslims in the world. Wanna fight all them?

RMCK1:

I left a lesson-book for you at Chess Club on Steroids. Study hard now; learn about poverty; then voice an opinion and do so with more humility going forward.

TOH

We are dying there, yes, and that is a bad aspect of being in Iraq; but we are also winning there. If anyone is losing by our presence, it's Al-Qaeda and the militant-minded Sunnis and Shites.

Wow, a full fledged member of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders. We honor your service.

Bob:

I think The Objective Historian has a crush on you. There might be some conquerer/conqueree issues, though.

By the way, TOH, what's yer point with this Rummy shit. Liberals didn't fire him. The media didn't fire him. He left. Before the job was done. Is being a quitter/martyr part of the whole mythic greatest administrator-of-clusterfucks kaboodle.

Don't get me wrong. I generally enjoy your crapola.

The US needs to seriously consider the ideas in a new book by George McGovern and William Polk called "Out of Iraq Now."

They contend that the US must withdraw immediately, and that when it does so the fighting will subside, as it did in Algeria and other recent guerrilla wars.

According to Polk, once the insurgents get even part of what they're seeking the general population will cease to support them and just wish to get on with their lives.

I heard him describe his plan a few days ago on NPR. Of course the above is a gross over-simplification.

"... the American occupation has actually made the Iraqi situation worse ..."

You cannot just blithely toss off statements like this without evidence. Especially when they are obviously false.

The people who actually know about these things (ie Iraqi leaders and US security personnel) believe that the situation in Iraq would be much, much worse without the US presence.

Kevin, you personally are pushing a policy step which, if followed, is likely to result in a tremendous amount of bloodshed in Iraq. Do you expect people to not notice this? Do you expect them not to hold you personally responsible for your part in that bloodshed?

Mud, I've never been sure that "Al" wasn't "AI", just an oppobot. Not that it matters.

We've actually already had a couple of atrocity moments. Weren't some of the soldiers from the group involved in the Haditha atrocity captured, killed and mutilated (most likely in a very disturbing fashion, in the opinion of Steve Gilliard)?

There have also been successful mortar attacks on American bases and one very nasty suicide bombing in a mess hall. How big does an event have to be, anyway?

FoM would humbly like to replace "later" with "earlier" in the 2:38 AM post.

OK. Bedtime.

Best Kevin Drum post on Iraq EVER.

But calling Al AI imposes the word "intelligence" on him, and you risk having his head explode. Maybe ASS, for Artificially Situated Stupidity.

The Objective Historian:
"he conquered two countries and worked to set up democracies in both under nearly impossible conditions"

Your tag should be revised to the Revisionist Historian.

On his watch the US Armed Forces shaped by eight years of Democratic Government invaded two countries and beat all organised resistance in short order. One of these invasions was completely unnecessary, politically motivated and verging on illegal.

He then failed miserably to secure the countries properly, deployed his forces dogmatically and refused to reinforce them to the levels his Generals publicly testified that they needed.

He also completely failed by refusing to reinforce the troops on the ground to provide the environment necessary to allow the democratically elected governments in the new states to do anything except wobble on quicksand.

Afghanistans government just about controls Khabul and in Iraq, one of the largest post-"Mission Accomplished" military operations was the re-invasion of Baghdad; which says much about the control the Iraqi government has.

Donald Rumsfeld, could have and should have insisted that they stayed the course in Afghanistan and assisted the government there to extend it's writ to their borders. Once the situation was stabilised and the Afghan forces sufficiently well trained and in sufficient control of things on the ground, that was the time to start thinking of invading another country.

Instead, he invaded Iraq...

The man played fast and loose with the truth, played fast and loose with the lives of the troops he was supposed to advocate for and played fast and loose with the American people.

I can only hope he flies to Rammstein AFB.

I have said for months that I fear a worst case scenerio in Iraq is inevitable--a embassy rooftop by helicopter retreat, a Kyber pass disaster as our troops scramble 200 miles down a single road to Kuwait. And if Bush won't back down and try to save these good kid soldiers and reservists, well, do we face a decision for impeachment as the inevitable result of an Iraq disaster caused mad king boy George?

I'm not so sure about this. The embassy rooftop happened 2 years after the US pulled out all of its combat forces; if we'd had 120,000 US troops in South Vietnam it wouldn't have happened. US troops in Iraq have become insanely focused on force protection precisely because of the Beirut and Mogadishu experiences, to the detriment of their counterinsurgency mission -- they shoot at anything that moves. The Russians in Afghanistan never had a Beirut moment; it just dragged endlessly, hopelessly on.

I'm not sure why one should think that things in Iraq are more likely to spiral out of control with US troops there than with US troops gone. As for the shooting war with Turkey, that seems just as likely if we leave and, say, the central government collapses, leading to a Kurdish declaration of independence.

The corollary to those not knowing history being condemned to repeat it, is that those who do are forced to watch.

I think a big part of the overall problem is a conceptual error that is funamental to monotheism. The absolute is basis, not apex. It is the eco-system, not the organism. It is what we rise out of and fall back into, not an all-knowing entity from which we fell and seek to return. The consequence is all these religious entities who think they are infallible and everyone else must be wrong. Hey, life and learn. It's what it's all about anyway. We destroy civilization and it leaves a few resources in the ground for the next time we start to get it together.

Dienbienphus in the sand?

I have also been anticipating a truly dramatic event that escalates this low-level civil war into something far more ugly or deadly. One truck bomb in the middle of the barracks at Camp Anaconda or a coordinated missile attack on the Green Zone could instantly raise the daily American death toll from three or four to three or four hundred or three or four thousand. It will happen if we hang around long enough. Count on it.

... or the dragging of a corpse of an American soldier through the streets of Mogadishu a decade later.

We've already had problems like this in Iraq, it's just that so called "liberal" media only shows these things when happens to a Democratic President, but when it happens to Bush, the TV media is all to happy to hide it all for George W. Bush.

Reporter on ground contine to say the war is lost but you never know it from the TV coverage.

All hail the corporate owned media and their criminal president, they just can't say anything bad about King Bush.

In my imagination none of those countries will allow the things Kevin said because they fear the power vacuum that will come about as the world's hegemon gets pushed over the edge into an even swifter decline and full scale retreat-- not just from the Middle East, but from everywhere. So, yes, plan the withdrawl as you said, but because the consequences of not doing it are even worse than these terrible scenarios you described. The GOP has dragged us to a precipice and are talking up jumping. I hope Americans don't agree.

Brilliant analysis Kevin.

/sarcasm

Retreat!!Surrender!!!Whatever--just so we lose....

Sincerely,

The U.S. leftists

The vapid inanity of this post proves to me that liberals, or at least the modern incarnation of this sect, cannot intelligently consider foreign policy issues because of an inherent distaste for the crudities of human existence. "Conventional wisdom tacitly assumes..." What are you talking about? Possibly the conventional wisdom disseminated amongst the waiting staff at Hooters thinks this way - but most of your doctorate holding non-Hooters thinking types do not abide, while sober anyway, any such 'conventional' wisdom. But of course you have to assume such in order to prop up your idiotic thesis which seems to consist essentially of the brilliant deduction 'things are getting worse therefore we might as well leave'. Wow. The Golden Age of Pelosi arrives, with attendant court of simpering popinjays. Look on my works, Ye mighty, and despair.

We have had the equivelant of the soldiers bodies being dragged thru the streets of Moqadishu. The insurgents attacked a group of soldiers at a checkpoint. They killed one and captured the other two whom they proceeded to torture, mutilate and kill. Only the Army's ability to supress the truth and our corporate whore media's complicity has kept knowledge of what happened to those soldier's from the US public.

"... the American occupation has actually made the Iraqi situation worse ..."

am: You cannot just blithely toss off statements like this without evidence. Especially when they are obviously false.

US intelligence report: Iraq war breeding more terrorists

By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
posted September 25, 2006 at 12:30 p.m.

..

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by US intelligence agencies since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, and it represents a consensus view of the 16 different spy services inside government. The estimate asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread around the globe.

..

who needs evidence...when you have faith...

One thing is clear the Iranians want us there. If we weren't there to fight the Sunni insurgency they would have too. We are in a loose - loose proposition. Stay there and be sucked dry or leave and face total humilitation. Far from containing the Iranians we are giving them the time they need to consolidate their power which is not a good thing. We are delaying the inevitable.

TOH

Since the title is Secretary of Defense, isn't Rumsfeld is out of the running as best given he failed to prevent 9/11?

No excuses allowed because cabinet-level positions require people able to step up from day one in office.

...

MobiusKlein wrote:

"1 billion muslims in the world. Wanna fight all them?"
_____________________

No one wants to fight all muslims in the world. However, the fear is that failure in Iraq might eventually lead to that. The neocon theory is that unless something is done to counter the jihadist tide, our grandchildren will wind up fighting an truly existential fight for survival.

Even if one sneers at (or is agnostic towards) the neocons' theory, it is not unreasonable to think that failure in Iraq might result in fighting elsewhere in the Persian Gulf, with the added disadvantage of having another safe haven for terrorists.

"But as bad as that is, it's worth keeping in mind that the American occupation has actually made the Iraqi situation worse every single year since it began, and will probably continue to make things worse as long as we're there" "The longer we stay in Iraq, the worse things are likely to get."

Amazing certainty. Evidence not required.

It's the American presence in Iraq that has "actually" (lovely touch that word) made things worse every single day, not AQ or Iran or Syria, or the inherently fractious nature of Iraqi society or anything of the sort. If we had abandoned Baghdad right away, things would have been much better today. For certain. Actually.

FWIW, Rumsfeld was involved in the 1983 Beirut disaster, as well: it was on his request that Reagan ordered the New Jersey to shell the Bekaa, which is what turned the Marines from a buffer force into a target, although Rumsfeld did NOT urge then-Defense Secretary Weinberger to change their rules of engagement accordingly.

Who says we haven't planned for an exit? With that huge embassy in Baghdad, there will be plenty of roof space for a Saigon style evacuation.

What could possibly be equivalent to the Marine barracks bombing that hasn't already happened to us in Iraq? A nuclear explosion in Baghdad? Bush doesn't even have the brains of Reagan who knew how and when to cut and run, at least.

ceece:

Krauthammer is spelling out your line today, replete with Frankin's quote: We gave them a republic and the Iraqis couldn't keep it.

So okay, it's not our military's fault for being there; it's the nature of Iraqi society, their fundamental tribalism and underdeveloped sense of national identity.

Well, duh. Any invasion opponent could've told you that in the Fall of '02.

But this analysis is hugely immoral. First, it vitiates the neocons' last remaining rationalization for invading Iraq. Secondly, it blames Iraqis for the consequences of being invaded.

I guess this is what happens to idealist justifications for a military invasion when it goes sour -- they invert and become the most cynical incarnation of colonialist cultural supremecy.

Which, after all, they were to begin with underneath that Straussian "noble lie."

Bob

Saintsimon said: Possibly the conventional wisdom disseminated amongst the waiting staff at Hooters thinks this way - but most of your doctorate holding non-Hooters thinking types do not abide, while sober anyway, any such 'conventional' wisdom.

If you're implying that the babes at Hooters find liberals hotter than conservatives - no argument from me!

The best time to leave Iraq as heroes has passed: the day after Sadam was found in that hole under the floor. The world would have understand our fight with him and forgiven our 'pre-emptive' war.

Too late now for any good outcome. Dividing Iraq in three parts and leaving immediately is the next best option. They'll work it out, with us or without us.

Pushing for that outcome by sensible the people in this country is OUR best option. Kevin is starting to make much sense on this issue and deserves our support. We'll all support politicians who share this view.

The Pentagon is looking at 3 options, according to reports. Go Big, Go Long, or Go Home.

Long experience with mgmts tells me that one generally prepares three options---hot, medium, anbd cold, and by doing so guarantees that the bosses will choose the middle one. This is the Goldilocks Imperative.

Therefore, I expect that the choice will be to perhaps bump the troops up a bit real soon, then start drawing down to a maintainable force for some years.

The trick here is to figure out what the maintainable troop level is. If it is too low and too concentrated, you could have a Dien Bien Phu entrapment. If it is too high, it could be hard to maintain support at home.

I am not arguing here for one or another policy, just looking at likely outcomes from the decision making process.

JHH

Quick - how many previous SecDefs' can you recall? I can come up with a couple that I recall because they were horrible - Robert MacNamara and Louis Johnson - Dick Cheney under Bush 41 because he didn't want to push on to Baghdad, and two from the Clinton administration - Les Aspen, because he passed away soon after leaving the post, and William Cohen because Bill Clinton tapped a Republican. There was another one, but without using Google, his name escapes me. The success of a Secretary of Defense is measured by how quickly he passes from memory and into the footnotes of history.

But who among us can honestly say that we will ever forget Rumsfeld? He has long since surpassed MacNamara in every area - he is more craven and more vitriolic and a bigger technocrat than MacNamara ever though about being. He has less thought for our troops and the mission he has asked them to complete.

I said it. Rummy is the worst SecDef in our history. Now I will back it up.

Rumsfeld has removed every bit of counterbalance in his way. Remember General Shinseki? The man who saw this Iraq fiasco coming, and was fired for saying so? The Pentagon climate is fetid, the atmosphere of command has been poisoned. He is great at bureaucratic knife-fights, but he is lousy at running Defense. His management style is authoritarian and rigid and those who come into his office to tell him news he does not want to hear learn quickly not to make that mistake again. Accountability is non-existant. Watch a press conference. He will answer the easy questions, usually with an insult or two. But ask him a tough question, and he shoves a uniformed officer in front of the mike and steps aside for a moment.

The Secretary of Defense is the civilian authority over evey man and woman in uniform, from the lowliest grunt to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the SecDef answers only to the president.

Leadership is supposed to mean that the leader has penultimate authority and uses it judiciously; for everything, good and bad, rests on the shoulders of the leader, the man in charge. This man in charge has some strange notions about how the military works. Instead of sober analysis, he decides on a course that will be taken and then those beneath him are charged with first justifying his decision, then executing it. Instead of listing to those professional soldiers at his avail, he surrounds himself with yes-men who know better yet disgrace their uniforms by backing his plays.

He wants to run the Department of Defense like a business. Except it is not a business. It is a branch of government. Rumsfeld stubbornly clings to failed hypotheses of war-fighting, even in the face of staggering evidence to the contrary. He cuts the brass out of the decision-making loop, and totally disses them. He doesn't just undermine, he accuses, abuses and belittles the professional military advice, but relentlessly keeps them out of the decision-making process.

Everything that goes right is due to him, everything that goes wrong is the fault of the troops or the officers who command them. That's no way to run a meritocracy, and that is exactly what the military is.

Rumsfeld is so keen on his new ideas to *make everything better* that he has frivolously ignored the tried-and-true, to our nations peril, to our indicidual peril and to the peril of the troops in uniform. This tunnelvision has caused him to lash out At any and all who dare offer another point of view.

Rumsfeld, like his boss, flatly refuses to accept this reality that they have created. And they do not intend to. Bush has told us that this will be the responsibility of the next administration and the next SecDef to find a way out of this clusterfuck.

Morality you say? What is that all about? Morality is an outdated concept and it has no place in a Rumsfeld DoD. All of these offenses add up to a shredding of the Honor Code, and that is the most important principle of a free country. The Honor Code is why a free country can remain free, without falling under the tyranny of it's military. The Honor Code is the most important construct of all, and should it fail, it could set off a chain of events that might easily destroy our nation.

For these reasons, and oh so many more, Rumsfeld is the worst Secretary of Defense this nation has ever seen.

No one will ever forget the name Donald Rumsfeld.

You want to know my nightmare scenario? The British pull a Dunkirk on us and abandon the south (contrary to the myth created by Churchill, the British, not the French, were the surrender monkeys in 1940), and the Shiites decide to cut the highway from Kuwait to Baghdad depriving us of our fuel supplies. If that happens, our troops are truly fucked and they have to walk back to Iraq or they are airlifted out, abandoning hundreds of billions of dollars worth of equipment.

Global Citizen:

Excellent takedown of Rumsfeld. Only one quibble with your post, though:

Dick Cheney may have been a lousy SecDef for any number of other reasons -- but not unleashing Stormin' Norman into Baghdad was not one of them.

That was absolutely the correct call. There is very little to argue that even 250k troops would have made the critical difference. Our coalition would've fallen apart and Japan would've backed away from continuing to pay for our presence there.

Bob

I agree Bob. THe resulting power vacuum has been a nightmare. I should have made that clear. He was a lousy SecDef, but made the right call where leaving Saddam in place was concerned.

I'm with both David W in the first comment and Freder Frederson more recently. Sooner or later either an American unit gets caught in a bad ambush and nearly wiped out, with dozen or more killed or captured at once and a protracted battle to rescue them reminiscent of Black Hawk Down in Mogadishu, or the Shiites decide to boot us out and turn the south into a 300-mile long killing zone for our convoys, multiplying our casualties by a factor of ten overnight.
Or both.

We lost 14 Marines from Ohio in one fell swoop a year ago.

Global:

Right, that was the helicopter crash. Wasn't that in a two-rotor Chinook -- a copter I can't help associating with Vietnam?

Bob

I must disagree with Suzanne on the result of the US not withdrawing from Iraq.

Al Queda has gone on record that they like us tied up in Iraq. They want us there.

Why would they do anything to upset that wish?

"Fighting terrorist there instead of in the US". Al Queda likely gave the Neocons that line.

It is not the car mechanic donating a couple of bucks to a "terrorist org." that is the problem. It is the terrorist neocons and their stoolies (GWBush) that is the problem.

I say, throw the whole gang in GITMO and see what we get. I bet we will find the actual perps in 11Sep, toot sweet.

If we had to fight our way into Sadr City to rescue a besieged American unit, the resulting casualties among the Iraqis, both militia and noncombatant residents (think many hundreds killed and wounded) could provoke a broad uprising by the Mehdi Army militia. Which would not be good. I.e., (1) prompts (2), in my 10:06 post.

Not a chopper crash, a large roadside bomb. Here is the link.

Globe:

Thanks for refreshing my memory. We lost eight at a clip in a copter, though I forget when and where. I do think they were also Marines, though.

And of course, we lost over 20 when that suicider blew himself inside a commissary ...

Bob

If we had to fight our way into Sadr City to rescue a besieged American unit

We abandoned an American soldier to a Sadr militia. This outrages me. In the 90's, I sent my husband into a war zone. The bargain was that if the worst happened, his country our country would go get him. They broke that promise to that soldier and now the word of the department of edefense is worthless, faithless, feckless and immaterial.

The 14 Marines at once was from two big mines, no? And there were 21 or so killed in a Chinook crash. Those were bad -- and the next one will really reverberate here, now that people are fed up with the war and basically just want the dying to stop. Especiall if the next such major incident also involves a battle with 30 or 40 wounded.

Good point (10:19), Global. rmck, I think there were 33 dead in that Mosul mess hall bombing. That's another awful scenario -- either a suicider or a car bomb somehow manages to penetrate the defenses and causes some serious carnage among a group of American troops. (Sort of like what happens to Iraqi civilians two or three times a week.)

twc:

And our wounded are becoming an increasing burden on the VA system. Never before in the history of warfare have so many guys survived catastrophic injury who would've previously died. I mean, gods bless advancing medical technology and quick evacuation from the battlefield -- but there's an untold story with the amount of severely wounded and traumatized, which I believe are approaching Vietnam levels because the wounded/killed ratio is so high compared to earlier wars.

Globe, you should know: How many severely wounded so far? Over 20k?

Bob

28,000 seriously wounded. Over 12K unable to return to duty, out on medical discharges. Nearly a thousand amputees. A million have rotated through theatre and 1/4 of them need readjustment help and mental health counseling. But vet centers are being cut. Patients who should receive individual therapy are getting group therapy.

Slee well tonight. We have a quarter million people trained to kill not getting the readjustment help they need.

They are so very good at soldiers, but they leave something to be desired when it comes to makeing men.

That should have read:

They are so very good at making soldiers, but they leave something to be desired when it comes to making men.

That's a good point, Bob. My sense is that the total number of wounded is not yet at Vietnam levels, but I suspect that the severely wounded may be getting close. Lots of burns, amputations and brain injuries from the IEDs -- and they will require much care for many years. I'm guessing that the VA's budget has not been adjusted at all yet.

Global, that incident was outside Haditha,where the 6 marine snipers were also killed just days before.
Those incidents may explain the killings in November in that town.
You might also note the marines killed by the roadside bomb were riding (along with their interpreter), in a lightly armored amphibious vehicle. Interesting supply issue since the town is near the Syrian border in a desert.

The SIGIR also noted (10/31/05 report) the logistical problems of the first Gulf War were extant in the second.
Oh yeah, that Rummy was good. Too bad he had to fight with the army he had and not the one he wished he had.

--->Even if one sneers at (or is agnostic towards) the neocons' theory, it is not unreasonable to think that failure in Iraq might result in fighting elsewhere in the Persian Gulf, with the added disadvantage of having another safe haven for terrorists.

You gotta be kidding me! What the fuck are they going to do--swim here???

Fix what's wrong with our border and port security and we won't have to fear them--they are more likely to keep shitting their own bed as opposed to coming here to try to kill us. Never bought that theory--they are NOT coming to behead us and put our womenfolk in robes and shit, dude.

Neocons=war criminals. Deal with it!!!

mm242

It was the army they had for the war they chose.

I'm guessing that the VA's budget has not been adjusted at all yet.

Actually, the funding for rehab and research for traumatic brain injury have been cut.

But $20 million was earmarked for a victory party!

--->Actually, the funding for rehab and research for traumatic brain injury have been cut.

Yes--jail for the motherfuckers that did that, please. J A I L. Prison. lock them up and forget to feed them.

mm242

And Condi is auditioning for a reprise of My Fair Lady - Only this time, she will play Prof Higgins and will sing, "Why can't the Iraqis be more like the Vietamese?"

Hmmm, I wonder how those Vietamese were able to become so successful? The late switch to Capitalism? The overthrow of an American puppet government? Standing at the base of our embassy and saying, "Yo'all come back, hear"?

So, perhaps the Iraqis should be a'gettin' on with it. Now, let me see, which came first?

Remember that the Katrina response was so pathetic because all of the Louisiana Guard's deep-water vehicles were in Iraq.

Rejected Historian
I'd like to see someone name one better Secretary of Defense/War in this nation's history. Put TOH in your post and I'll search for it

Henry Stimson

From Wikipedia

Henry Lewis Stimson (September 21, 1867 – October 20, 1950) was an American statesman, who served as Secretary of War, Governor-General of the Philippines, and Secretary of State. He was a conservative Republican, and a leading lawyer in New York City. He is best known as the civilian Secretary of War during World War II, chosen for his aggressive stance against Nazi Germany, with responsibility for the Army and Air Force. He managed the drafting and training of 12 million soldiers and airmen, the purchase and transportation to battlefields of 30% of the nation's industrial output, and the building and decision to use the atomic bomb.

tomeck:

Nice call.

Bob

If Al-Qaeda and/or the Baathists insist on fighting us, and they do, why is on-going warfare in Iraq bad?

Because we risk a larger regional war ? Because we are turning muslims (the largest religion in the world) against us ? Because its costing a lot of resources and returning very little in the way of results ?

By all accounts, Al Qaeda represents a very small percentage of the insurgency. Most of the violence in Iraq is secular.

See:Abizad, Kissinger, Casey, etc..Iraq is a political problem that isn't going to be resolved through military force.

I think that Al here is the parody Al again.

I've said it before, so I will say it again, the only answer is a scheduled withdrawal. This is not being unfair to Iraqi's, as it gives them 6 months to get their forces up and running. Right now, Maliki has NO incentive for Americancs to leave. We are providing him not only with military protection, but with political cover, as well. With American troops around, he can complain about their actions, earning his bonafides amonth the Iraqi public.

According to Gen. Abizaid, there are zero - ZERO - Iraqi squadrons that can act independent of American troops. After 3+ years, that is unfathomable. If you oppose "One Last Puch", or adding more troops, or scheduled withdrawal, you're basically committing yourself to "stay the course", which is the worst of the options.

Scheduled phased withdrawal - it's the only viable option.

"One Last Puch" should be "One Last Push". Freudian?

--->I've said it before, so I will say it again, the only answer is a scheduled withdrawal. This is not being unfair to Iraqi's, as it gives them 6 months to get their forces up and running.

The problem is, what will they do with the six months? they've pissed away three years. Six months is too longt--our troops gotta start leaving so they get the message. And the message is this--quit fucking around and make yoruself a country. We're done. Bye.

mm242

Global,

For a more interestng view of SecDef, have you perused Thomas Gates record while serving under DDE? He was responsible for creating the Joint group which oversaw the coordination of SAC and the Navy's Poseidon efforts.

One of Rumdumb's problems, was that he thought he was hired to be The Offensive Coordinator, instead of the Defensive Coordinator - His new concept of the "East Coast Offense" has not been as well received as that of the "West Coast". Opposing DCs can never defeat it head on, but can get it out of rhythm with sneak blitzing schemes.

Fantastic post by Global Citizen at 9:52; what an excellent summary of the Rumsfeld pathology and how it has harmed the military.

Good observations by Bob as well at 9:40 on the neocon ass-covering that is now taking place and its emerging memes.

Kevin, I have to say, ordinarily I'm not a fan of your posts because I often consider them fairly conventional, run of the mill, etc. But here, you've sort of boldly made an unconventional (and largely correct in my view) assessment. Good post.

Sparhawk:

That's the thing about BushCo. Even reflexive moderates wind up pushing the tinfoil envelope, because as bad as things may *appear* to be -- time after time their reality turns out to be even *worse* than some of the conspiracy theories ...

Bob

Above all, let's remember and be wary: (1.) It was the Bush misadministration and it's Republican/business/neocon allies that got us into this mess and screwed it all up. (2.) Bush is still trying to avoid blame, as we can see from the scheme to say that if only we tried one last push, and if we don't of course he and his apologists will say that's what lost the war... They will try to pin it on everyone else, and we must be prepared to fight back and fight hard.

melosebrain,

You might not be far off - This could be "One Last Putsch".

I have to go to class now, but I must say this was a rather pleasant exchange. I certainly did not miss the charlie troll.

Catch you all later.

Neil':

That is absolutely true. We're witnessing the seeds of the "stab in the back legend" (forget the German word) -- and it's quite significant that McCain's carrying its water. It's not going to happen -- but this untried plan will become GOP base's main talking point on how the Dems "lost" Iraq after we pull out.

And it won't matter that we pulled out according to Baker's or anybody else's expert recommendation. This will merely become an article of faith, the way that appointing John Carter Vincent and John Service as "old China hands" in the diplomatic corps who tried to warn about the corruption and inept leadership of Chaing Kai Shek became how we "lost" China to Mao's armies ...

Bob

That's the thing about BushCo. Even reflexive moderates wind up pushing the tinfoil envelope, because as bad as things may *appear* to be -- time after time their reality turns out to be even *worse* than some of the conspiracy theories ...

"I deeply resent the way this administration makes me feel like a nutbar conspiracy theorist." -- Teresa Neilsen Hayden

Globe:

*SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH*

Don't speak its name. Seriously, you might jinx it.

Have a good class.

Bob

We're witnessing the seeds of the "stab in the back legend" (forget the German word)

Dolchstosslegende.

--->We're witnessing the seeds of the "stab in the back legend" (forget the German word)

The word is Dolchstosslegende

The dupe was unintentional--my bad.

But it was twue, it was twue.

mm242:

Well it's a great word -- and definitely worth committing to memory. Now if only I knew how to properly *pronounce* it ...

Bob

Nonsense Kevin. Keeping troops in Iraq and staying the course is the best way to prevent a unplanned exit. By keeping troops in Iraq, we can use the troops to regain momentum in Iraq, momentum which was lost because of the Democrats victory in the Congressional elections and the terrorists now feel emboldened by the liberal victories.

Bwaaaaa They were emboldened by Bushies Mission Accomplished sign!!

And after 43 months of GOP Stay the Course of course they are emboldened!!

And after FOX news gace them two million dollars they were further emboldened!!

Not to mention when Bechtel pulled out, before the elections, they were further emboldened!!

Really AL where do you get such goofy ideas? Do you really think congress is gonna don some kevlar vests and go fight in this war?

Do the troops automatically become Liberal because more chickenhawks are elected? Of course not.

For the administration to use the term "Big Push" is unwise and an unfortunate reminder of WWI. The British generals used that term throughout the war in reference to the latest military offensive that would end the war. As it turned out, each "Big Push" would merely wind down without the expected result, but with a huge influx of casulties. For Brits and Commonwealth persons, the term has the same connotation as "light at the end of the tunnel" for Americans of Vietnam War vintage.

Kevin when are you gonna Ban AL?

He offers nothing but the same old Rovian blame game time and time again. Always some goofy opinion that he heard on FOX news, Or Rush Limbaugh, maybe Jonah Goldberg.

AL do you ever think for yourself?

--->For the administration to use the term "Big Push" is unwise and an unfortunate reminder of WWI.

Is there a German word for people who are childish and can't learn from their mistakes? Because I've got fucking schadenfreude watching them go to pieces lately.

mm242

oofda:

Thanks for the history. Heh, a "big push" played out in a trench warfare stalemate. Nice.

Well, if you don't like "big push," there's always "wizened little shove."

(apologizes to Frank Zappa)

Bob

Guess we are gonna have to spam kevins blog until he bans AL and forces him to take his opinions back to freekrepublic where the hate mailers congregate.

Guess we are gonna have to spam kevins blog until he bans AL and forces him to take his opinions back to freekrepublic where the hate mailers congregate.

Guess we are gonna have to spam kevins blog until he bans AL and forces him to take his opinions back to freekrepublic where the hate mailers congregate.

Guess we are gonna have to spam kevins blog until he bans AL and forces him to take his opinions back to freekrepublic where the hate mailers congregate.

Guess we are gonna have to spam kevins blog until he bans AL and forces him to take his opinions back to freekrepublic where the hate mailers congregate.

Guess we are gonna have to spam kevins blog until he bans AL and forces him to take his opinions back to freekrepublic where the hate mailers congregate.

Guess we are gonna have to spam kevins blog until he bans AL and forces him to take his opinions back to freekrepublic where the hate mailers congregate.

Guess we are gonna have to spam kevins blog until he bans AL and forces him to take his opinions back to freekrepublic where the hate mailers congregate.

Inateresting point about the "Big Push" in WW1 and when tied in with the popular song of that ear "and we won't be home until it's over, over there" has the elements of stay the course.

However, I do believe that Rumdumb and the neo-cons would have very much liked to have either conducted one Putsch in, say, Teheran or Damascus, or a series of them before they lost power - Something theraphutic for them secretly overthrowing governments. The Putsch Gang that couldn't shoot straight with the public.

L33t DeWD:

Cut it out.

Kevin can't either siteban or implement registration and ban by valid email address.

It ain't Kevin's issue. It's WM's -- they can't afford to spring for a software update to the newer version of MoveableType.

You have an issue with that -- take it to Kevin in email.

Thanks.

Bob

Conservative Deflator:

I have also been anticipating a truly dramatic event that escalates this low-level civil war into something far more ugly or deadly. One truck bomb in the middle of the barracks at Camp Anaconda or a coordinated missile attack on the Green Zone could instantly raise the daily American death toll from three or four to three or four hundred or three or four thousand. It will happen if we hang around long enough. Count on it.

You'd better hope not. The resulting orgasm will probably kill you.

The problem is, what will they do with the six months? they've pissed away three years.

Absolutely, but have they pissed away 3 yrs because Dumbya's given them a blank check? "We will stand down as Iraqi forces stand up" is a load of BS. It should be, "You have to have 100,000 troops ready by March 1, beacuse we're removing half our troops on that date". If they don't get the message then, they never will.

Well, if you want Al banned, you had better ban Kevin - Al is Kevin's alter ego - He likes to stimulate the debate - sort of a sick, Point-Counterpoint - Al is the James Kilpatrick to Kevin's Shana Alexander. Or the SNL takeoff, Ackroyd to Curtin.

Kevin seems to advocate setting our overall military policy only by possible worst-case scenarios.

So would it be prudent to retreat in Iraq if the chance of these terrible things happening was greater than, let's say, 1 percent?

Of course the premise here is that there is NO chance of a successful outcome if the U.S. continues to support the Iraqis. Zero.

There aint enough Indians in the world to defeat the 7th Cav......George Armstrong Custer

It's surprising that by now we haven't experienced the Iraqi equivalent of the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut or the dragging of a corpse of an American soldier through the streets of Mogadishu a decade later. But it seems likely that that day will come.

I've wondered the same thing. If I were in charge of the Iraqi insurgency, I'd want a big symbolic victory to show that not only can't the US provide security for Iraqis, they can't even protect themselves. Something like taking out an entire convoy or destroying an entire combat unit. The best reason I can come up with to explain why this hasn't happened is the apparently fragmentary nature of the insurgency. It could be that no single insurgency group is powerful enough or professional enough to accomplish a big operation like that.

Also, maybe they don't see the need. They're winning, maybe they feel that nothing's broken.

Another point, perhaps insurgence groups spend resources on targeting other insurgents or civilians, the US military is only one of several targets.

billw:

Why not? We *invaded* Iraq on the 1% chance that they had an active WMD program.

Bob

Global Citizen wrote:

We abandoned an American soldier to a Sadr militia. This outrages me. In the 90's, I sent my husband into a war zone. The bargain was that if the worst happened, his country our country would go get him.
__________________

That's never been the bargain, GC. The promise is that they'll try to get us, but only so long as it does not adverselyaffect the mission or extract an unreasonable cost from other troops or the nation.

And now on Armed Forces Radio, another rendition of the late great Sam Cooke's "Save the Last Big Push for Me"

--->It ain't Kevin's issue. It's WM's -- they can't afford to spring for a software update to the newer version of MoveableType.

They don't need to upgrade--the IPs are available on the administrator's end. If they chose to use the software properly, they could end this problem in a couple of weeks of steady banning. All blog software has the IPs of everyone who posts--try to double post too quickly, it registers your IP and stops you. This software also has a feature that bans your IP if you get caught in that spam filter. It ain't bad but it ain't the best. The best is what In These Times uses--they solved their Freeper problem over a year ago.

But that's wrong--the IPs are there. You just gotta do the homework.

Then, the IPs could be handed over to the Feds and the whole thing would disappear, depending on whether the Feds actually do something about this issue.

mm242

TOH

Hans Asperger

--->That's never been the bargain, GC. The promise is that they'll try to get us, but only so long as it does not adverselyaffect the mission or extract an unreasonable cost from other troops or the nation.

Way to duck his point and conflate the issue, asshole.

We *abandoned* a soldier to the enemy. Period. End of the fucking discussion.

mm242

Trashauler,

But they did have to change the mission to that of "Operation Backword Together".

I imagine a certain Lt Col would have liked to have conducted that operation one morning in Montana starting at the bottom of a ravine.

tomeck:

Nice call.

Bob

Agreed. It appears that if Stimson was Secretary of Defense, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been over a lot sooner. Of course, there would have been a few more civilian casualties...

The trouble may have started when "Secretary of War" became "Secretary of Defense."

mercury_man_242 wrote:

"(Quoting me)'Even if one sneers at (or is agnostic towards) the neocons' theory, it is not unreasonable to think that failure in Iraq might result in fighting elsewhere in the Persian Gulf, with the added disadvantage of having another safe haven for terrorists.'

You gotta be kidding me! What the fuck are they going to do--swim here???

Fix what's wrong with our border and port security and we won't have to fear them...."
_________________

mm, you'll notice that sentence you quoted said, "fighting elsewhere in the Persian Gulf." It wasn't intended to address the fear of terrorist attacks in the CONUS. That is a distinctly different, though related, threat.

We are unlikely to become so disengaged from the rest of the world that we can rely solely on defenses to protect us and our interests. If fighting occurs elsewhere in the Middle East, we'll be involved, to one degree or another.

The hypocrites screaming that we did not tear apart part of Baghdad to rescue one soldier should sit down and shut up.

While I, too, think that they should have done so, had they overrode the Iraqi leadership and destroyed a civilian area with heavy casualties in the process, I would not have condemned them for that. You certainly would have.

--->We are unlikely to become so disengaged from the rest of the world that we can rely solely on defenses to protect us and our interests. If fighting occurs elsewhere in the Middle East, we'll be involved, to one degree or another.

No quarrel with that--how bout we figure out a way to stop using their goddamned oil?

mm242