Jonah Goldberg gives the Democrats too much credit for wanting to win. Thanks for the reminder.

So, where is the Democratic plan for victory? Anybody?

This is a serious question (OK, well, partly snarky, but also partly serious):

Are op-ed columnists really not subjected to basic fact-checking?

So, where is the Democratic plan for victory? Anybody?

So where is bush's plan for victory? Anybody?

And what is so wrong with increasing troops? Defeat is not a option. The worst that could happen with more troops is we don't completely succeed. It's certainly better to give it one more try rather than to simply accept defeat as liberals and democrats want us to do.

Jonah's only goal is to harass the left. No real political discourse will ever come from him, only silliness.

Sad.

The biggest question now is simply 'In what does victory consists?'. We hear a lot of people saying we need victory, but no one saying what exactly it is that we need. If 'victory' means 'installing a pro-Western democracy', then obviously that isn't going to be the result no matter what we do. 'Victory' simply seems to mean 'not leaving' or 'not leaving while Bush is still in office' as far as I can tell.

Plan to win? No one has a plan to win. Getting out with the least amount of damage is the plan.

The Democratic plan for victory? It's very simple - GET OUT OF IRAQ.

Best plan to reduce US troop deaths, without question. But maybe that isn't so important to some . . .

So where is bush's plan for victory? Anybody?

Oh that's right it's "Stay the Course" until 21 Jan 09 then it becomes the next chump's problem.

There's also a difference between "increasing the size of the Army" and "increasing the number of troops in Iraq." One can think that it might be a good idea to recruit more soldiers generally, and at the same time think it a very bad idea to push those new soldiers into the meat grinder of Iraq.

So Al -

"One more try"? Does that mean that ff the troop escalation goes forward and 6 months from now there is still no clear progress, we can withdraw?

If that were the actual offer from Bush last night, I'd probably support the damned thing.

This whole "plan for victory" talking point is pure bull, and anyone with half a brain knows it.

"American Hawk" conveniently pretends to forget the basic fact that there can be only two outcomes from an occupation; either you slaughter the inhabitants and annex the territory, or you leave.

The former is unthinkable in Iraq, so the latter is inevitable. All we are doing by keeping our troops in Iraq is preventing Iraqis from sorting out their own internal differences, and getting our troops killed for no good reason.

The comment by AHawk suggests that the true goal of the Bush surge proposal is to deflect blame for losing the war on the Dems. Bush proposes an escalation that is unworkable, with half the troop level demanded by Frederick Kagan's blueprint, and with no 18-month commitment as demanded by Kagan. He is proposing a weak plan to lure others into shooting it down and taking the blame for the inevitable chaos in Baghdad.

I also find it interesting that the hook-words that the White House floated in the days before the speech were downplayed in the speech itself, in great contrast to the winning phrase "way forward" in speeches a few weeks back. It tells you that when Rove&Co focus-grouped various phrases, they didnt succeed. The negative polls after Bush's speech were probably not a surprise to the WH handlers.

Kenneth: Yes, Kerry did propose increasing the end strength of the Army and Marines by 40,000 troops, much of which would have gone to increasing the size of special forces. A number of other Democrats have supported that idea as well.

But as you say, that has nothing at all to do with increasing the number of U.S. forces in Iraq.

So, where is the Democratic plan for victory? Anybody?

The prison warden overheard the ring-leader scolding his gang from their collective jail cell:

I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANYMORE GROUSING ABOUT PRISON LIFE. WHAT I WANT TO HEAR IS, WHAT'S YOUR PLAN FOR GETTING OUR HANDS ON THE BANKS DOUGH?

Al smells funny...

Give me a break with your "defeat is not an option" rhetoric... Its over, we have already lost this war... If the King had provided enough troops in the beginning (not now) we might have had a chance of winning. Maybe. We need to step back and let the Iraqis fight it out. Its a civil war that we should not be involved in. Last night we heard again that we will stay the failed course we are on. I guess what the "people" want does not matter. The king knows all. The president is delusional and an ass. And so is Al.

I'd go so far as to say that at the point that Dems were pointing out we needed more troops, the same people calling for them now were accusing Dems of being terrorist sympathizers and enablers for even bringing up the idea. I would point to the 2004 election as evidence. So I wouldn't be suprised that the smallest amount of research would show that Goldberg was against the troop increases before he was for them, and I wager that he probably went so far as to wonder why those who wanted more troops circa 2003-4 hated America.

Where is he Dem's plan for victory? I hate to bring up this stale analogy, but it's akin to the captain of the titanic looking at the passengers and blaming them for not coming up with a plan to rescue the ship as it is sinking. The Dems have been largely left out of the whole process from the beginning and held no real power to do anything. The mess we're in now was wholly created by Bush and the GOP Congress, and we've reached a point where no palatable option exists, certainly none where any real victory is possible. Not in terms of what victory might have meant back in 2003, especially. This surge has one objective: to kick this can down the road so the next president has to shoulder some blame and deal with the hard questions because Bush has nothing. He can't come up with a solution because how's he supposed to correct the situation when he can't even admit to a mistake? Plus, I suspect as with most choices made within this administration, their idea of victory is framed by politics and how history might view GW.

Kevin wrote: "But we need to put this canard to bed before it catches on."

Jonah Goldberg is paid a lot of money to lie.

Deceiving weak-minded, ignorant, gullible neo-brownshirt mental slave dittoheads with blatant lies is his job, just as it is the job of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Fox News, Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times, the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, etc.

He's not going to stop because someone publicly points out that what he's writing is a lie. He already knows it's a lie.

He's certainly not going to stop lying because a liberal blogger complains about it.

The current plan isn't a plan at all, but shuffling the deck-chairs on the Titanic.

And did we ever, ever define "victory"? There is no Democratic "plan" for victory in Iraq because the Republican leadership has fucked up in Iraq so utterly and completely that no victory is possible, if it ever was possible. The justification for the invasion kept morphing and morphing, from WMD, to regime change to stablizing the new government to staying the course.

Since whatever Bushco does seems to make the situation worse, I think the Democratic strategy should be, whatever Bushco proposes, do the opposite.

Goldberg gets paid for his drech and I just have to catch-as-catch-can because I'm stuck in a cubicle in the bottom of the customer service department!

Wait! I've got to leave this "temp" job to work my second "temp" job.

Fudge! (...only I didn't say "fudge").

"Defeat "

You keep using that word.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

"The worst that could happen with more troops is we don't completely succeed."

No, Al, I think the worst that could happen is to have dozens (or hundreds) of more soldiers come back maimed or in body bags. It's easy to throw more lambs to the wolves when they're someone else's sons, daughters, fathers, etc. Suggestion: Al, if the worst that could happen is we don't completely succeed, why don't you get your sorry ass over there and ensure that we do succeed?

Kevin: For the record: Many Democrats, along with plenty of conservatives, have noted that the initial invasion of Iraq didn't have enough troops to successfully occupy the country. And they might be right. However, that's quite a different thing from advocating that we send more U.S. troops to Baghdad now, something that I don't recall either Kerry or Pelosi ever advocating.

So, more troops were needed when Bush sent fewer troops, but not when Bush sent more troops. How conveeeenient, as the Church Lady would say.

So, what was the magic date when more troops suddenly switched from essential to wrong? And, how do the Democrats deduce how many troops were needed at any given time?

No Bush critic will answer these two questions, because there is no answer. The simple fact is that a number of people will criticize and carp at anything the President does to try to win the war. Kevin is usually a fairminded critic. I'm sorry to see him defend those who are not.

Are op-ed columnists really not subjected to basic fact-checking?

Basic fact-checking?!?! Hell, they're not even subject to an originality check. This week alone, Samuelson churned out the dozen-th iteration of his pet screed, "I've never heard of this Iraq war you speak of, but those selfish pensioners and their entitlements are a waste of money". The next day, Georgie Will got paid for the latest iteration of his "I've never heard of bloated management or poorly-designed cars, but union workers are entirely to blame for the decline of the auto industry."

These guys aren't writers, they're algorithms.

So, where is the Democratic plan for victory? Anybody?

Withdrawal with all deliberate speed and redeploy to Kuwait.

In the Global War on Terror, this is a pointless waste of resources. We should never have let ourselves get bogged down Iraq any more than we should have let ourselve get bogged down in Somalia.

And while our Army rebuilds and our troops rotate home, we should take out Osama Bin Laden.

Here here PTate!! The Republicans and Jonah Goldberg have always won the War of Rhetoric, so much so that the public believes their lies. (See polls pre-Iraq showing that the Majority of Americans thought there was a 9/11-Iraq link).

So, it is too late for Victory-with-a-Capitol-V, all we can do is exactly what PTate suggested and become an opposition party.

Hello! Congress controls the purse, and the Dems need to do just what the GOP did in 1996 and shut down this idea by cutting funding. It is easy to say "we support the troops already in Iraq, we are introducing a bill that would extend blah blah benefits to soldiers who have served in the war on terror but we will not finance Americans being killed in a pointless, thoughtless war.

Someone needs to watch Dave. When he saves the kids funding. Like that.

Y'know..., somebody crashed into my car. It's totalled but the tank is empty. Can anybody help tow my car to the gas station for a fill up?

Iraq's kinda like that.

Goldberg has publically admited that he's too fat to fight in Iraq. Guess the battle for civilization is not important enough to lose weight. He's like the rest of the ChickenHawk ChickenShits.

What is Chuck Hagel's plan for victory? Any other Republican who opposes escalation have a plan?

I heard Tony Blankley, ex-aide to Newt, on NPR recently characterize Iraq's "government" as a "bunch of guys huddling in the Green Zone" or something close to that. Obviously the situations are different in many ways, but like in Vietnam, there is very little "there" there, next to nothing to prop up.

Keep repeating: There is no military solution.

"Patriot" "Hawk" -

The Democratic plan for victory is the 9/11 Commission Report. In case you've forgotten already.

BTW, hawkish patriot, I assume you're posting this stuff from Iraq, since the administration's now calling for volunteers to join the Army. Correct?

Ah, Kevin; I see it was your turn to take out the trash this time. Thanks for what must seem a largely thankless chore.

ex-liberal wheezes:

So, what was the magic date when more troops suddenly switched from essential to wrong?

On the day that the misbegotten, lie- and hysteri-fueled invasion began, you obtuse twit.

And, how do the Democrats deduce how many troops were needed at any given time?

Well, once upon a time, by following the advice of a certain General Shinseki. But Dear Leader and Paul "Fighting Thinktanker" Wolfowitz knew way better, didn't they?

You gonna keep on with the disingenuous bullshit?

Ex-liberal: Your "magic date" occurred on the day that Preisdent Bush noted last night, when Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred shrines in Shi'ite Islam. They wanted to provoke a civil war, they succeeded it is unstoppable at this point.

I've come to the conclusion that Al is the most successful parody troll in the history of the interwebs. No US citizen is so enamored of the boy king that he would use cheap throw away lines like "one more try" as if they're trying to get an old car to start when what he's talking about is the cavalier squandering of American lives for no good reason.

He has to be trying to show the fecklessness of bush and his supporters when he says things like that. Right?

To all hawks on this matter,
please put your money where your mouth and enlist and go fight your own goddamn war.

So, where is the Democratic plan for victory? Anybody?

There is no victory...only death.

Oh that's right it's "Stay the Course" until 21 Jan 09

Noooo. It's now "A New Way Forward" aka "Stay the Course, Part Deux"

American Hawk,

Your "W" Cheerleader uniform and matching pom poms will be delivered by FedEx by COB today.

Dems victory in Iraq:(1)Clear the country of WMD.(done) (2) Remove Saddam from power. (done) (3) Install elected iraqi goverment. (done). (4) bring the troops home.(not done).Clearly all the things that need to be done for victory are done exept Bush keeping the troops in Iraq for polical purposes.

I guess it's Golden Oldies Day on the right. Or, more likely, desperation time.

Right the second time -- just check out "ex-liberal"'s risible performance since yesterday.

What's more, those who supported increasing troops never said that a mere 20,000 would suffice.

This Bush Flaccid Surge plan has zero to do with reality on the ground. It's something to make him feel like he's trying hard, and it allows him to punt to the next president.

"American Hawk" wrote: Jonah Goldberg gives the Democrats too much credit for wanting to win.

No, he gives Bush too much credit by saying he's trying.

The worst that could happen with more troops is we don't completely succeed.

Exactly right as usual, Al. I would add that more troops dying or suffering debiliating injuries in a last-ditch attempt to prop up a wildly ill-conceived vanity war is also kinda bad. But certainly not as bad as the obvious Worst Case: that we don't comletely succeed.

(Also, nice use of the word "we" since us tough guy cheeto muncher Bush apologists are equivalent to the soldiers in the field. Great job, Al. We rock.)

And, how do the Democrats deduce how many troops were needed at any given time?

We pay attention to the findings of the war-games exercises, just for starters. How many fucking times do I have to offer you the link to Desert Crossing before you acknowledge it and stop pretending we are just making shit up?

Noooo. It's now "A New Way Forward" aka "Stay the Course, Part Deux

"A New Way Forward." Got it!

Would any war supporter give a quantifiable definition of "victory"? Anything at all, such as, say, "fewer than 10 Iraqis killed per day by sectarian violence."

Would that war supporter then give a date when that "victory" will be achieved? Such as, say, January 1, 2009.

Further, would that war supporter give odds that "victory" will be achieved by that date. Such as, say, 50%.

Finally, would that war supporter wage a bet - based on his definition, his date, his odds - of $1000 to support his view?

I'm tired of listening to all these blowhards be wrong all the time. I want to make some money off their idiot notions.

Are op-ed columnists really not subjected to basic fact-checking?

Yes, obviously.

This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions (h/t Atrios).

Did anyone think that most of this escalation is really just increasing the troops in the area for our inevitable invasion of Iran?

Deceiving weak-minded (A.Hawk), ignorant (ex-liberal), gullible (Mike Cook) neo-brownshirt (monkeybone) mental slave dittoheads (Marler) with blatant lies is his job...

Bush proposes an escalation that is unworkable, with half the troop level demanded by Frederick Kagan's blueprint

Not to mention the US Army's own counterinsurgency manual.

SecularAnimist wrote: Jonah Goldberg is paid a lot of money to lie.

"ex-liberal" and his/her/its ilk must be so jealous...

sglover asked of "ex-liberal": You gonna keep on with the disingenuous bullshit?

Yes, he/she/it will.

This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions (ht/Atrios).

In answer to ex-liberal's "magic date" question:

Well, I'm no expert, but I'd have to say that it was sometime between when the barn door was opened, and when the traitorous liberal media had the temerity to suggest that there were no longer any horses inside.

ex-lib:"So, what was the magic date when more troops suddenly switched from essential to wrong?"

Well the precise date is a little obscure. It was after the 2004 election, when John Kerry was ridiculed by conservatives for recommending additional troops. It was before the Nov 2006 elections--by which time it had become clear that the US had lost in Iraq, that our troops were caught in the middle of a internicine feud that had been simmering for centuries, and that the primary beneficiary of the US invasion of Iraq was our enemy, Iran.

My own guess would put it in April 2006 which is when Gen. Hussein Kamal's commented to the AP: "Is there a civil war? Yes, there is an undeclared civil war that has been there for a year or more,"

And when Newt Gingrich concluded that "It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003,"

And when the US Army admitted that it experienced its highest suicide rate since 1999, in 2005.

I really get tired of hearing that defeat is "not an option." If the success of this war was so paramount to national security, then it deserved to be discussed openly and honestly before we went in. Yet we have the esteemable Mr. Rumsfeld setting conditions like this on the military prior to the invasion:

"I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," [Brigadier General] Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.

"He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war."

So, what was the magic date when more troops suddenly switched from essential to wrong? And, how do the Democrats deduce how many troops were needed at any given time?

No Bush critic will answer these two questions, because there is no answer.

Stand back, ex-liberal, while I answer the unanswerable:

1) As you ought to have known, "magic dates" wouldn't be magic if they were known. So, that's hardly a sporting question. However, a high-ranking officer of the US armed forces was unceremoniously retired for daring to suggest that 400K troops would be necessary to successfully occupy Iraq. Also, a lot of ugly things can happen in 3+ years, such as losing the good-will of the local population. Or, as a wiseman once said, "You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube."

2) They listen to military experts? Like Shinseki, Zinni, etc. Or, like Casey, Abizaid, etc, both of whom recently said that more US troops would not help.

Ho-hum.

I do love Al's line, "the worst that could happen with more troops is that we don't completely succeed." True. That's what the history books will say, right? It's not that they failed, it's that they didn't completely succeed! They sent 20,000 more people into a quagmire, and didn't completely succeed. Oh well!

Goldberg: "For an increase before they were against an increase"
If I understand correctly, an Army Chief of Staff said we would need a large number of troops. GW/Cheney/Rumsfeld said No. Chief of Staff replaced.
GW admits the troop size was insufficient. Currently, senior military staff said a temporary increase of 20K troops would not correct the situation in Iraq. GW said, Yes, he was going to "surge" ahead. Several senior military staff were replaced.
If GW was wrong initially, why should he be given the benefit of the doubt now?
Forget about what the Democrats/Liberals/Progressives said. Doesn't it appear that his military advisers gave him correct advice that was ignored by Bush.
After Vietnam, the military went through a lot of pain to make sure the advise they gave was factual and not political. Bush appears intent on destroying that effort.
Oh, by the way, senior military staff also thinks the Army is near the breaking point with Bush's adventurism. Should we ignore those facts as well?

Gregory, supra, has mentioned the counter insurgency manual - Do believe they are being used as platforms for temporary desks - However, the popular new book is "How to Haggle, er Negotiate at the Grand Bazaar in Tehran" Lots of good deals on rugs - Many Going Out of Business Sales.

ex-lib:"So, what was the magic date when more troops suddenly switched from essential to wrong?"

Why don't you explain why you can't recognize that the situation on the ground in Iraq has gotten worse?

Back when Shinseki said we needed more troops would have marked the beginning of the continuum when more troops could have helped; sometime in the last year, year-and-a-half, we passed a point where more troops won't help. Are you so stupid that you can't see we've passed that point? And if so, why should we bother trying to talk to you? What can you possibly contribute?

So, what was the magic date when more troops suddenly switched from essential to wrong?

Can't tell you the exact date but at some point, because chimpy and his gang -- against the advice of their most experienced generals -- wanted to fight a cakewalk instead of a war, the situation became irrecoverable. At that point, "more troops" became a foolish choice. Still is.

Even better would be not to have gone in in the first place.

our inevitable invasion of Iran?
As we used to say on the playground: you and whose army? Ours seems to be currently overommitted.

This administration needs to be impeached.

And, once again, a significant clarification. Bush's 20,000 man "surge" is just labeling, not a change.

As Jose Padilla pointed out on another thread, "we aren't sending "more troops." We are currently at 132,000. Adding 21,000 gives us 153,000. We were as high as 160,000 last year. This is just more "stay the course.""

This is like before the last election when Bushco tried to frame the usual troop rotations as "bringing the troops home".

So, where is the Democratic plan for victory? Anybody?
Posted by: American Hawk

What drivel. There is no plan for victory, Democratic, Republican or Martian.

Iraq is a QUAGMIRE! you dolt! Invading Iraq was a bad idea on day one, the war was lost the day Rummy fired Shinseki for advocating 400,000 troops (meaning, no chance that the Senate would authorize).

There are no good choices! Get it? That is the definition of a quagmire. I await your apology for calling me a coward, defeatocrat, terrorist lover, or what ever other trash has poured out of your ignorant mouth.

The anti-war forces have been right for five years, the pro-war forces wrong. You have dug the hole deep enough, please stop.

It is pretty clear from listening to the news that the President's speech hasn't inspired much confidence. In fact Condi Rice seems to have been abused pretty badly at a hearing today by members of her own party. All that said there is no showing that the President or any member of his administration get it. Despite his belief in the Unitary President, the American people pretty much expect a President to serve their interests. They will not tolerate a jackass who thinks he is King.

Right now the American people don't see a path to victory. They don't want to fight an occupation that can't be won. They want peace, George W. Bush's legacy be damned.

Jonah Goldberg gives the Democrats too much credit for wanting to win.
Posted by: American Hawk on January 11, 2007 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

American Hawk, would you mind indulging us with the names of some Democrats who have stated that they want us to lose in Iraq?

Also, note the number of veterans (some Iraq vets) who were elected (as Democrats) back in November.

BTW, do you think that handing Iraq over to the Iranians (in effect, anyway) is worth the life or limb of one more American? Why?

American Hawk-

There is no Democratic plan for victory because victory is no longer possible (assuming it ever was!). Republican carping about the lack of a Democratic plan for victory is like a drunk driver who steers his car off a cliff then berates his passenger for not navigating them back onto the road!

We need to stop wasting lives and resources in pursuit of an impossible victory in Iraq and instead turn our attentions to extracting our forces with minimal damage so we can begin to contain the consequences of this Republican sponsored colossal fuck-up! Any talk of victory is dangerous and delusional in the extreme.

Yes, the consequences of withdrawal are dire, but staying in Iraq does nothing to prevent the days of reckoning for our president's reckless adventurism, it merely delays them while our military is bled white. The consequences will be dire indeed, that's why we shouldn't have invaded in the first place! Sadly, warnings to that effect were brushed aside as weakness and worry four years ago by the same flock of self assured, breathtakingly ignorant "American Hawks" who present them as reasons to stay. You guys were wrong then and you're wrong now and you'll probably be wrong tomorrow.

For Al and most Republicans, "victory" is what inflates his ego, and defeat is stuff that deflates it.

About Americans and Iraqis getting killed...they don't care, reality has nothing to do with it for Al and the like.

Goldberg should get off his ass and enlist for Iraq.

Oh that's right, I forgot.
He is a repug warmongerer...
Ain't no fight in that craven breed of pooch.

Hannity was sounding the same theme last night during post mortem commentary. He said words to the effect that 'ALL Democratic congresspersons were on record supporting more troops. Now they're against it only because President Bush is for it...'

"So, where is the Democratic plan for victory? Anybody?"

Thus the raven chideth blackness.

The idiots who advocate more troops in Iraq now are probably in favor of performing CPR on corpses.

So, more troops were needed when Bush sent fewer troops, but not when Bush sent more troops. How conveeeenient, as the Church Lady would say.

So, what was the magic date when more troops suddenly switched from essential to wrong? And, how do the Democrats deduce how many troops were needed at any given time?

No Bush critic will answer these two questions, because there is no answer. The simple fact is that a number of people will criticize and carp at anything the President does to try to win the war. Kevin is usually a fairminded critic. I'm sorry to see him defend those who are not.
Posted by: ex-liberal

I'll answer both your dishonest and cowardly questions.

1) "More troops" means hundreds of thousands of more troops. Not Twenty thousand. Four hundred, like what Shinseki got fired for advocating. Four hundred thousand, like what the newly minted Army manual on fight an insurgent war indicates.

2) The date that sending any troops into Iraq was a bad idea was March of '03, as Iraq and Saddam offered no threat to the US, and while it was unfortunate for the Iraqis, the world and the Middle East was more stable with a restrained Saddam threatening Iran.

You lying coward.

American Hawk: "So, where is the Democratic plan for victory?"

(Sigh!) And what, pray tell, is your and the president's definition of "victory" this week?

"Many Democrats, along with plenty of conservatives, have noted that the initial invasion of Iraq didn't have enough troops to successfully occupy the country. And they might be right. However, that's quite a different thing from advocating that we send more U.S. troops to Baghdad now, something that I don't recall either Kerry or Pelosi ever advocating."

The problem with this is that to understand this statement it requires intellectual powers beyond the scope of what is available on the right.

=

"The worst that could happen with more troops is we don't completely succeed."

And yet you say defeat is not an option. make up your mind.

We demonized every Iraqi Sunni, as if they were all responsible for Saddam. And made it possible for the rise of Moqtada and his ilk. Now what?

We can't take back all the nasty things we said about Sunnis (Baath party?), or call back all those soldiers and police we sent packing. Now the Mehdi army is too powerful to take on, really.

So whose side do we take now that Bush is finally acknowedging we're in the middle of a religious civil war?

The Reed-Levin amendment, calling for a phased withdrawal to begin in 2006, garnered the support of 38 out of 44 Democratic senators when it was put to a vote last June.

Now that Democrats are the majority party, they should try this again in both houses.

Goldberg's language is clearly too loose. At various times over the last 3 1/2 years, some Democratic leaders have called for enlarging the army or increasing the size of the deployment to Iraq. But never very many leaders altogether, and those who wanted more troops in Iraq two years ago now believe that the opportunity for success was lost.

He might be right about the split between those who want to "win" the war and those who want to "end" the war (or who passively want the war to be "over" without doing anything to make it end.) It looks like the Democrats hold all positions in between Kennedy (who is trying to end American involvement) and Lieberman (who wants the U.S. to win.)

However, Republicans are just as disunited, with a bunch of them saying that an American withdrawal better begin soon, if not right away. And some of them are clearly doubtful that the "surge" can succeed. It is misleading to suggest that the Democrats are more disunited than the Republicans.

Some Ds and Rs are afraid of what will happen if the U.S. perseveres and there is greater disaster than now. Some Ds and Rs are afraid of what will happen if the U.S. withdraws and there is greater disaster than now. In the "sum of all fears" is the source of Congressional passivity.

Democratic calls for more troops are code-word for "DRAFT".

Make no mistake.

I'm not sure what I support here. There are two directions; MANY more troops, and more sacrifice (a draft, raise taxes, etc.) go balls-out to win. OR Total withdrawl. I don't think America has the fortitude for either approach right now, because both have serious ramifications.

But what I DON'T support is this mamby-pampy halfassed approach of "stay the course"; and lets face it here, 20k troops won't make a difference. Changing the rules of engagement won't make a difference. We're in for more of the same, because this country has no leadership, and no fortitude.

Talk of a draft is talk to gauge how committed Americans are to this endeavor. And since there are no clearly defined objectives, no Americans are willing to make that kind of sacrifice.

My guess is we'll get more of the same until we're forced to withdraw.

THEN - there will be another 9/11. And this time it will be with WMD, and it will be by an Iraqi. And we'll be forced to go BACK. And THEN, we will have to make a real sacrifice to get the job done right.

And the whole cause of this was arrogant pricks who thought they could run our country like they'd run a business. (arrogant pricks who had never before actually succeeded at running a business).

Still time for Jonah and/or AH to volunteer to lead the "attack" on the radio station just inside Iraq from Iran. You will "lead" some Gitmo guys dressed up in Iranian uniforms and no bullets in their AK-47s. Operation Case White II can begin anew. "Springtime for Bush and the newcons, winter for Iran and......."

And what is so wrong with increasing troops? Defeat is not a option. The worst that could happen with more troops is we don't completely succeed.

The casual ease with which Al agrees to throw a few more brigades into the Baghdad meat grinder really reminds me of a scene from Downfall (last year's German movie about Hitler's final days).

Hitler demands that more soldiers be poured into a totally hopeless counterattack on the Red Army. One of his generals points out that they will almost certainly be slaughtered.

Hitler shrugs: "Isn't that what young men are for?"

Like all rabid animals, Bush's supporters are getting particuarly foamy in their death throes.

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

President John F. Kennedy

So I guess Kennedy's words no longer have any meaning for today's liberals and Democrats. How sad.

Since by any measure one wishes to use, the war in Iraq is, and remains, militarily insignificant. During the two week Battle of the Bulge in the closing days of WWII, American casualities were 89,987, with 19,276 dead, 23,554 captured or missing,and 47,493 wounded. We lost more troops practicing for the D-Day landings than we have in Iraq.

One can almost hear the howls and shrieks that would be coming from the Left if we were facing similar numbers in Iraq. How far have we fallen as a nation and a culture in the 40+ years from Kennedy's Inaugural Address.

Pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship in defense of liberty? Apparently, not this generation of Democrats.

Chicounsel wrote: "Pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship in defense of liberty? Apparently, not this generation of Democrats.?

ROFL.... Don't you just love this kind of faux concern troll? It's even more hilarious when you realize that this could just as easily, and more aply, be applied to every single war supporter out there, including both Chicounsel and his hero, George W. Bush.

I could write up a lengthy reponse to point out the idiotic fallacies in dear little Chicounsel's post, but I'll not bother. They're bloody obvious and our dear troll friend knows it all too well

We can't win in Iraq because there is no longer any Iraq to win.

Iraq was never a nation-state, but existed as a dysfunctional multinational state under the domination of a Sunni minority. With the fall of Saddam Hussein, the Sunni ascendancy came to an end and the centripetal force was removed from Iraqi society. Now the peoples' allegiances, which were always owed primarily to tribe and sect rather than the state, are unconstrained and have torn Iraq apart.

No matter how many American troops are deployed, the fictional government in the Green Zone will never be able to compete for the allegiance of the people. No matter how many people we train to march in order, or to carry and clean their weapons, there will never be an Iraqi Army loyal to the state.

Iraq cannot be won because Iraq isn't there anymore to be won.

is it more than convenience, when discussing victory that a premise isnt established to identify this attack and occupation on Iraq as what it is, an unlawful act and an ongoing mistake? Words and phrases confuse the truth. How can we discuss victory, and how can we determine it's plan when the reason for being in Iraq has morphed many times. It was at first identified as the right thing to do for the erroneous belief Iraq had ties to terror and suspected weapons that threatened this countries safety. Not long afterwards the engine of continuation was driven by the contention that we were liberating a people thirsting for freedom from a dictator who made life in that country unlivable. The parade of liars, from Ahmed Chalabi to Michael Ledeen et al has at times slowed but never stopped or vanished. Deck chairs on the good ship Bush administration have been repositioned for reasons of incompetence, utter faliure as well as for criminal indictment. A victory is something realized as the outcome of a battle or a war. We are not at war with Iraq. It's a hostile takeover and a wresting of power in an attempt to extend our will and vision of commerce and governemnt on it's people. Our battle has no goal. It was a mistake that this administration has sought to exploit from before it began. It is a mistake that continues to grow.

Josh Marshall, over at talkingpointsmemo.com, has posted a clip of Giuliani running with this Golberg meme. Looks like the Mighty Wurlitzer has swung into full gear.

We can't win in Iraq because there is no longer any Iraq to win.

Iraq was never a nation-state, but existed as a dysfunctional multinational state under the domination of a Sunni minority. With the fall of Saddam Hussein, the Sunni ascendancy came to an end and the centripetal force was removed from Iraqi society. Now the peoples' allegiances, which were always owed primarily to tribe and sect rather than the state, are unconstrained and have torn Iraq apart.

No matter how many American troops are deployed, the fictional government in the Green Zone will never be able to compete for the allegiance of the people. No matter how many people we train to march in order, or to carry and clean their weapons, there will never be an Iraqi Army loyal to the state.

Iraq cannot be won because Iraq isn't there anymore to be won.

Chicounsel wrote: So I guess Kennedy's words no longer have any meaning for today's liberals and Democrats. How sad.

You'e writing this from the barracks in Iraq, right, Mr. Pay-any-price, bear-any-burden, along with your the rest of your Bush-fluffing, Islamofascist-fearing, civilization-clashing, bedwetting ilk?

Thought not.

No matter how mendacious the paid apologists and propagandists are, this war will become increasingly unpopular. It helped propel the Democrats into office and it may help them in a couple of years. This is a big hole in the right’s muscular offensive strategy and is a sign of how much of a one-song band the paid hands are. Even when actions erode their position they continue to defend it. Part of this may also have to do with the indigenous self-righteousness and infallibility of their most fervent followers. This crowd doesn’t adapt to changing reality they just adjust their justifications since they already know the solutions. It is a disease of the mind.

And did we ever, ever define "victory"?

Candidate John Kerry defined it as a stable, pluralistic, democratic Iraq. The "pluralistic" part begins to look like it will have to be "federal", with multiple ethnicities and languages as in Switzerland (ca 1850 when the civil war was over.)

Since by any measure one wishes to use, the war in Iraq is, and remains, militarily insignificant. During the two week Battle of the Bulge in the closing days of WWII, American casualities were 89,987, with 19,276 dead, 23,554 captured or missing,and 47,493 wounded. We lost more troops practicing for the D-Day landings than we have in Iraq.

Fucking thug. I don't say this often, but suit the fuck up and stifle.

This isn't WWII or any other conflict that came before. WWII wasn't WW I, either, BTW.

Shut the fuck up with the false equivalencies already.

Josh Marshall, over at talkingpointsmemo.com, has posted a clip of Giuliani running with this Golberg meme. Looks like the Mighty Wurlitzer has swung into full gear.
Posted by: PaulB on January 11, 2007 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

Why should democrats be held responsible for Bush's war?

Dems asked for significantly more troops. A "labor-intensive" approach. 20k more troops is not a significant number. 200k would be significant (and not enough).

Derb's an idiot, and an asshole for thinking that America is actually going to buy that crap.

Looks like the Mighty Wurlitzer has swung into full gear.

yep. its everywhere today. that dog won't hunt. except with al and hawkboy.

the old guard (3rd infantry)bitches.

"Jonah Goldberg gives the Democrats too much credit for wanting to win. Thanks for the reminder.

So, where is the Democratic plan for victory? Anybody?
Posted by: American Hawk on January 11, 2007 at 1:40 PM "

What does ANYONE THINK it would it mean to WIN in Iraq? The "Bush target" for winning is always changing -- to "end terrorism"? "leave the country reconstructed"? "protect the oil (from who?)"?

Is it better to get our soldiers out now and have Iraq pursue its Civil War that we made possible by deposing Saddam Hussein?

Or

Is it somehow better to have thousands more (soldiers and civilians alike) die first... and THEN get our soldiers out once Bush has left office?

Candidate John Kerry defined it as a stable, pluralistic, democratic Iraq.

And Commander in Chief George W. Bush -- the guy you support, Marler, and the one responsible for this debacle, no matter how desperate you are to disctract attention to the democrats -- delivered a civil war and a quagmire.

And you support and defend him. Shame on you.

Victory? There was no victory possible before we ever went to Iraq. As has been clearly said above, "victory" would have meant complete subjugation, and since that was never going to happen there was never going to be a victory. Proxy wars have not been known historically to deliver victories.

The "new and improved" adventure is not going to work: he hasn't got the 125,000 boots with rifles to close Baghdad --- That figure or thereabouts has been the right one for the number needed to pacify Baghdad for now. and as said above too, what then, after clearing Baghdad?

--- Someone in the Bush firmament knows all that, which makes last night possibly just a ratcheting still further up of the White House BS.

There was a rather reasonable article by a former Mister of Defence in Iraq in the Independent on the 6th. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2125419.ece

The Bush Baby wants a legacy, Possums. If he is serious he should confound the world in general and totally gob-smack the Islamic world by closing Israel. Amazingly, peace would break out. Are any of you reading Justin Raimondo? Have you read J Carter's book?

As long as the US is propagandized by The Lobby it will go on going downhill. (Trust me, it is!)

And what is so wrong with increasing troops? Defeat is not a option. The worst that could happen with more troops is we don't completely succeed

Shorter Br'er Rabbit. "What's wrong with biting the damn thing. It already has my two fists and still refuses to let go."

Pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship in defense of liberty? Apparently, not this generation of Democrats.
Posted by: Chicounsel

Hey ass-hat. Neither Saddam nor Iraq posed ANY threat to the US. There was no need to attack them to defend ourselves.

Once the lie that we had ANY justification for invading Iraq falls away, so does your lying attacks on the anti-war movement. You brownshirt coward.

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

Were the invasion of Iraq ever necessary or even legal, meeting "any hardship" would have meant invading Iraq with 500,000 troops in order to secure the order necessary for liberty, not trying to do in on the cheap as this administration did.

Paying the price would have meant having an actual plan for reconstruction that gave the work and the profits to the Iraqis, engaging them in the rebuilding of their country, driving down the soul crushing 40% unemployment rate and giving them money to put food on the table -- rather than having all of the spoils going to American corporations who've wildly overcharged for work that has never even been completed.

Bearing the burden could mean any number of things, including allowing inspections to be completed so that the truth could be known that there were no WMD's, for if nothing else liberty is predicated on truth, something this administration has had little use for and which give the lie to their concerns for "liberty."

Bearing the burden could also mean enduring the consequences of satisfying justice by admitting our mistake and impeaching a president who lied to the American people to start a war and then utterly mismanaged it, sacrificing hundreds of thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and the security of the region.

Save your irrelevant comparisons to past wars and your abuse of solemn language, your own words have convicted you.

No matter how mendacious the paid apologists and propagandists are, this war will become increasingly unpopular. It helped propel the Democrats into office and it may help them in a couple of years.
Posted by: bellumregio on January 11, 2007 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

My guess is that Bush's speech last night just guaranteed at least 50 house seats, 20 more senate seats, and the white house in 2008.

Windhorse at 3:38 pm: Word.

I might add for Mr. Pay-any-price, bear-any-burden (Oh! The irony!) that the President he supports insists on paying for the hundred-billion-plus-dollar price tag of his pet war with a tax cut.

Chicounsel wrote: "Since by any measure one wishes to use, the war in Iraq is, and remains, militarily insignificant."

Hmm... Well, let's see. We could measure it by the number of casualties to both sides. That would certainly be a non-insignificant number. We could also measure it by the damage it has done to the U.S. military, guard, and reserves and to military readiness. Also a non-insignificant number. We could measure it by its duration. Also a non-insignificant number. We could measure it by its dollar cost. Also a non-insignificant number. We could measure it by its damage to U.S. credibility and reputation. Also a non-insignificant number.

In short, and as usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

Since by any measure one wishes to use, the war in Iraq is, and remains, militarily insignificant.
Posted by: Chicounsel

You sir, are a blithering idiot. How many times do we have to educate the "pro-war" faction about how the military works? If you had any integrity you'd go figure this stuff out before spouting off. You really should read Fred Kaplan's column in Slate for a month before you ever post on military matters again.

But since we know you won't do that, let's review:

As we're often told, 1 million men and women serve in the U.S. Army. So, why is it such a strain to keep a mere 150,000 in Iraq?
...
First, let's look at those million soldiers. Who are they? The Web site GlobalSecurity.org has a pie chart breaking them down into categories. It turns out that fewer than 40 percent of them—391,460—are combat soldiers. And fewer than 40 percent of those combat soldiers—149,406—are members of the active armed forces. (The rest are in the National Guard and Army Reserve.)
...
The Army now has 37 active combat brigades—10 in Iraq, one in South Korea (another one, which used to be there, is now among the 10 in Iraq), and one in Afghanistan. That's 12 brigades deployed to hot spots. What about the other 25?
Nine have recently returned from Iraq or Afghanistan (the rule is 12 months out, 12 months back home—though some units have seen their overseas tours stretched);
15 are in training;
one is reconstituting around the new Stryker combat vehicle.
The fact is, the U.S. Army has substantially shrunk since the Cold War ended 15 years ago—to the point where it simply cannot fulfill the Bush administration's global dreams.

So Chico, you can't compare the raw numbers of loses in previous wars with the raw numbers lost in this war. Unless you are trying to be inherently dishonest. The truth this war is militarily significant and we've nearly broke our military prosecuting it. But you, like most supporters of this war, don't give a damn about our troops (to say nothing of the Iraqi civilians).

Weak-minded, ignorant mental slave dittohead Chicounsel wrote: "Pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship in defense of liberty? Apparently, not this generation of Democrats."

Bush's illegal war of unprovoked aggression based on lies has nothing to do with "defending liberty".

It has everything to do with seizing control of Iraq's vast oil reserves for Dick Cheney's ultra-rich, neo-fascist, corporate-feudalist cronies in the US-based multinational oil companies.

And to achieve that goal, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush will impose any price, burden or hardship on the American people and the people of Iraq, will send any number of young Americans to their deaths in Iraq, and will murder any number of innocent Iraqi civilians -- as long as "this generation" of Democrats in Congress let them get away with it by continuing to fund the war.

...and the white house in 2008.

When the command to mobilize our society and economy for the conquest of Iran is given, one wonders what the US electorate will do. Will they rally round the flag and support Bush or will they rise up and insist the military aggression cease and prosecute our war criminals? I doubt very much it will be the latter.

It is interesting a Mormon is considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination, because I think we had all better begin accumulating enough stores to last a year's time. I expect living standards to fall between 30-50% after Bush bombs Iran, and many will go hungry.

So I guess Kennedy's words no longer have any meaning for today's liberals and Democrats.

Sure they do. We just don't buy Bush's line that anything he is doing in Iraq either is motivated by, or likely to serve the purpose of, defense of liberty.

cyntax wrote: "Unless you are trying to be inherently dishonest."

Of course he is, which is why he ignored all of those other ways that this operation is not "militarily insignificant," not to mention completely ignoring the cost to the Iraqis themselves. You can't really blame the guy, though; at this point, dishonesty is all he has left.

"Jonah Goldberg gives the Democrats too much credit for wanting to win." -- But we won. Mission accomplished. Democrats said 'send enough troops to accomplish the mission, you're not sending enough according to our generals.' Now the mission is accomplished, regardless.

Its's pretty dishonest to, on one hand, be a hawk and advocate physical force to accomplish nation-building in Iraq and every other non-realist foreign policy goal, and on the other hand denounce anyone who isn't a non-realist hawk as "not wanting to win." Average American hawks are so inundated with pro sports that the only paradigm that they understand is pushing a ball over a goal line.

If you don't agree that the mission was accomplished, then you must agree that either the mission has never been defined, so there is no goal line, or the mission is to "fight terror" by keeping terrorists from having a base of operations. Anywhere. Again, no goal line, other than installing a favorable government in any country that doesn't police itself to our satisfaction.

Dear Followers
If you take the elixir that we have given you, the worst that could happen would be our ascension to haven.

cyntax wrote: So Chico, you can't compare the raw numbers of loses in previous wars with the raw numbers lost in this war. Unless you are trying to be inherently dishonest.

Bing! We have a winner!

Jonah Goldberg:

Here we have a president forthrightly trying to win a war, and the opposition — which not long ago was in favor of increasing troops, when Bush was against that — won't say what it wants. This is flatly immoral. If you believe the war can't be won and there's nothing to be gained by staying, then, to paraphrase Sen. John Kerry, you're asking more men to die for a mistake. You should demand withdrawal. But that might cost votes, so the Dems don't. And, of course, Kerry, Pelosi and other Democrats were in favor of more troops before they were against it.

...It's long since forgotten, but perhaps the chief moral argument against the Iraq war in 2003 was that it would create an enormous humanitarian crisis in the form of refugees spilling over the borders, which in turn would destabilize the region. That didn't happen.

Here we have a president trying to forthrightly win a war--as he himself described it, "the decisive ideological struggle of our time"-- on the cheap. This is flatly immoral. If you believe that failure is not an option, then, to paraphrase Wiston Chuchill, the nation must be prepared to sacrifice blood, toil, tears, and sweat. You should demand that every individual in the nation contribute to to that sacrifice. But that might cost votes, so Bush doesn't do it. And, of course, Bush, Cheney, Rice, (and let's not forget Rumsfeld), and other Repbulicans were opposed to more troops before they were for it.

...It's long since forgotten, but perhaps the chief moral argument against the Iraq war in 2003 was that it would create an enormous humanitarian crisis in the form of refugees spilling over the borders, which in turn would destabilize the region. That didn't happen. But we've made up for it in the last year; 2006 saw an enormous number of refugees, both internally displaced, and spilling over the borders.

PTate in MN wrote at 2:00PM: And did we ever, ever define "victory"?

Cheney's and Bush's definition of "victory" is quite clear.

Victory is the establishment of a US-supported puppet government in Iraq that will hand over control of, and the vast majority of profits from, Iraq's vast oil reserves to their ultra-rich cronies and financial backers in the US-based multinational oil companies, and that will acquiesce to a large permanent US military presence to enforce that control.

This has always been their goal, since before they seized power in the stolen election of 2000.

Chicocounsel: Pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship in defense of liberty? Apparently, not this generation of Democrats.

Apparently not this generation of Republicans, you mean, since I don't exactly see you lot stampeding to enlist or even to raise taxes to pay for this fiasco. So I suppose the GOP version of Kennedy's noble pledge is

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, unless that price involves raising taxes on the wealthy, bear any burden, unless that burden involves enlisting in the military, meet any hardship, unless that hardship takes us away from our wingnut welfare, support any friend, unless that friend says something we don't like, in which case we'll demonize him, oppose any foe, unless that foe is Saudi Arabia or China or anyone else who pays us, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

"Pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship in defense of liberty? Apparently, not this generation of Democrats."

Implicit in Chicounsel's attack upon critics of the war is the presumption that the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq in some way furthers the cause of liberty.

Perhaps he would care to explain how the cause of liberty, either in the United States or Iraq or anywhere else in the world has been advanced by this holocaust to George W. Bush's ego.

A brutal dictator who murdered 300,000+ of his countrymen in the course of 24 years of misrule was removed and brought to justice. In the invasion which brought his downfall and the almost 4 year chaotic occupation that followed, however, 600,000+ Iraqis have died violent deaths and murder has become a cottage industry.

For the first time, the Iraqi people voted in free and fair elections. But the government they elected is powerless, serving at the pleasure of Muqtada Al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army, exerting authority nowhere beyond the Green Zone or rifle range of the American military. The Iraqi people are afraid to leave their homes and 1 million have fled their country (back before the Berlin Wall, we called that "voting with your feet)".

In the United States, the Bush administration uses its war powers to undermine civil liberties; wiretapping domestic phone calls intercept e-mails and open mail without warrant, suspending the writ of habeas corpus, authorizing