"Just say no to thugs"

What do you expect? It is Barry McCaffrey, the guy who ran the completely incoherent and backward drug war, for years.

I remember when he was traveling to the Netherlands and claimed that their drug policy had failed because they had twice the murder rate than the US. When the turned out to be a misplaced decimal point and the dutch have 2/10 our murder rate, he explained how you can't look at these things with statistics and it is all about the children.

Sounds like an exit strategy to me:

1) Leave the cities.
2) Pacify the unpopulated desert.
3) Declare victory.
4) Leave Iraq.

I thought the whole point of the surge was to buy GWB another six months before time ran out?

Cue "ex-liberal" previewing the bullshit neocon arguments in 3...2...

Ah, Disputo I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers the CENTCOM PR flacks saying, "45% of Iraq is completely peaceful." while failing to note that the area in question was empty desert.

I guess that means there's only violence where the highest concentrations of people are. Go figure.

Gregory
Please let a "troll" show up because otherwise I've got nothing to say.

Heh. Worthless.

These guys are like desperate used-car salesmen. You want to leave the lemon behind but they won't let you off the parking lot.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

A multi-faceted, seemingly contradictory strategy is the best way to confuse and defeat our enemies, and bring democracy to Iraq.

"He also says we need to give the iraq security forces many more resources"

Of course we do, but since we don't trust them, we won't. And the evidence to date is that, in many cases, we shouldn't trust them. Even those who won't actively use those resources against us are not necessarily above selling their equipment for personal gain.

But what you've got to understand is that not to support the Sunnis is to give ground to the Shiite militants, who are fighting our troops as well as the Sunni insurgents, who are fighting our troops, which makes it urgent that we support them! And that's why the president's Plan for Victory is working and deserves our support!

"Heh. Worthless."

LOL.... As compared to your stellar entry? Oh, the irony....

Gregory is, of course, correct. Dear little faux-liberal will post on this thread and his posts will, as usual, follow the administration line without deviating.

Back on topic -- we already know what Petraeus will report: "the surge" is working, there are real signs of progress, Anbar province is awesome, and we need another Friedman Unit before making any "hasty" decisions on matters in Iraq.

Just a little sidenote. Wasn't it just a few months ago when the violence in Iraq appeared to have subsided a bit but before all of the troops were in place that many people were coming out and saying the surge was a success or at least looking very good. Now we have to wait a year? Conservatives need to come up with a date in which we can say whatever strategy they're employing is working or failing. Of course, I suspect that date will be roughly 3 hours after a Democrat is elected president whenever that will be.

"Wasn't it just a few months ago when the violence in Iraq appeared to have subsided a bit but before all of the troops were in place that many people were coming out and saying the surge was a success or at least looking very good"

Yes. Several on the right did just that, including some who are now advocating for more time before true "success" can be determined.

you haven't been paying attention....

from the onset, the plan was to construct strategic hamlets, forward basing for the real wars that have already been planned for the future.

iraq was always intended to be a larger version of diego garcia. an aircraft carrier in the desert.

urban iraq was always intended to be depopulated. when the level of iraqis reaches a certain point, the plan is to cede iraq to the israeli mafiya.

mac has seen the "book"....what he is saying is just what was planned long ago. iraq as a nation state is to be destroyed. just as bill & tony destroyed the nation state of yugoslavia.

Who gives a crap anymore? I mean, really?

Iraq is a failed state, run by kleptocrats, throat-cutters, and mullahs, and the minute we leave, will become a battle-ground between Iran and Saudi Arabia, with Russia and the US both profiting by selling each side weapons.

There is no way to un-fuck Iraq.

And there is no way to un-fuck our budget deficit. We, middle-class taxpayers are going to be shafted with the bill for this $12 Billion a day party, our only solace being that when George W Bush is finished with his term, our economy will be so screwed up, that $12 Billion will be worth the equivalent of an illegal migrant farmworker's wages for a day.

And hopefully, I'll be able to bribe some thugs who can smuggle me across the border into Canada, where I can get a job tending some middle-class Quebecer's lawn.

Hm, McCaffrey...

Oh, that McCaffrey. He was one of those who signed the Jan 29, 2005 PNAC letter asking Congress to increase the force levels in Iraq.

As with anyone who signs on to a PNAC scheme, I'd recommend not trusting him, ever again. They are collectively responsible (with others, of course) for the deaths of our soldiers and the civilians in Iraq.

The death toll for July will be in the 70s. They'll push that big time after the previous 3 months set a record. It will be as if 70+ deaths is as nothing.

Matthew Yglesias is a 24-yr old kid who knows nothing about life. He's lead a cloistered life in NY, Boston, and DC, and has not experienced much in his short life. His experiences and opinions are worthless. Can't we have wise and experienced pundits?

Well, who didn't know that...

Putting it in perspective, the administration has no plans to leave. They continue to sell an unethical policy.
The plan for Iraq has failed. Chuck Hagel correctly called it the biggest foreign policy blunder
since Vietnam. And Bush tragically said, I have made my decision and we are going forward.
That was eight months ago. They have a five year war now. And it is hideous.
What about those Iraqis who have lost sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, relatives--and what about all of those people disenfranchised when the country's industries were shut down--are they not emboldened? They most likely joined the very factions the US troops are fighting.
We are the occupiers, the enemy, the destroyers--no matter what Gates, Petraeus and others contend.
High level peace talks with Rice? Back in January they were talking about "final-status issues."
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Our military-industrial-corporate government is colonizing the place for the country's natural resources--it is all about the oil. Eisenhower warned us; the Republican Congress of 2000-2006, however, ignored the wisdom of his words.
This administration is clearly out of touch with reality with its presumed wartime authority and its insane ambition.

So, Barry McCaffery says both that we need to give the surge a full year before evaluating it, and we need to take the exact opposite policy of the surge (reduce troops in Iraq by withdrawing from the cities) before April or the Army will fall apart.

So, clearly, either (a) McCaffery is saying we need to stop the surge before we can evaluate it, or (b) McCaffery is saying we need to destroy the Army to give the surge a chance to work.

Matt Yglesias, blogging "curtly" from his iPhone...

Is anybody old enough to remember when cell phones were a novelty? You'd have all kinds of pricks calling into radio talk shows and prefacing their comments with: "I'm calling you from a cell phone in my car!"

Jesus fuck.

Is anybody old enough to remember when the internet was new and TV news would actually carry "internet polls"? As the opinion of the assholes who had the net carried far more weight...

Jesus fuck.

Is anybody old enough to remember when the iPhone was new and smarmy fucks preface their blogs: "I'm blogging from my iPhone!"

Jesus fuck.

Matt you cretin...
Shut the fuck up about your goddamn MePhone!
You are a dick.
And that's why I don't read ya!

brian: Let me see. We have McCaffrey, Yglesias, and Drum commenting on military issues. I wonder which one is most likely to be correct?

If you look at their record of being right or wrong over the last 4 or 5 years, it would be etiher Drum or Yglesias. McCaffrey is has a track record about as trustworthy as, oh, Bill Kristol or Perle or Wolfowitz.

There don't seem to be any defined goals in Iraq, so what is success?

As usual, the real conservatives must be consulted for wisdom:

http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_07_16/article1.html

"To devise a successful strategy, we must begin by defining what we mean by winning. The Bush administration, consistent with its record of military incompetence, continues to pursue the folly of maximalist objectives. It still defines victory as it did at the war�s outset: an Iraq that is an American satellite, friendly to Israel, happy to provide the U.S. with a limitless supply of oil and vast military bases from which American forces can dominate the region. None of these objectives are now attainable. None were ever attainable, no matter what our troops did. And as long as those objectives define victory, we are doomed to defeat."

Yes, it's completely incoherent. A mildly interesting question is whether McCaffrey made an incoherent presentation or whether the problem was caused by Yglasias's haste in providing a quick cellphone summary.

Oh, ex-lib, you hope endlessly for war being peace.
It is so beligerent and wrong.
It is delusional.
Are not your doubts growing?

The entire approach of this administration to their "war strategy" has been nothing more than incoherent as has their ability to become a successful occupying force. The only sane resolution to our occupation of Iraq is a measured withdrawal from same, but the "Clueless Administration" is intent on leaving the problem for the next (Democratic) president.

I will be gone by the time the definitive history of the "Bush Fiasco" is written, but I have no doubt that W's legacy will be something of legendary derision, as it should be!

brian, everyone's favorite faux-moderate concern troll, wrote: I wonder which one is most likely to be correct?

Drum and Yglesias' better track record than the warfloggers has already been noted, so I'll only add that it we know it won't be brian, RSM or "ex-liberal" (who, as predicted, couldn't resist posting something disingenuous).

Macaffrey - what a genius. He and Bush are the most brilliant human beings who ever lived. Perhaps the crown of creation. They must be allowed to kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and kill and never be questioned. Ever.

Trust me.

Does it matter if it's coherent or not? McCaffery's testimony, plus the -- very timely -- good news on casualty numbers today (and I wonder if those weren't jimmied somehow, perhaps by a change in mission parameters or a change in how casualties are defined), plus the recent media blitz by those two unhinged Bush/Iraq War critics turned cautiously optimistic analysts, Pollack and O'Hanlon, and you have reasons for hope! And Petraeus' all-important verdict is coming in just over another month (the suspense is killing me, and lots of Iraqis, and lots of American soldiers). How can we turn back now, when everything is coming together so perfectly? How could a Serious and Thoughtful pundit weigh all this evidence and not decide it's worth at least a couple of more Friedman Units?

We seem to have acquired our own West Bank: we keep telling ourselves, and everyone, that we will leave, that we're just waiting for the right time, but it never comes. But our West Bank has oil, and we have no intention of staying there forever, but just until the oil's gone. We really do do it better than other countries.

When Dick Cheney and his Big Oil clients get the oil deal they want from Iraq, that's when the Bush Administration will talk withdrawal.

Meantime, no one seems concerned about U.S. forces in Iraq co-operating with Turkey to run down and eliminate Kurdish dissidents. Good idea or just another nail in the coffin? Was this factored into the Brookings study? How about the flow of Saudi arms and money to the Sunnis? Is it OK for the Saudis to fund and arm the Sunnis but not all right for Iran to help the Shiites? Is it a good thing for the U.S. to hook up with Sunni thugs and insurgents? Is an Israeli strike at Iran, supported by the U.S., a part of the Brookings data?

Or is Brookings, along with the Bush Administration and the General Staff, just cherry picking?

"How can supposedly knowledgeable people say stuff like this?"

They have something called a script, that’s how.

they want to leave the cities and draw down to 30,000 or so troops (rumsfeld and wolfie's original plan) on four essentially permanent and already completed bases. the air war against iraqi civilians will intensify, and our military will stay for decades in order to protect private western investment (primarily from lukoil and exxon) in iraq's VERY profitable oil fields. this has been the plan all along, and it will very likely succeed, especially if liberals continue to think that these billionaire oil men have no idea what they're doing.

Hey, Matt types better with an iphone than with a PC.

Shorter Barry McCaffrey: We cannot sustain the "Surge."
http://prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-31-2007/0004636223

Testimony of General Barry R. McCaffrey (USA, Ret.), Adjunct Professor of International Relations, United States Military Academy, Before The House Armed Services Committee
    WASHINGTON, July 31 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following was released today by BR McCaffrey Associates, LLC: [...]
    [...] Our Army has 44 brigades -- but 24 are deployed. We cannot sustain the current rate (22+ brigades to Iraq; 2+ brigades to Afghanistan) of deployment. The Army will unravel. [...] The Secretary of Defense recently announced a 3-month extension on all Army deployments -- a 25% increase. [Lengthened from 12 months to 15 months.] [...] The combat overload on the Army is having a negative effect on readiness. We are encountering a negative effect on the retention of mid- and senior-grade noncommissioned officers. We also are already seeing the impact on the retention of company-grade officers. [...] All "fully combat ready" active-duty and reserve combat units are now deployed or deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan. No fully-trained national strategic reserve brigades are now prepared to deploy to new combat operations. [...] We have used a back-door draft to keep 70,000 soldiers in the Army with the "stop loss program" beyond their voluntary commitment. We have jerked 20,000 sailors and airmen into ground combat roles and taken them away from their required air and sea power duties. We have recalled as many as 15,000 IRR (individual readiness reserve) -- in many cases these people had no current, relevant military skills. They were simply needed as bodies. [...] 88% of non-deployed Army National Guard units are rated as not ready or poorly equipped. The readiness of our National Guard forces is at a historic low. However, the Washington Post has reported that the Pentagon is still planning to rely on these unready forces to meet surge requirements.
- - Barry R. McCaffrey
General, USA (Ret.)
Adjunct Professor of International Affairs
USMA West Point, NY

McCaffery is smoking some of the stuff he confiscatd at the US Drug Lord (er Czar)!

McCaffery is smoking some of the stuff he confiscatd at the US Drug Lord (er Czar)!

The real question, re: casualties, will be whether they are lower while the Iraqi Parliament was talking about taking a vacation, or while they are taking said vacation.

Or it won't be. The real question, I mean.

cmdicely, your cruel logic lacerates the tender pudding that composes the brains of those who want our cowboys, I mean troops, to stay in Iraq forever, or until they find the ponies, whichever comes first.

So, clearly, either (a) McCaffery is saying we need to stop the surge before we can evaluate it, or (b) McCaffery is saying we need to destroy the Army to give the surge a chance to work.

The plan is working, and everybody associated deserves kudos and more.

But we do have to tweak the plan just a little bit - into a completely different plan.

But no changes are being considered.

"plus the -- very timely -- good news on casualty numbers today"

Relatively good news on U.S. casualties; not so good news on Iraqi casualties, which are sharply up.

Since McCaffrey is as much (or more) a politician than a general, I would say he figured out a way to tell Congress the surge is doomed to fail -- without actually saying the surge is doomed to fail. And he managed to flatter the surge's architect in the process.

That boy will go far . . .

What leads you to believe McCaffery's so called knowledgeable side outweighs his political side, Kevin?

When people are that obviously incoherent, it's usually a good indication that they are actually being dishonest rather than incoherent.