Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

November 18, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

100,000 TROOPS FOR 30 YEARS.....Marc Lynch says of surge supporter Stephen Biddle, "he's a serious guy so I take him seriously." Here's his precis of a talk Biddle gave on Friday:

Without getting in to his arguments or my reservations, I just wanted to lay out Biddle's best case scenario as he presented it: if everything goes right and if the US continues to "hit the lottery" with the spread of local ceasefires and none of a dozen different spoilers happens, then a patchwork of local ceasefires between heavily armed, mistrustful communities could possibly hold if and only if the US keeps 80,000-100,000 troops in Iraq for the next twenty to thirty years. And that's the best case scenario of one of the current strategy's smartest supporters. Man.

Man indeed.

Kevin Drum 10:43 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (103)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Woman - so much better.

Posted by: rabbit on November 18, 2007 at 10:48 PM | PERMALINK

No surprise, since it's been apparent from the beginning that long-term occupation was the objective. No oil means no military.

Posted by: redacted on November 18, 2007 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINK

That $1 billion "embassy" isn't going to protect itself.

Posted by: Old Hat on November 18, 2007 at 11:03 PM | PERMALINK

The US will keep troops in Iraq so long as it is necessary to ensure that American oil companies can skim off the lion's share of profits from Iraqi oil.

Posted by: McCord on November 18, 2007 at 11:22 PM | PERMALINK

If it achieves a stable, peaceful and relatively democratic Iraq, don't you think it would be a price worth paying? I certainly do. Plus, since the Iraq economy would be the "freest" in the Middle East, when compared to the economic basket cases that is the rest of the Arab world, such an Iraq would soon be an economic powerhouse and could become the counterbalance to Iran and Saudi Arabia in the Gulf.

Pull the troops out of Germany. There's no reason for our continued heavy presence in Europe now. Europe is not as important to the US as the Middle East is now and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

Posted by: Chicounsel on November 18, 2007 at 11:33 PM | PERMALINK

Operation Permanent Occupation is well underway, and it is being bolstered by an unprecedented move. Petraeus is heading up the Army's current Brigadier General's Review Board. That is a big damned deal and scares the hell out of me.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on November 18, 2007 at 11:37 PM | PERMALINK

Can't we clone Al 100K times and just send all of them to Iraq at age 18?

Chicounsel, dream on. It's like McCain showing he didn't learn a damn thing from Nam when he talks about "peace with honor" in Iraq. Gee, where did we hear that before?

"Peace with honor" cost the Schmuck Talk Express(TM) five years at the Hanoi Hilton.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on November 18, 2007 at 11:40 PM | PERMALINK

My wife likes to talk to me during sex. Last night, for instance, she called me from the hotel room she was using.

courtesy of Johnny Twain appearing on the Dave Letterman show

Posted by: absent observer on November 18, 2007 at 11:50 PM | PERMALINK

Ok...so $1.7 Trillion so far x 30 years...comingled in the general fund...and who doesn't think this is going to destroy social security and medicare???? That is, after all, part of the Republican plan to end the "welfare state". And they are doing it quite well, thank you. Medicare reimbursements continue to trend down, fewer and fewer doctors take new Medicare patients...and we start to hear calls to change the age for social security...blah, blah, blah.
It will be way too late by the time the baby boomers decide maybe they should have been thinking about this rather than football or their next carbon emissions spewing cruise trip.

Posted by: Christine on November 18, 2007 at 11:54 PM | PERMALINK

We're scheduled to begin drawing down soon according to Petraeus. I just don't see us drawing down to 80-100K and just "staying there" given the current status quo. Not going to happen. We are too overstretched, worn out, and running out of money. The civil war there is going to flare up again sometime before or around the election next year. Whoever wins is going to oversee the bug-out of Baghdad within a year of the election. It might be possible for us to stay, but only if we establish full diplomatic relations with Iran, AND if Iran and Saudi Arabia can broker a truce with the Iraqi factions.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on November 19, 2007 at 12:00 AM | PERMALINK

If it achieves a stable, peaceful and relatively democratic Iraq, don't you think it would be a price worth paying?

Also, if it cures cancer and creates perpetual motion, who could argue with it?

Posted by: craigie on November 19, 2007 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

80-100,000 troops, 20 - 30 years, several trillion dollars: cheap at the price! Remember, we can't afford to deal with Medicare, but this, we can afford.

Besides, the headaches we have in Iraq will seem like nothing once we are at war with Iran. Kind of like smashing yourself in the foot with a hammer to get rid of a headache.

Posted by: Martin Gale on November 19, 2007 at 12:08 AM | PERMALINK

don't you think it would be a price worth paying? I certainly do.

Of course you do, sitting there in your bathrobe in your parents basement.

Posted by: Col Bat Guano on November 19, 2007 at 12:18 AM | PERMALINK

I don't care who the next prez is, Democrat or Rethug, the troops will be there for some time unless we install a ruthless dictator like Saddam. Only a dictator can suppress the ethic hatred between rival factions on Iraq.

Posted by: bob on November 19, 2007 at 12:30 AM | PERMALINK

bob,

You're about 50 years too late with that Theatre of the Absurd stuff.

Posted by: glorified jughound on November 19, 2007 at 12:43 AM | PERMALINK

The war in Iraq has been full of surprises, both good and bad: the rapid victory over Saddam; the failure of our occpation; the turnaround in Diyala, etc. I have little confidence in the long-range projection of some random analyst.

Blue Girl, one blogger is thrilled to see Petraeus helping to evaluate officers:

This is good news in some important ways. Over the past few years, some of America's finest counterinsurgency minds have been passed over for selection to brigadier general -- despite the fact that we're in not one but two counterinsurgency fights, in both Iraq and Afghanistan. (And Dave Kilcullen would argue a third, globally.) Colonel Peter Mansoor, for example, is rumored to be retiring from the Army after having been passed over for promotion. Colonel H.R. McMaster, meanwhile, arguably America's most gifted counterinsurgency field commander, has been passed over for promotion twice because he has yet to serve in a joint billet -- a block you have to "check" for promotion to general. Who the %$#@, you're asking, cares about whether or not you've checked the block on a joint assignment when we're in the middle of two wars we're losing?! The McMaster case is a prime example of an army that would, in Tom Ricks's immortal words, rather keep its personnel system than win the war. We are fighting this war, one counterinsurgency expert is fond of saying, with our varsity team on the sidelines.
http://abumuqawama.blogspot.com/2007/11/petraeus-picks-next-generation.html

Posted by: ex-liberal on November 19, 2007 at 1:17 AM | PERMALINK

...unless we install a ruthless dictator like Saddam.

I initially thought that was the plan, with Chalabi as the next US-installed dictator.

However... why is it that we have to always install the evil dictators? Either we can let someone else install the dictator this time, or maybe we withdraw and let the Iraqi install their choice: a secular despot, a religious despot, or some potential democratic leader. Or a mix of the above. What's up with America always having to prop up dictators?

Posted by: Wapiti on November 19, 2007 at 1:19 AM | PERMALINK

ex, I have said it before but it apparently needs repeating. I will not engage you, you are dead to me.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on November 19, 2007 at 1:23 AM | PERMALINK

Who the %$#@, you're asking, cares about whether or not you've checked the block on a joint assignment when we're in the middle of two wars we're losing?!

Well, if we're losing two wars, why is anyone happy that Petraeus is the golden-haired boy that's picking the next generation of generals?

Posted by: Wapiti on November 19, 2007 at 1:26 AM | PERMALINK

I don't care who the next prez is, Democrat or Rethug, the troops will be there for some time unless we install a ruthless dictator like Saddam. Only a dictator can suppress the ethic hatred between rival factions on Iraq. Democracy is the equivalent. Iraq will have Shiite rule under democracy, and the corruption in Iraq (Iraq is comparable to Haiti in corruption) will ensure perpetuation of this rule, as corruption always strives to consolidate its power and privilege. As soon as we leave, Shiite militias and death squads will reign, and the military slowly purged of Sunnis and Kurds.

Posted by: Luther on November 19, 2007 at 1:34 AM | PERMALINK

"Can't we clone Al 100K times and just send all of them to Iraq at age 18?"

No, because a hundred times nothing is still nothing.

Posted by: Kenji on November 19, 2007 at 1:40 AM | PERMALINK

don't you think it would be a price worth paying? I certainly do.

One way to think about the price of Iraq is to say it'll cost each american family about as much as buying a new midsize car or truck, except 1. you don't get to ever drive the vehicle and 2. your loan term isn't 36 months or 60 months, it's forever.

But then, when you think how important it was that we transformed Iraq from a nasty sunni dictatorship into an even more violent shia-dominated land of minor warlords, you can see why this was a small price to pay. And the fact that we've jacked up the price of oil by gratuitously destabilizing the middle east is just gravy.

Posted by: jimBOB on November 19, 2007 at 1:47 AM | PERMALINK

This issue - the most crucial one facing America - should be the core concern for '08. In that regard, Hillary's never met a war she didn't like in her lifetime.

For specificity see:

http://internationalnews.over-blog.com/article-13832621.html

Posted by: rolf on November 19, 2007 at 2:17 AM | PERMALINK

Nothing to add.

jimBOB 1:47 AM. Yes.

craigie 12.02 AM. Yes.

Chicounsel 11:33 PM is a strategically narrow minded idiot.

Can't any of these idiots learn from the last 4+ years of running experience? We're not asking even GW to read history books here, are we?

Get a grip on reality and failure in the shadow of the administration's high-blown, ill-founded, over-optimistic ideas about invasion and "nation building" (that they stated they would NOT do).

The US Armed Forces won the war they were asked to fight. That war is long over. The Administration lost the political war for a new nation.

They didn't plan for it. They didn't fight for it. They never showed they really wanted it. Or that they recognized the actual goal.

So many lives wasted. String them up.

Posted by: notthere on November 19, 2007 at 2:29 AM | PERMALINK

Pete Mansoor will be teaching taking the chair in military history at Ohio State next fall so I don't think he is too worried about a promotion. Apparently the New Republic was wrong and military history is not dead yet. http://www.historians.org/Perspectives/issues/2007/0701/0701new1.cfm

Which Lt. Colonel said, 'You can try to change the Army or you can try to make General.'

Posted by: flint on November 19, 2007 at 3:10 AM | PERMALINK

Chicounsel: "If [a significant and sustained U.S. military occupation] achieves a stable, peaceful and relatively democratic Iraq, don't you think it would be a price worth paying? I certainly do."

Do you now?

Well, I find perfectly reprehensible your apparent willingness to play such a high-stakes game of poker on someone else's tab.

If the Iraq War is such a noble cause, then don't you think that you should put your money where your mouth is, instead of that glass of GOP-flavored Kool-Aid, and sign yourself up for a nice long hitch in Baghdad?

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on November 19, 2007 at 3:18 AM | PERMALINK

Permanent military occupation of Iraq is the only way America can keep it’s hand on the Middle East’s oil spigot. The American dollar is now worthless , thanks to the trillions in bad checks that George W. Bush has written and will continue to write, since the Democratic Congress has no balls. The game is over, folks. The U.S. is now officially on it’s way to becoming a second-rate nation. Strong militarily – weak economically. Our children and grandchildren are looking at declining standards of living. Mission accomplished.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on November 19, 2007 at 6:25 AM | PERMALINK

WAPITI: I initially thought that was the plan, with Chalabi as the next US-installed dictator.

"We're going to stand up an interim government, hand power over to them, and get out of there in 3-to-4 months." - Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita April-2003

Posted by: mr. irony on November 19, 2007 at 7:21 AM | PERMALINK

Chicounsel: "If [a significant and sustained U.S. military occupation] achieves a stable, peaceful and relatively democratic Iraq, don't you think it would be a price worth paying? I certainly do."


Army sign-ups down to lowest level since 1973

By Associated Press

Friday, November 2, 2007

WASHINGTON - The Army began its recruiting year Oct. 1 with fewer signed up for basic training than at any time since it went all-volunteer in 1973.

Gen. William S. Wallace, who is in charge of Army recruiting, said the low numbers will make it hard to achieve recruiting goals this year after barely reaching them in the year that ended Sept. 30.

Posted by: mr. irony on November 19, 2007 at 7:25 AM | PERMALINK

If we get the Iraqis through their next election in late 2009, with one democratically elected leader handing off power to another, we will have changed the mideast forever. We are not going to turn the country into Iceland, but we are better off today than if Saddam were still in power. No matter how many troops we leave, and I would not be adverse to pulling them all out at that point, our accomplishments have been worth the cost.

Posted by: cruel dude, formerly the minion on November 19, 2007 at 7:35 AM | PERMALINK

our accomplishments have been worth the cost.

since you Yanks haven't come close to paying the highest cost you have no right when it comes to deciding if the overall cost of the enterprise was worth it or not. Only the Iraqis have that moral authority. And if you're lucky, you might have their forgiveness someday... I hope you are lucky... but that at the same time you get knocked off your fucking high horse. It's not always you, you, you.

Posted by: snicker-snack on November 19, 2007 at 8:01 AM | PERMALINK

If it achieves a stable, peaceful and relatively democratic Iraq, don't you think it would be a price worth paying?

It would probably be cheaper to buy each Iraq their own Walmart . . .

Posted by: rea on November 19, 2007 at 8:01 AM | PERMALINK

Bush critizies Democrats over Iraq war funds, Ha Now thats kind a like calling the kettle black, Hey Bushy Baby? I critisize your sorry azz for this war to begin with you and your gang of pchycos lied and started this war and now you want to blame the Democrats over war funds, get a life Bitch.

Posted by: Al on November 19, 2007 at 8:09 AM | PERMALINK

Ha! I see your 100,000 and raise it 50,000! C'mon, where's your testicles, you wormy yellow bastard?!

General Petraeus
A Soldier
(and NOT a phony one!)
Ha, Ha, Ha! Arghhh!

Posted by: steve duncan on November 19, 2007 at 8:20 AM | PERMALINK

The Project for a New American Century was consciously referring to the American occupation of the Philippines a century ago. The idea was very simple. The US will take control of the Middle East like it took control of the Pacific. Iraq is the new operations base.

We will see what happens. But when can we start calling it imperialism? Only liberals are embarrassed by the term. Cheney and friends see taking up the White Man's Burden as a right and a necessity.

Posted by: bellumregio on November 19, 2007 at 8:26 AM | PERMALINK

bellumregio: But when can we start calling it imperialism?

March 2003, if you limit it to the actual invasion. If you include bellicose and mendacious talk, then January 2001.

Posted by: anandine on November 19, 2007 at 8:38 AM | PERMALINK

we HAD the finest counter-insurgency army in the world in 1900, but doctrine formed fighting the Apache was little use in the Philippines, much less the Argonne.
(And one of those lessons was to use Apaches to catch Apaches. The sooner the Iraqis start finding their own insurgents, the sooner the war will end and the sooner the US is out. If in fact, that's the purpose of the exercise.)

Posted by: Steve Paradis on November 19, 2007 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINK

Poor liberals.

Victory has a price, and none of you have the courage to pay that price. Victory in Iraq means US troops have to remain and tamp down the main front in the war on terror against our enemies. Do you want a resurgent al Qaeda to plant seeds and grow an army of irregular troops to spread Islamic fundamentalism throughout the Levant?

The question is not whether we're willing to keep troops in Iraq for the next 30 years--hello? Germany? Japan? Korea? We have kept troops in those far flung outposts of freedom for better than 50 years with no quarrel whatsoever. The question is, will liberals inflict defeat when victory is within our grasp?

Keep agitating. The American people need to see how ridiculous you all appear when war, security and freedom are the subject at hand.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 19, 2007 at 8:53 AM | PERMALINK

Brave, strong Norman Rogers, proudly and bravely and freedom-ishly chastising all of us for not paying the price of proud brave freedom! Wanting our sons and daughters home, traitors! Asking to spend time with our fathers and mothers, cowards! Can't we all be brave and proud and free like Norman Rogers and pretend we're financial titans as we preach brave proud freedom from our mother's basement?

Poor conservatives. Trying desperately to change reality, if only you scream and throw enough temper tantrums...thankfully we are in the twilight of your particular brand of evil. Globalization has led the American public to understand conservatives don't care about America - they only care about money. You'll gladly undermine American values if it leads to a dollar (ask Chineese dissidents who've used Yahoo).

Enjoy your obscurity and shame, Norman Rogers. Your mom is calling upstairs, she needs help with the laundry.

Posted by: An Anonymous American Patriot on November 19, 2007 at 9:10 AM | PERMALINK

20 to 30 years! How can anyone doubt this war is not about oil. Iraq really should align itself with OPEC. Make lots of deals with Russia and China in order to find leverage against the brutality of an US occupation.

All the more reason for Iran to become a nuclear power. The Mideast will never be free, unless they can demand the US leave.

Posted by: Me_again on November 19, 2007 at 9:14 AM | PERMALINK

You'll gladly undermine American values if it leads to a dollar (ask Chineese dissidents who've used Yahoo).

Uh, sorry to burst your bubble, but those are liberals at the helm of Yahoo, selling people out to the Communists.

Jerry Yang , 39 (bio)
Yahoo! co-founder
$28,000 Republican
$156,541 Democrat
$23,000 special interest
total: $207,541

Over half the money he's given out--and he's a billionaire, for crying out loud--has gone to liberals like Nancy Pelosi.

Nice shot, ace. How about you head on back to the bullpen and wait for spring training before you try blog posting against ME again, yes?

If you mess with the likes of me before you eat your cornflakes, I'll leave a cup of humiliation sprinkled with a healthy dose of contempt before you can rub the sleep out of your eyes.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 19, 2007 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

formerly minion: our accomplishments have been worth the cost.


"All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?"

63% Not

35% Yes

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Oct. 29-Nov. 1, 2007

Posted by: mr. irony on November 19, 2007 at 9:34 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, so good to see Normie typing away - Doesn't get much free time these days, as he helps build the new White House in Dubai. Crude uber alles.

Posted by: bert on November 19, 2007 at 9:34 AM | PERMALINK

I don't trust these polls:

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Oct. 29-Nov. 1, 2007

When these pollsters call up, they talk in a bratty little voice because they are usually students or idiots who can't get real jobs. Think about it--the polling is done by immature little snots who, very often, have liberal tendencies because they've spent all day being brainwashed in their little community college courses by some reject from the Merry Pranksters who couldn't get a real job at a good school. (Perhaps he should have joined Yahoo! so he could help infiltrate the Chinese dissident movement so he could turn them in for being counter-revolutionary in their thoughts and deeds.)

So little bratty poll taking kid calls up, and reads a script that asks the American people:

Are you FOR the war that has slaughtered puppies, children and cute animals in their millions and brought shame and disgrace on the horror of that which is Bush's AmeriKKKa or are you AGAINST the war like all of the smart, pretty people who you know?

And from there, you can see how biased these things are. Plus, they're probably just lying about what people tell them anyway. I refuse to believe that the great silent majority of Americans agree with Ted Kennedy, Dennis Kucinich, Tom Hayden and the rest of the maddening crowd. I refuse to believe it.

I thank you again for bringing up Yahoo! because it is rare that I get to throw something like that back in the faces of liberals everywhere. And you wonder why I keep coming back here to see how ridiculous all of you look when you're trying to be earnest and motivated about politics and whatnot...

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 19, 2007 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

US keeps 80,000-100,000 troops in Iraq for the next twenty to thirty years.

With what army too? How would that be sustainable without a military draft? I think there is no doubt that a US military draft would lead to civil war in our country.

So these people are talking an illustion. Bush and Cheney look like their baiting oil companies. "Come on in, the waters fine". Turkey is not about to invade Iraq, Pakistan and Iran are stable, the oil law is only MONTHS away from being signed.
Oh yes, and OPEC is tired of lossing money and is about go Euro.

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, may revalue their currencies while maintaining their pegs to the U.S. dollar, a person familiar with Saudi monetary policy said.

The states may revalue by an unspecified amount in as soon as a month's time, the person, who declined to be identified because the matter is confidential, said yesterday. No final decision has been made, he said. The comments came as heads of state of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries met in Riyadh.

Posted by: Me_again on November 19, 2007 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

norman rogers: Keep agitating.


EXACTLY....

2-invasions...30000 usa dead and wounded and 600-billion spent..

National Intelligence Estimate: Al Qaeda stronger and a threat to US homeland

Report points to war in Iraq and Pakistan's tribal areas as allowing Al Qaeda to regroup.

By Tom A. Peter

from the July 19, 2007 edition

heckofajob

Posted by: mr. irony on November 19, 2007 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK

Last week Rush Limbaugh rants about the liberal press not acknowledging Bush's recent "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. On Friday Stephen Biddle imagines an overly optimistic scenario about hangin' in with 80,000-100,000 troops for 10 more years. And today in WaPo, Peter Baker whines about the public not recognizing Bush's advances. Get ready for the Republicans, slow news holiday media blitz (a.k.a - "new-pants-on-an-old-whore" news strategy).

Posted by: jerseymissouri on November 19, 2007 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

mistrustful communities could possibly hold if and only if the US keeps 80,000-100,000 troops in Iraq for the next twenty to thirty years -- sounds great until the Iraqis get tired of us not leaving and decide to turn their weapons against us. And then there's Blackwater's contribution to the mix.

Posted by: Ray Waldren on November 19, 2007 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

norm: I don't trust these polls:


denial isn't a weapon...

its a disease..

Posted by: mr. irony on November 19, 2007 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

"new-pants-on-an-old-whore" news strategy

Whores don't wear pants. What the deuce are you babbling about?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 19, 2007 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

"...or maybe we withdraw and let the Iraqi install their choice: a secular despot, a religious despot, or some potential democratic leader..."
Posted by: Wapiti on November 19, 2007 at 1:19 AM
---------
Our attempts at political interference is like a surgeon who has perfected the technique of installing transplanted hearts. We've got the technology and money to install them, but unfortunately, you can't predict how long the hearts will be accepted, you may have to swap them periodically, and in the long run they all fail.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on November 19, 2007 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, may revalue their currencies while maintaining their pegs to the U.S. dollar, a person familiar with Saudi monetary policy said.

And then the United States of America will step aside and wave the terrorists and the Iranians into the room, and close the door behind them, and leave those poor fools to have a two fisted tea party, tea cups and knives optional. What none of you grasp is the fact that the world knows we will use our military might to ensure that our interests are protected. Do you really think that anyone can dictate to us what's what in a world where we're the only superpower? Please.

All of this talk about the US dollar is wildly off the mark. the dollar has risen and fallen many, many times in the last twenty years--most notably when there was all of this talk about how the Japanese were going to take over the world and become the holder of everyone's debts. How did that turn out?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 19, 2007 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

"Whores don't wear pants"

Well, the ones going in and out of 1600 Wilhelmstrasse do - Jeff Gannon was just seen leaving Men's Wearhouse over the weekend.

Now, don't get so petulant, dear Normie - One of your beloved sports teams lose once again?

Posted by: bert on November 19, 2007 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

Well, the ones going in and out of 1600 Wilhelmstrasse do - Jeff Gannon was just seen leaving Men's Wearhouse over the weekend.

Golly, that line of drivel makes sense if you dial yourself back to 2005 and forget half of it before you let out half of a chuckle.

Does your drivel have a point or are you just here to entertain yourself?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 19, 2007 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

Forgive me for getting in your blog, but I am a Spanish writer struggling to which I read many people. My site is http://www.antoniolarrosa.com

Posted by: Antonio Larrosa Diaz on November 19, 2007 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

Victory has a price, and none of you have the courage to pay that price. Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 19, 2007 at 8:53 AM | PERMALINK

Are you willing to pay the price Norman?
Are you willing to agitate for higher taxes to cover the budget shortfall?
Cause the foreigners are getting more expensive with their savings; it takes more and more dollars to finance our military adventures. When I see you agitating for sounder taxation to finance the big battalions I'll take you seriously, until then your just another borrow and spend conservative sapping America's future.

Oh what's that, you want to cut social spending to pay for war oversease, oh please yes just show me how the feds are overspending on cadilac driving welfare queens. I remember delay and newt bragging about how they had eliminated every last ghetto queen with thier awesome policies, but hey maybe they're like mushrooms and keep growing back.
The little people tighten their belts while the gop base drinks champaine and blows billions on endless wars. Way to go normy.

Posted by: Northern Observer on November 19, 2007 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

Forgive me for getting in your blog, but I am a Spanish writer struggling to which I read many people. My site is http://www.antoniolarrosa.com

Antonio, thank you for commenting. Do you have experience with in-ground swimming pool maintenance? As winter approaches, I need help determining whether or not to replace my 4.9 Sq Ft In Ground Sand Filter System 2 HP Max-E-Pro Pump. It is about four years old, and has not been doing a very good job as of late.

Also, are you certified to handle an Intellichlor Chlorine Generator? If you could post your experience, qualifications and all that, I'll see about having you work on my property this winter, and perhaps by Spring, when we fill the pool up and get the season underway, you might find yourself with other customers in my general area.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 19, 2007 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

"hit the lottery" with the spread of local ceasefires

You call it a "lottery". If it wasn't a lottery, but a consequence of a change in strategy, then the rest of the scenario will be considerably more upbeat. 20-30 years, far fewer troops than now, a la occupation of Korea is more likely. We'll have better information by October 2008.

Posted by: MatthewRmarler on November 19, 2007 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

It's "madding crowd," you ignorant slut.

Posted by: Matt on November 19, 2007 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

It's "madding crowd," you ignorant slut.

Really? I've seen it both ways.

One publication I read every single day is Auto Racing Digest--very informative.

A maddening crowd: NASCAR's schedule is mired in bumper-to-bumper traffic, to the detriment of traditional tracks such as Darlington
Auto Racing Digest, Oct-Nov, 2003 by Monte Dutton
WHILE NASCAR'S SOUTHEASTERN base seems saturated, tracks in other parts of the country are attempting to capitalize on the stock car racing boom by seeking races. It's quite a sticky problem. On the one hand, there's the sport's history and its rustic and beloved old venues. On the other, there's the desire to take NASCAR to new areas and a wider audience.

This is where I was married in 1998 to what was then, my third wife. Next time I'll just buy someone I hate a large home and cut out the middle man.

A wedding venue away from the maddening crowd
Globe Staff / September 26, 2004
BOOTHBAY HARBOR, Maine -- I hadn't been to Boothbay Harbor for decades, and a quick spin through the center of town reminded me why.
Trinket shops and candy stores competed for the attention of the wandering horde of tourists clogging the narrow streets close to the picturesque harbor. Free parking was nearly impossible, so we drove through without a stop.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 19, 2007 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

I just wish that Republican candidates would get in front of the American people and simply declare that, yes, we can win in Iraq if only we screw up the persistence to stay there 20 or 30 years.

Let the American people decide whether that cost-benefit tradeoff makes sense for them, and choose their next President accordingly.

Posted by: frankly0 on November 19, 2007 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

If [a significant and sustained U.S. military occupation] achieves a stable, peaceful and relatively democratic Iraq, don't you think it would be a price worth paying? I certainly do.

A price worth paying for whom? For Iraq? Perhaps, as long as you're not one of the one million Iraqis killed in the war or any of their mothers, fthers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, husbands or wives. For us? That depends completely on what the benefit to us of a stable, peaceful and relatively (love that qualifier!) democratic Iraq is versus the costs to us in money, men and lost opportunities elsewhere.

For example, is a stable, peaceful and relatively democratic Iraq worth 10,000 American lives and $1 trillion dollars? How about 20,000 and $2 trillion? 30,000 and $3 trillion? Where does it stop? And while we're fucking around in Iraq playing GI Joe, what are our global competitors such as China, unburdened by a draining quagmire of fighting two land wars in Asia, doing with their money and time?

Cost of Iraq war could surpass $1 trillion: Estimates vary, but all agree price is far higher than initially expected

By Martin Wolk
Chief economics correspondent
MSNBC
updated 8:25 p.m. ET, Fri., March. 17, 2006

One thing is certain about the Iraq war: It has cost a lot more than advertised. In fact, the tab grows by at least $200 million each and every day.

....Even if the U.S. exits Iraq within another three years, total direct and indirect costs to U.S. taxpayers will likely by more than $400 billion, and one estimate puts the total economic impact at up to $2 trillion.

Posted by: Stefan on November 19, 2007 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

Does anyone know of a transcript of Biddle's remarks?

Thanks

Jim Montgomery
jmmassoc@verizon.net

Posted by: Jim Montgomery on November 19, 2007 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

No problem. Just bring presidential wannabe Petraeus home to pick all the future generals, then let the military have their way!

Posted by: Grouchy Cowboy on November 19, 2007 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

Anyone know what's wrong over at Smirking Chimp? Can't connect with the server...

Posted by: slanted tom on November 19, 2007 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

It's "madding crowd," you ignorant slut.
Really? I've seen it both ways.
Posted by: Norman Rogers

The reference is from the title of Thomas Hardy's novel Far From the Madding Crowd. Over the years, illiterates such as Rogers have corrupted it to "maddening."

Posted by: DJ on November 19, 2007 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

And why would anyone think that leaving Iraq was ever part of Bushco's plan?
Because they said so?
They wish it had gone a bit smoother, but regional control/bases is what this war has always been about.
Making the ME safe for Exxon etc.

Posted by: jay boilswater on November 19, 2007 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

Australia's top defence expert thinks we will lose Iraq and Afghanistan:

http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/18/2094012.htm?section=world

Posted by: Speed on November 19, 2007 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

Does your drivel have a point or are you just here to entertain yourself?

Good question, Norm. Does it? You're sure entertaining the rest of us!

Posted by: thersites on November 19, 2007 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

Over the years, illiterates such as Rogers have corrupted it to "maddening."

Or merely updated it with the times, as with many other English vernacular sayings. I refuse to believe that the good folks over at Auto Racing Digest are illiterate, sir.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 19, 2007 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

"..such an Iraq would soon be an economic powerhouse."

Ya sure. Do you think for a moment that Israel would allow that to happen?

Posted by: Buford on November 19, 2007 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Do you think for a moment that Israel would allow that to happen?

Tell me, how exactly does Israel negatively impact the economic prosperity of any nation right now? How does Israel force any nation into economic ruin?

Sounds like the conspiracy theorists are running wild today. Are we about due for another round of insanity from the Ron Paul crowd? I purchased my Ron Paul dollars the other day and now the clerk at the Stoppin'Buy won't take my money...

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 19, 2007 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

bert: Now, don't get so petulant, dear Normie - One of your beloved sports teams lose once again?

I don't understand why you keep doing this.

Posted by: shortstop on November 19, 2007 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

"How does Israel force any nation into economic ruin?"

Easy question, easy answer.

By getting their pet 500lb gorilla (AKA the USA) to attack/destroy, boycott, institute economic sanctions etc.

Posted by: Buford on November 19, 2007 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK
If it achieves a stable, peaceful and relatively democratic Iraq.... Chicounsel at 11:33 PM
What price are you paying? You borrow the war costs and have no skin in the game. Iraq was stable and peaceful, now it's not. Iraq was not democratic and it still isn't. What citizen of an occupied country think their economy was free?
....This is good news in some important ways....ex-lax at 1:17 AM
Topping off lies with new, fresher lies may thrill you, but the war is ruinous immoral, illegal and evil, like your Dear Leader.

11/19/07 Reuters: Iraq's displaced struggle to restart their lives
The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said this week the number of internally displaced people now stands at 2.3 million -- almost double the 1.2 million displaced ahead of the Samarra bombing.

This is where I was married in 1998....Norman Rogers at 10:57 AM

Ab-normrie must have sat on an old Champaign cork from the day of his third . He's full of his special exhilarating gas again.
... far fewer troops than now, a la occupation of Korea is more likely...MatthewRmarler at 10:48 AM

Are the troops in South Korea still being killed in combat? Of all analogies, trying to compare the occupation of Iraq to stationing troops abroad is one of the stupidest.

Posted by: Mike on November 19, 2007 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

I refuse to believe that the good folks over at Auto Racing Digest are illiterate, sir.
Posted by: Norman Rogers

Is this your "Man Of Letters" personality? If so, I could see how you got your day pass today; it's almost plausible. Almost.

Posted by: DJ on November 19, 2007 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

Aren't the number and force of Norm's comments an indicator of the Neocon's fear and loathing of the subject of Kevin's post?
Kevin hits a nerve and the trolls flock in.

We'll still be in Iraq when the world ends from global warming and sea level rise. America will be broke before then.

Posted by: slanted tom on November 19, 2007 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

I haven't spoke to my wife in 6 years... I'd hate to interrupt her.

Posted by: absent observer on November 19, 2007 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

The reference is from the title of Thomas Hardy's novel Far From the Madding Crowd. Over the years, illiterates such as Rogers have corrupted it to "maddening."

Correct, but Hardy in turn got it from Grey's Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard:

Full many a gem of purest ray serene,
The dark unfathomed caves of ocean bear:
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,
And waste its sweetness on the desert air.


Some village-Hampden, that with dauntless breast
The little tyrant of his fields withstood;
Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest,
Some Cromwell guiltless of his country's blood.


The applause of listening senates to command,
The threats of pain and ruin to despise,
To scatter plenty o'er a smiling land,
And read their history in a nation's eyes,


Their lot forbade: nor circumscribed alone
Their growing virtues, but their crimes confined;
Forbade to wade through slaughter to a throne,
And shut the gates of mercy on mankind,


The struggling pangs of conscious truth to hide,
To quench the blushes of ingenuous shame,
Or heap the shrine of Luxury and Pride
With incense kindled at the Muse's flame.


Far from the madding crowd's ignoble strife,
Their sober wishes never learned to stray;
Along the cool sequestered vale of life
They kept the noiseless tenor of their way.

Ah, if Norman would only profit by ther example!

http://www.thomasgray.org/cgi-bin/display.cgi?text=elcc

Posted by: rea on November 19, 2007 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

Keats and Yates are on your side, sir, but you lose because Wilde is on mine.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 19, 2007 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks, rea! Brings back memories of freshman year of high school...

Posted by: DJ on November 19, 2007 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

Brings back memories of freshman year of high school...

Having your books thrown down the stairs and having a girl look at you like you've got boogers on your glasses has the same effect, yes?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 19, 2007 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogers,

Do you truly believe that Yahoo is run by liberals? That liberals would ever fathom selling someone out to communists? Pull your head our of your proud, brave, free ass. There are many democrats to whom I could donate money (Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, and Ellen Tauscher for example) while still pushing forward your intellectually and morally bankrupt agenda. Furthurmore, donating money to someone's campaign quite often is an attempt to gain influence rather than a show of support - this should be patently obvious. Or are these ideals to nuanced for your brave, proud IQ-free wit?

I'm not the dust-motes in your mom's basement, skippy. Throw a half-assed argument like that and it will be promptly exposed for the shallow piece of fluff and mis-direction it is.

By the way, here are the filings for Terry Semel - the chairman of Yahoo, and the guy who makes the day to day decisions at the company. Looks like the chairman of the company of communist sell-outs is (or was) a republican - although, he is obviously hedging his bets by recently donating to both Hillary and Obama.

http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/Terry_Semel.php

$267,000* Republican
$249,718 Democrat
$68,700 special interest
total: $585,418

Thanks for playing. Your mom has some lovely parting gifts (like free rent in her basement)

Posted by: An Anonymous American Patriot on November 19, 2007 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

By the way, here are the filings for Terry Semel - the chairman of Yahoo, and the guy who makes the day to day decisions at the company.

Can't any of you blog?

June 18, 2007: Semel ends six-year tenure as CEO, hands over the reins to Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang. Susan Decker becomes president.

Semel is no longer with Yahoo!

Thanks for playing. Your mom has some lovely parting gifts (like free rent in her basement)

Suck eggs, liberals. I win again!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 19, 2007 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

Having your books thrown down the stairs and having a girl look at you like you've got boogers on your glasses has the same effect, yes?
Posted by: Norman Rogers

Wrong again, O Insane One. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. You should quit humiliating yourself and your other multiple personalities.

Posted by: DJ on November 19, 2007 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

You should quit humiliating yourself and your other multiple personalities.

Am I the one who was defeated here today? No.

And it's a "stopped" clock that tells the right time twice a day. A "broken" clock is merely a broken clock, and if the hands have fallen off from the face of the broken clock, how the deuce can it tell the right time twice a day?

Suck a double dose of eggs, liberals. I win AGAIN.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 19, 2007 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

I point out, once again, that arguing with Norman Rogers is akin to arguing with Stephen Colbert, or at least his alter ego as host of the The Colbert Report. For god's sakes, people, you can't really be taking this seriously, can you?

Posted by: Stefan on November 19, 2007 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

Shhh!

They'll hear you...

I am hunting wabbits...

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 19, 2007 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan,

I am not arguing with Norman Rogers - as you said, he is a parody who doesn't believe his own nonsense (such as insinuating that Jerry Semel's replacement at Yahoo suddenly exonerates him from Yahoo's activities during his tenure).

I'm really arguing with the conscience of lurkers and undecided voters reading this blog who may read his drivel and accept it as fact if no one presents a reality-based counter-point.

Norman Rogers can tell me to suck eggs and that he wins as much as he wants, as long as progressives stay in power and take the white house.

I confess that I enjoy poking holes in his trumped-up "I am a conservative financial powerhouse" persona.

Posted by: An Anonymous American Patriot on November 19, 2007 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

I confess that I enjoy poking holes in his trumped-up "I am a conservative financial powerhouse" persona.

Umm, you haven't done that and you haven't scored any points against me. In point of fact, sir, you've kind of humiliated yourself by failing to post basic facts known to people who can do simple research and you've actually handed conservatives a great victory here today by failing to score points against someone who "does not exist."

I love that last part. I don't exist? I'm a parody?

If that's what it takes to keep you idiots from wetting your pants out of fear for what I can do to you in a real debate, so be it.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 19, 2007 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

The question is not whether we're willing to keep troops in Iraq for the next 30 years--hello? Germany? Japan? Korea? We have kept troops in those far flung outposts of freedom for better than 50 years with no quarrel whatsoever.

I remember when conservatives wanted to "reduce" our military commitiments around the world.

Of course, they used to think that nation building was a bad idea too.

Posted by: Stephen on November 19, 2007 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

I love that last part. I don't exist?

The "Norman Rogers" persona doesn't exist any more than Norman Bates or any other fictional persona can be said to exist.

I'm a parody?

Yes. The only question is whether it's intentional parody.

HTH

Posted by: asdf on November 19, 2007 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

So the fact that I've been posting here for over four years means I'm a parody now?

I guess that's what success brings you.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 19, 2007 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINK

norm claps and calls that..success..

Posted by: mr. irony on November 20, 2007 at 7:17 AM | PERMALINK

I like the concept of more good govt. ,

Posted by: Crazy74 on October 22, 2009 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

Martin walked, so Obama could run. ,

Posted by: Pol83 on October 22, 2009 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

Use the form below to grade our picks and also tell us what we might have missed. ,

Posted by: Miss15 on October 23, 2009 at 9:19 AM | PERMALINK

Greeting. Whatever you do, do it to the purpose; do it thoroughly, not superficially. Go to the bottom of things. Any thing half done, or half known, is in my mind, neither done nor known at all. Nay, worse, for it often misleads. Help me! It has to find sites on the: 275x155x1 inch changing table mattress pads. I found only this - camping picnic table cover and pads. Table pads, wall portrays like road never have left easily with the requirements. It is blue that light cylinders used to the great interface cannot be required, table pads. Thank you very much :-). Leandra from Albania.

Posted by: Leandra on March 23, 2010 at 7:08 AM | PERMALINK

Akiyama doubled not during the community, making a section of eight results with four businesses and here one replacement.

Posted by: basic computer course home on May 19, 2010 at 8:05 PM | PERMALINK

I've to say, I dont know if its the clashing colors or the dangerous grammar, however this weblog is hideous! I mean, I dont need to sound like a know-it-all or something, but might you could have possibly put a little bit more effort into this subject. Its really attention-grabbing, however you dont signify it nicely in any respect, man. Anyway, in my language, there usually are not much good supply like this.

Posted by: sim so dep on January 27, 2011 at 12:58 AM | PERMALINK

I was questioning what's up with that bizarre gravatar??? I know 5am is early and I'm not trying my greatest at that hour, however I hope I do not appear to be this! I might nonetheless make that face if I am asked to do 100 pushups. lol Anyway, in my language, there are usually not a lot good source like this.

Posted by: so dep on January 27, 2011 at 1:22 AM | PERMALINK

Incredible post! This could help numerous people discover out about this matter. Do you wish to incorporate video clips along with these? It could undoubtedly assist out. Your cause was spot on and owing to you; I in all probability won't have to describe all the things to my pals. I can merely direct them here. Anyway, in my language, there are usually not a lot good supply like this.

Posted by: sim so dep on January 27, 2011 at 7:23 AM | PERMALINK

Have read a few of the articles on your website now, and I truly like your style of blogging. I added it to my favorites blog site list and will probably be checking back soon.

Posted by: web watcher on January 30, 2011 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly