Don’t mean to beat a dead ISG horse, but…
The ISG report seems to be dead in the water. And that’s a good thing. The idea behind the report was to get us all to come together, and we did. The only problem is we came together in condemning it.
Krauthammer sees the ISG report as having given Bush “one last chance to alter course on Iraq.” In James Baker and his clueless cronies, Bush has been lucky in his opponents–as he so often is. Their suggestions were so inept that the report has temporarily revived the seemingly moribund Bush and given him at least a chance to regroup. And whatever new plan for Iraq he may come up with can hardly help but seem better than the utterly astounding ISG suggestion of begging Iran and Syria for assistance.
Dean Barnett is, likewise, happy that the ISG report took only a mere eight days to find–as he puts it–“history’s ashbin.” He calls for a new Churchill to define the path back to “greatness,” something for which the American people yearn.
Unfortunately, as a Churchill fan, I have to say I don’t expect one to be waiting in the wings.
Churchill was sui generis, as well as being very much a man of his times–which was acknowledged to be an earlier time even than World War II. His sort of rhetoric was not only unique, it was grounded in an age long past, and especially British (Tony Blair, for example, comes closer to it than any American ever could. Although not close enough.)
Nor do I think Dean himself really expects a Churchill to emerge. But he is looking for someone who can inspire and clearly articulate what we are fighting for. Someone who doesn’t shirk from asking for sacrifice, and who does not gloss over hardship, but who understands why he/she is requesting it, and what is so important about this fight.
“Leadership” is an old-fashioned word, and a concept towards which many are suspicious. But without it, and without clear vision of success, we flounder.
Sorry, off topic.
Please sign this petition and show your disgust at the neo-nazi conference held a few days ago in Iran.
I don’t think the ISG is a failure. It didn’t open any eyes, but it kind of established in a semi-official form, what everyone seems to agree on:
1. Our involvment in Iraq is not open ended.
2. There is a limit to military solutions.
Of course the buzz now is that we are going to send some thousands more troops to Iraq for a “big push” kind of thing. I would like it to succeed, but I have my doubts. Nixon tried something like this in his first administration, “widening the war”, as a result of which “Johnson’s War” become “Nixon’s War.”
I think Bush is in a bad situation. If he had reinstated the draft right after 9/11, and increase the size of the ground forces, he’d be OK now. But to do either at this point is going to be perceived as throwing good money after bad, and the American people won’t buy it. If he doesn’t do that, I don’t think he’ll be able to scrape together the ground forces to accomplish the mission (referring to Kristol and Kagan’s recent analysis.)
So please, Neo, tell us: what brilliant plan is Bush going to employ to turn the Iraq situation around? What stirring display of ‘leadership’ will cow the insurgency, rebuild Iraqi infrastructure, and recoup our multitrillion-dollar debt? I can’t wait.
Y’know, just because you think Bush is the Messiah doesn’t mean infidel prophets don’t have anything to say.
I dont see the need to be snide. Neo doesnt compare Bush to Churchill let alone the “Messiah”.
Im not sure who you mean by “infidel prophets.”
She points out Bush isn’t this “Great Leader” , it’s another Messiah, somewhere, if we just pray hard enough. How come you don’t latch onto old Crazy Mc Cain? He wants a big winning push.He has a clear vision. Wouldn’t he be your man? Or Cheney, he’s still alive , isn’t he?
harry, you misunderstand. HLVS’s intent was not to reason but to sneer. Setting up a false exaggeration of your opponent’s position – in this case that she calls Bush the Messiah – is a tactic which often appeals to those who are unable to address the actual issues.
HLVS, I don’t know what Bush’s plan, or the next Churchill’s, is, but I’ll tell you what mine was. Honest criticism from the Bush opponents instead of undermining all of America for a chance to get partisan advantage. I contend we would have long since won if we’d had that.
Steve: I think Bush is in a bad situation.
Another revealing statement from Steve, the bigot who thinks Israelis are racists. The fact, of course, is that it’s the US that’s in a bad situation, but for the nutroots like Steve that’s almost beside the point — much more important is any chance to score partisan points, and slip in a little “if only he’d done what I tol’ him” along the way. What makes Steve even duller than most of the pathetic left is his habit of announcing trite banalities as some sort of insight — e.g., “There is a limit to military solutions”.
Yeah, there is, but we definitely haven’t come close to that limit yet. Nevertheless, we have come close to the limit of the American people’s willingness to see things through. Their patience is apparently exhausted after about three years, and that’s exactly the weakness on which bin Laden, the Iraqi insurgents, and the islamist terrorists generally have focused from the beginning. I’m certainly glad to see the widespread dismissal of the ISG report, that transparent attempt to dress up defeat put together by a bunch of querulous old men (and woman), and I agree that its rejection provides a slim chance of retrieving the situation. But I’m increasingly doubtful. I think the islamists can see all too clearly just how well their work is being done for them by the US’s and the West’s own fractured, self-despising, oppositional culture, and know that they have only to wait Bush out. Patience too can be a weapon, particularly in a war like this, and in that department they’re clearly superior — they waited 8 years, after all, between their first try at bringing down the Twin Towers and their second, successful one; 8 years from that doesn’t come up until 2009.
Another revealing statement from Steve, the bigot who thinks Israelis are racists.
As a matter of fact, Sally, I have not posted that Israelis are racists, so those words are yours. I have however known my fair share of racists, including Jewish racists. Of course Israelis have a problem making distinctions between Jewish Israelis and Arabs. Ask the Israeli Supreme Court, if you don’t believe me. If you want to call that racism, that’s your problem.
Meanwhile, do try to stay on topic. Your drive by tendencies reveal only something about yourself.
And whatever new plan for Iraq he may come up with can hardly help but seem better than the utterly astounding ISG suggestion of begging Iran and Syria for assistance.
Even I don’t need an opinion poll to know that that is unpopular in both the red states as well as the moderate cliques of America. Most Americans don’t like Iran, because of 1979, and that’s the adults. You hear a lot about diplomacy is good in your blog, Neo, but that is for news junkies that lean Left or pacifist or whatever they lean towards. America doesn’t like Syria or Iran, and it doesn’t take a lot of propaganda (a few quotes and reminders) to stoke up the black rage of America against Iran.
Unfortunately, as a Churchill fan, I have to say I don’t expect one to be waiting in the wings.
Mediocrity and competency is the best we can expect, Neo. Not “brilliance”. If Bush ever got brilliant, it would probably be in the glare of a nuclear explosion, somewhere. (somewhere over the rainbow now)
His sort of rhetoric was not only unique, it was grounded in an age long past, and especially British (Tony Blair, for example, comes closer to it than any American ever could. Although not close enough.)
Bush has plenty of ancient conservative roots to draw upon, Neo. The times are not all that different. Churchill has his traditions to draw upon. We have Roosevelt, Teddy, Pershing, Sherman, and boat loads of other traditional examples to draw upon, Neo. The thing is, Bush is a compassionate conservative, and that compassion precludes drawing upon the core strength of American tradition, which is and has always been, Total War to the knife, no mercy to evil, no cruelty to the good. Bush by being compassionate to the guilty, is cruel to the innocent. Gitmo is an example of that, which is a fundamental violation of American tradition.
“Leadership” is an old-fashioned word, and a concept towards which many are suspicious. But without it, and without clear vision of success, we flounder.
Some people want us to flounder. A lot of the world would prefer it. Many Americans get a glowing satisfaction, even, from it.
Bush himself precluded Iraq as non open-ended war, Neo. By talking about “we want to get our troops out” instead of saying “we want to stage more troops in Iraq to kill our enemies in the middle east”, Bush has MADE Iraq a war that is “not” open ended. It has nothing to do with strategic viability. His strategic decisions, closed off avenues of choices in 2003 and 2004. We are simply dealing with the situation and its consequences now.
2. There is a limit to military solutions.
All limits can be shattered.
1. Our involvment in Iraq is not open ended.
Basing the assumptions to solve a problem, upon the actions of the person that created the circumstances for that problem, is simply another open ended cycle that never ends. Because it was Bush himself who said and believed and made true, that
Iraq was not open ended. He is anti-nation building, he wanted to get out, and so he created a situation where we had to get out, and where our strategy is to get out. Assuming Bush’s premises, is not going to solve anything, because Bush himself based upon his assumptions and premises has not solved anything.
It is weird that people who protest mightly against staying on Bush’s course and for change, are themselves acting upon the same guiding lights as guided Bush to the problems we see now. What is this, doing the same thing and expecting a different result? It is time to disagree with Bush’s basic assumptions, one of them being the principle of compassion towards our enemies in war. People can start there.
If he had reinstated the draft right after 9/11, and increase the size of the ground forces, he’d be OK now.
He’d have 20,000 fatalities with the Democrats blaming him for sending other people to die in his wars. Nothing will change.
You can’t use draftees to fight CQB, front line, urban combat wars. And if you do, you will take a disproportionate number of casualties. Others have argued that draftees can free up more fighting infantry to go on the front lines, but in point of fact, Bush has about half of the infantry and Marines inside the United States training to go back to Iraq. He doesn’t need a draft to substantially increase the force allocation, but the Democrats and pacifists would need a draft to further increase their power. So if a person is simply interested in personal power, then the draft looks pretty good, because they would know that only a few would be selected, it won’t be them. 100% political power to the Democrats, with few costs.
There is no real analysis on steve’s side of the argument. It is empty. It is not nothing, something is there. But mostly it has to do with tactics, not the strategic movement of troop divisions.
The reason why steve believes there won’t be 20,000 fatalities when he sends drafted troops to replace professional combat troops, is because he believes he can keep those drafted troops inside safe bases, while sending in the Sunni Baathist police apparatus, to do his dirty work for him. Or the Shia, but so long as the American troops stay inside their bases, the IEDs can’t reach them, and Steve is happy so long as it isn’t Americans dieing. That has a very heavy impact in war, when all you are interested in is having large amounts of garrison troops while getting the locals to do your fighting for you.
Because most people who wanted more troops in Iraq, in 2003-4, wanted them for garrisoning. Because if you can’t shoot looters, then you basically need a soldier on every block, to “watch” things. But not interfere, that would result in combat, and when you send untrained draftees into urban combat, it will be like Russia sending in conscripts to a Chechnyan city. Bad things will happen. There are people who want more troops now, in 2006, because they want m
want more troops to crush the insurgency and blow things up. That is a different motive than what motivated people like Steve or the Generals on the staffs to wish for more troops on the ground.
Because in essence, the 1 to 7 ratio still holds true, even if you export most logistics to Haliburton. One front line infantry soldier for every 7 logistics and backup person for that soldier. This includes medics, doctors, mechanics, chefs, basically everything that supplies ammunition and logistics to the fighting infantry soldier. The tip of the spear is small and sharp, but it is held up by the great big and long wooden shaft at the back.
The people who were talking about more troops in 2003, and being snarky about how they were “right” in 2006, paid absolutely no attention to the logistical aspects or the questions concerning what kind of troops, what will the troops be doing, or so forth. They had no options. They were just going to send people into the meat grinder with no strategy and no reason, other than for political backup I guess. Because in Vietnam, you knew Lyndon Johnson sent more troops and that is how he placated the Jacksonians. By sending in more troops, he “appeared” to be a total war advocate. But he wasn’t. He wanted those troops to stay in one place, “lessen casualties”, don’t attack he said, leave the North Vietnamese alone, he said.
They pay no attention to telling America that the drafted soldiers will be trained to a high level, to avoid war crime situations in urban combat zones. They paid not even a lip service, to the questions of why not send in the entire Marine Corps and Army into Iraq, stripping America and Europe of all garrison forces, instead of drafting Americans by some kind of straw poll. They believe themselves to be right, and that they don’t need to convince anyone of anything. But that isn’t true. Because they tried to preach about the draft, they fell into the same pit as the gay activists. If you don’t convince America that your policies are right, your policies are not going to be voted in or implemented.
If all Donald Rumsfeld heard from the revolting Generals was what we heard which was “send more troops, stay with the same strategy”, I would have rejected it as well because it was simply unconvincing.
Sally writes: Another revealing statement from Steve, the bigot who thinks Israelis are racists.
“The IDF always emphasize how Hezbollah locates its headquarters and arms in the midst of densely populated areas, well aware that any attack on Hezbollah strongholds will thus lead to large numbers of innocent civilian casualties. While certainly true to some extent, the problem is: Why does Israel, fully aware of these tactics, still bomb the sites? The obvious answer is that it believes the deaths of innocents are worth the price of hurting Hezbollah.
“Let’s try a mental experiment and imagine that, instead of Lebanese women and children, the human shields used by Hezbollah were Israeli women and children. Would the IDF still consider the price affordable and continue the bombing? If the answer is “no,” then the IDF is effectively practicing racism, determining that Jewish life has more value than Arab life.”
— Slavoj Zizek,
1. Please let’s stop arguing about the Israelis. If anyone can find a nicer, more humane army in active combat, please let us know. Norwegians and Swedes don’t count, because they’re all talk and no walk.
2. Re Churchill (the topic of this thread), it’s interesting to read through his history of WW 2 (a long slog, but worth skimming, at least).
He gives only a peek at what was going on, but the lesson is that things were never easy. Major fights between allies, countries that were on both sides, etc. etc.
Most discussions of Iraq are looking at the short-term. It’s important to get a longer-term view. I’m not recommending anything here re Iraq, just that it’s worthwhile to read all or some of Churchill’s multivolume WW 2 history.
For what it’s worth (which isn’t much): Steve says he hasn’t said Israelis are racists, and he’s right. But, while I realize that logical inference may not be Steve’s strong point, he has compared Israelis to racists, and that clearly implies he thinks they are. Which makes him an anti-semitic bigot.
I have to thank Rodney for that wonderful quote from one of the current left’s most acclaimed “thinkers”. Let’s try another mental experiment and imagine that Nazis hid their factories amid English and American cities — would the Allies still have been just as willing to bomb them? If the answer is “no” then I guess the Allies were also effectively practicing racism, determining that British and American lives were more valuable than German lives, yes?
That’s what passes for an “intellectual” on the left these days.
I think Bush is in a bad situation. If he had reinstated the draft right after 9/11, and increase the size of the ground forces, he’d be OK now.
Why the draft? Because the draft-favorers think it is a way to stop the war. They think that as soon as our young people are threatened with a draft that they will all turn rabid against the war and along with their anxious families will force that mean old Bush to stop his bad, bad war.
And who knows, they may be right – IF a draft ever proved necessary. But if the goal is to increase the size of our forces in Iraq why would a draft be necessary? Happily, it is NOT necessary because the US has plenty of troops in Europe and other parts of the world to send to Iraq if it is decided by our Commander in Chief to elevate troop levels in Iraq. No frightened Harvard students, along with their worried relatives, need trouble themselves about it – no massive anti-war agitation needed – plenty of professional soldiers are on hand already, thanks anyway. Sorry to disappoint, draft-lovers.
And I’m not so sure more US military presence is needed in Iraq. More troops mean more casualties. But that’s right, the anti-war crowd WANTS more casualties – the low casualties the US forces have so far been taking are VERY unsatisfactory to the anti-war crowd – they don’t create enough despair here at home, you see.
It seems to me that those soldiers already in Iraq seem more than able to defend themselves, amid all the Muslim religious fanatics killing each other. US casualties remain low. I say: Have at it, Sunni and Shiite fanatics, kill as much of the other as possible – the less religious fanatics in the world the better off we ALL are.
Why does Israel, fully aware of these tactics, still bomb the sites?
But the commentor forgets: ISRAEL PHONES AHEAD BEFORE BOMBING
When I read excerpts from US troops in Iraq Rules of Engagement, I see them as pure and simple madness, and wonder how with these ROE you were able to take Fallujah. May be, Mariners in charge were sane enough to ignore them?
leadership in the Iraq war breaks down to two things: not asking for sacrifice (taxes) on the home front, and never admitting a mistake.
oh, and everyone has rallied against this report, gee, well maybe if the “people” (quaint, ain’t it) were actually listened too you would realise why neo-cons are having their petouts kicked. 60% of americans at the last election wanted between some kind of draw down and full withdrawl.
way to win a war. let us know when your done, were the British by the way (your steadfast buttbuddy, remember us?)
Hey Serg, when is that “unavoidable bloodbath” in Venezuela going to take place? Hey, neo, what “hardships” are you currently suffering for the war effort? Hey Sally, if the US firebombed strictly civilian areas of Dresden and Tokyo, would that be racist or just determined?
justaguy:
Well, I think of arabs as human beings. Stupid, moronic, and backward but human beings.
I also don’t think they have much economic value, breed like rabbits with rabies, and are lazy and ignorant. But still human beings.
See, you can denigrate A-Rabs just the way you denigrate Sally.
So if I’m a racist with A-rabs, you’re a racist with Sally.
“By their fruits you shall know them…”
What stupidity.
Justaguy is talking about “Sally”, the individual person. No “racism” can be involved here, because his comments are directed at an individual, namely “Sally”.
But when similar comments are directed at “arabs”, they are directed at “a people”, the entire Arab community, who are assumed to share these characteristics. In other words, you’re generalising to an entire group of people. That’s why it is racism.
Saying “Charlie is an idiot” isn’t racist _per se_. But suppose Charlie is white. If someone says “All whites are idiots”, that would be clearly racist. Or is someone said “Charlie is an idiot because he’s white, and all whites are idiots”, that would clearly be racist.
You know, you trolls just keep on coming back with the same old “racist, Zionist” BS. We’re obviously not your cup of tea. Save us, and yourselves, a lot of effort, and go away. You’re not changing any minds. You’re not succeeding at anything but proving to us what mindless, leftist robots you are, repeating endlessly the tropes of the left without thinking, without logic, without any hope of making a difference. Socialism, communism, fascism—all the evil fruits of leftist thought—they don’t work, guys. History has proven it.
Go away.
My, the accusation of racism drops easily from some lips.
Rodney, if you are shooting at me, and hide behind your wife and kids, that’s not the same thing as you taking my wife and kids hostage and hiding behind them. If I hesitate or refuse to endanger them, that doesn’t make me racist. All the talk about whether that means I think their lives are more valuable in some abstract sense is a false choice.
justaguy, I’m not sure I find you quite coherent. The Israelis are not hiding their military installations among their populace. They aren’t tying Palestinian children to their vehicles. As to not caring about arabs, sally and the others here seem to care about them more than their own countrymen do. There has been a common complaint from the Palestinians over the years that is irrelevant but just keeps popping up: the Israelis don’t CARE. The Americans don’t CARE. When you press this, it turns out to be “We’re miserable and you’re comfortable, so you must not care.” Not at all. I hope for the Palestinians not to be miserable. And as soon as they stop making themselves miserable, they’ll be happier.
When I read excerpts from US troops in Iraq Rules of Engagement, I see them as pure and simple madness, and wonder how with these ROE you were able to take Fallujah. May be, Mariners in charge were sane enough to ignore them?
Sergey | 12.17.06 – 3:52 pm | #
Fallujah was a combat zone, without civilians, so the ROE was probably modified. One reason why they wanted the civilians evacuated, and gave the terroists weeks to leave. They wanted a situation where they could modify the ROE for combat, instead of using the civilian occupation ROE.
You see, this is an important point. Because if the Democrats had been the loyal opposition, they would have been hammering at Bush about these dumb ROEs for 5 years, and gotten them changed. But the Democrats were too busy jacking off to their own power, it seems.
Assistant here has got it right.
Pete:
Say, what’s your full name and address? I’d like to pay you a visit. Do you have family?
Perhaps you understand now the reasons for anonymity on the web….
[This is neo-neocon: I erased troll Pete’s comments, as I always do since he was banned from here.
But I thought I’d mention that his accusation that I’m keeping my identity from my family and friends is totally incorrect.
If anyone is interested in the explanation I’ve given for my anonymity as a blogger, see this post that I wrote in February of 2005, when I first started blogging regularly.
Also, if you read the “About Me” section of the upper right sidebar, you’ll notice I’ve written, “My friends and family are becoming sick of what they see as my inexplicable conversion…” So one can only conclude I’ve informed them of my politics, which is the case. In fact, my family and friends all also know about my blog, and have been given the URL to look at it any time they so desire. Most only read it intermittently, if at all, although a few have become regular readers.]
Edited By Siteowner
Didn’t Churchill spend almost nine years warning Brits of Hilter’s ambitions only to be either ignored or ridiculed up until the day severe pain was inflicted upon the British populace?
No matter who orates the message many in the West, ie most of Europe and in America, are simply never going to understand the world around them until such severe misery intrudes upon their feel-good lives that they have no choice but join the fight against the enemy.
It really is going to take an attack larger than 9/11 to get the apathic parasites to understand what they are up against.
Nazi Germany lost, but Britain sure didn’t win. Our guy or guy-ess needs to be smarter than Churchill. Smarter and more selfish.
The man Dean Barnett wants is Rudy Giuliani. He’s the closest thing we’ve got to Churchill. I’ll be voting for Rudy, if I get the chance.
Now all member of HAMAS want to kill all members of FATH, and vice versa. I sincerly wish full success to both parties.
maybe they use the confettie for copomst, those newyorkers are full of xxxx,oops, that was a joke ever notice how life just goes on around you and you really would like to just sit back relax and watch it, but if you do, they’ll up and bury you, my humor is cynical today,