Bush always listened to the generals. If he didn’t what he wanted he fired them. Eventually he will get a guy to do what he wants ,then he listens to him.
Sam, did you ever see the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail? Do you remember the scene where the Black Knight tells King Arthur that he cannot pass? So they fight and Arthur cuts off his arm. Arthur says he won and wants to pass now. But the Black Knight insists he’s unwounded and will keep fighting. So they fight so more and Arthur cuts off his left arm. Arthur now points out that the Black Knight can’t fight anymore but he keeps insisting he’s unhurt. He keeps kicking Arthur until he cuts off his legs. Arthur then steps around his limbless body and as he walks away, the Black Knight calls out “how about we call it a draw?”
My point is this isn’t an argument that will be settled by who has the stronger opinions on the subject. We won’t win in Iraq because we believe we’re winning and we won’t lose because we believe we’re losing. The issue before us is not to convince more people to say George Bush is right and the Democrats are wrong. Bush’s approval rating could go up to 99% and it would have no effect on anything happening in the world. There’s objective reality occurring and people have to look at it. You don’t stand there and protest that you’re winning while you’re getting your arms and legs hacked off.
Look.
I am a humanitarian. A dislike death, destruction, chaos, anarchy, and the disruption of the necessary functions of a society. That’s why I opposed this war strongly from day one. I knew it would be a disaster. I knew it would cause suffering far in excess of any suffering it might prevent. I said so, on this board and elsewhere. And I was right.
I would love to be wrong. Nothing would please me more than a peaceful resolution. I hope and pray for it every day.
But I am also a realist. I know that the people in Iraq are human beings, and they’ll act much like other human beings. If a hostile foreign nation invades and inflict tremendous harm on them, then starts bossing them around, they’re going to resist. This is human nature. More violence will not change the fact. It is flatly impossible to kill so many Iraqis that the Iraqis will like us and obey us.
As a realist, I also know that politicians are scum, and that the media are mostly liars. Both groups lie particularly severely in wartime. In every war that I know of, all sides claim that things are going well for them constantly. Always the losing side insists that they’re winning until close to the very end. That was true in the Civil War, WWI, WWII, the Vietnam War, … Some facet of human nature creates this phenomenon.
And that is why I don’t believe the claims that a win is just around the corner in Iraq. I’ve rejected every such claim in the past four and a half years, and I’ve always been right so far.
Ach sorry Moderator, I should have known better.
*Deciding *to withdraw is what the President and Congress are responsible for, coming up with a plan to withdraw is the military’s job. But apparently asking about the plan is aiding the enemy. .
Your “soft landing” is a fantasy. The situation in Iraq has been getting steadily worse and worse and the surge is failing. The only “plan” that the White House has at this point is to drag out the end of the war until after Bush is out of office so they can blame the “Defeatocrats” for the debacle.
Did you read Greenwald’s critique of the article you linked to in your OP? Do you still believe that given their horrible track record O’Hanlon and Pollack are reliable judges of the current situation in Iraq?
Because many of them oppose the war only because it’s not going well.
And very few Americans actually care much about the troops ( beyond making speeches about how much they love them and sticking ribbons on things ), much less the civilians.
A careful reading of my post would show that I was actually placing blame quite squarely on the past actions of the Republican leadership (primarily Rumsfeld, but the buck has to stop with the President, so he bears ultimate responsibility) for the current mess in Iraq. However, recognizing that the GOP leadership (again, most especially Rumsfeld) messed up doesn’t prevent me from realizing the Democratic Congressional leadership is more or less committed to Iraqi genocide; sure, they flavor it in terms of “bringing our boys home”, but what they are doing is advocating an action which will most surely destroy Iraq purely because they know Iraq is unpopular right now and that they can capitalize on that.
People still seem to be hung up on the fact that Bush started this fire, I think everyone is so aware of that that continually harping on it is akin to screaming at the top of your lungs that the sky is blue. No reasonable person will deny Bush/Rumsfeld made a terrible, terrible set of decisions that started the conflagration; that doesn’t mean the Democrats in Congress can just laugh and point as the house burns down without becoming immoral monsters.
Not everything which is popular is right, nor is everything that is unpopular wrong.
We don’t agree often, but I can’t find anything I disagree with here. The “morality” of a given war has never been important to Americans. The Spanish-American War was the most popular war in the history of the United States. McKinley called for something like one million volunteers, and over two million ended up volunteering, so many that we actually had to turn volunteers away. We won that war relatively quickly and decisively.
However, it doesn’t change the fact that we entered into said war on flimsy pretexts and bald-faced imperialistic desires (not that I consider the Spanish-American War a bad war, in fact I think we should have gone further and outright annexed Cuba–instead of putting so many resources into the Philippines which were disastrously hard to manage.) The Spanish-American War was always popular because we won it decisively, that’s all the people care about in the end.
Plus, the hamlets are becoming pacified, the people have rejected outside infiltrators and most of the country’s army is reliable. Does this mean there’s light at the end of the tunnel?
Dang, you got to use those phrases before I did. Thought I was having a flashback.
Especially when Sam Stone used “winning hearts & minds” with a straight face.
People who tell the truth are held up as tellers of truth. This isn’t just some esoteric debate about tax rates for which you can hold up the opinion of some random economist because it supports your desired position. This is a matter of grave importance, with ample evidence as to whether it is progressing in a desirable or undesirable manner.
The vast weight of the evidence indicates that the situation in Iraq is progressing extremely poorly. Not only do items that you point to, as in the OP, seem to fail to accurately account for all available indicators, but the history of this administration and its supporters here and elsewhere to routinely provide rosy estimates of “last throes” and “turned corners” and “the next six months” should make one shamed for being fooled far more than twice.
Just because you are desperate to believe it doesn’t make it true. There is no Tinkerbell to revive by clapping here.
I hate using this word, but Cite?
The actual statistics from the Brookings institute show the opposite of what O’Hanlon and Pollack are stating.
As a matter of fact, O’hanlon himself has contradicted what he wrote just a week or so ago.
Now this is the Think Progress page, so it has a definate partisan ideology, but the facts, the statistics on the ground, are completely opinion free. We won the war, but are losing the occupation. Badly. We need to get out and get our men and women home. Now.
Hook, line and sinker. Also fishing pole, fisherman, and a considerable portion of the surrounding shoreline.
But at least the Kurds will love us forever. Oh wait …
USA to help Turks bash Kurds - but don’t tell anyone, it’s a secwet.
Yea - well good luck keeping it concealed and denying it now. And as usual we think that killing a few bad guy leaders will make the whole problem go away. I mean - it’s not like the Kurds are really serious about a homeland. Once you kill the current leaders there will be no more. Everything will be just peachy. Flowers and ponies for all.
Just like it was in Iraq once Saddam and 57 leaders of Al Q in Iraq and 347 (as at 14: 43 GMT) deputy leaders were eliminated. :rolleyes:
I hope to God it’s true. But I, too, would like to see some concrete metrics. I heard a piece on NPR some weeks ago about Petraus’ strategy for calming urban centers of violence, and it sounded like he knew what the hell he was talking about. But again, if we had some country-wide stats for civilian casualties, intentional damage to infrastructure, and other problems that have deviled the occupation, it would help.
And Martin Hyde, the accusation that opponents of the war want genocide is loathsome and disgusting. I told you in the Pit what I thought of you when you made that claim there. Please go re-read it.
My “careful reading” seems to have missed the point where you use your blame phrase (“immoral monsters”) in description of each of those persons. Perhaps you can point out where you have done so? (I mean, obviously you have done so, being intellectually honest and all.)
doublepost deleted
This, of course, assumes that facts on the ground will determine success or failure.
I’m not saying that facetiously; I truly think there are a substantial number of people on the right who think the war will be won or lost in the newspapers, and that the only thing that can possibly defeat American interests is an insufficient will to succeed. When members of the administration frame opponents as part of the “reality-based community”, what other possible interpretation is there?
Even if the article happens to be 100% true, it’s a case of shutting the barn door when the horse is already a mile out of sight. Even if they’re finally setting right the mistakes that have been made (those that can be set right), that doesn’t suddenly mean the war was a good idea and I’m going to support it.