Embolden the Enemy

[Damuri_Ajashi]

Cheney recently called criticsm of the troop surge (I don’t know if he was talking about that impotent “no confidence vote” they are contemplating in the Senate or about American reaction generally but…) “emboldening the enemy”. I guess anyone who is honest with themselves have to admit that widespread objection to the surge would embolden the enemy a little bit but it seems to me that the President’s job is to either suck it up and face an emboldened enemy or come up with a strategy that won’t command such widespread objection.

You can’t use the “embolden the enemy” rhetoric to basically call anyone who disagrees with you slightly traitorous and squelch dissidence. You can’t use it as leverage to get people on your side can you?

It seems to me that there are two ways out of Iraq… we back out (cut and run) or we shove through (massive troop surge, which a lot of people think would have worked fine if that is what we started with, Sun Tzu seemed to agree as well). I think its time he just admitted its a hail Mary and that he is hoping to shoot the moon on this one. Bush thinks he can finesse his way through with the addition of 20K more troops. The entire reason he fired Shinseki and sent into Iraq with less than he needed is because he thought he could finesse a victory with minimal resources.

This President seems to place a lot of value on his ability to be decicive, at some point shouldn’t he start caring more about making the right decisions over just making decisions? Of course all of his “decisions” are coming straight from conservative thinktanks. If you were Bush and all those conservative thinktanks led you as far astray as PNAC and AEI have, wouldn’t you start ignoring them at some point instead of making their unlikely “surge” plan your military policy? You might even start wondering if the tax policy that they wrote for you is a good idea for the country.

I keep holding onto the fact that no matter what happens in 2008, Bush won’t be President anymore but two more years of this President could break this country.

[Quiddity_Glomfuster]

@col_10022

I guess anyone who is honest with themselves have to admit that widespread objection to the surge would embolden the enemy a little bit

Right. Because groups of fighters trying to exist and fight in a country with unreliable power and a demolished infrastructure have the time and opportunity to sit around watching CNN to see what Americans are doing at home. It’s just one more massive steaming heap of bovine excrement that The Asses of Evil try to foist upon people gullible enough to swallow it down.

Don’t buy it. If Cheney’s lips are moving, he’s lying.

[Aeschines]

Just do what the Decider says, and everything will turn out alright. Why can’t people get that?

[Liberal]

What’s so pathetic about it is that even ordinary people (as opposed to we ivory tower types at the Dope) don’t buy it anymore. If Republican leaders don’t shut these White House lame duck knuckleheads up before the election cycle gets underway in earnest, they’re going to be out of power for a very long time. At least until a new crop of suckers is born and reaches voting age with no memory of this stuff.

[wolf_meister]

That’s mighty big talk coming from Dick “Deferment” Cheney.

[Gala_Matrix_Fire]

Hey, he had other priorities.

[Scylla]

@col_10022

Cheney recently called criticsm of the troop surge (I don’t know if he was talking about that impotent “no confidence vote” they are contemplating in the Senate or about American reaction generally but…) “emboldening the enemy”. I guess anyone who is honest with themselves have to admit that widespread objection to the surge would embolden the enemy a little bit but it seems to me that the President’s job is to either suck it up and face an emboldened enemy or come up with a strategy that won’t command such widespread objection.

Hmmm. Yes. Well put.

[David_Simmons]

@col_10022

Cheney recently called criticsm of the troop surge (I don’t know if he was talking about that impotent “no confidence vote” they are contemplating in the Senate or about American reaction generally but…) “emboldening the enemy”. I guess anyone who is honest with themselves have to admit that widespread objection to the surge would embolden the enemy a little bit but it seems to me that the President’s job is to either suck it up and face an emboldened enemy or come up with a strategy that won’t command such widespread objection.

One thing that really helps an enemy is for our Decider and his crew to continually repeat an ineffective plan using inadequate resources.

The vice president is merely playing a tape loop of the same thing over and over. The only plan I see out of GW et al is to hang on until they are out of office leaving their successor to take the heat for what happens next. The Iraq adventure is FUBAR and “I told you so” is an easy call.

One thing that really disgusts is the continued citing of Gen. Patraeus as a supporter of the plan. For Christ’s sake, he has just been confirmed to the job of carrying out the plan. Would he be expected to publicly knock it? Military officers and especially Generals are mission oriented. When given a job they see it as their task to make it work. That’s all that I think can be inferred from Patraeus’ statements.

[elucidator]

Perhaps it is true. Perhaps open dissent and criticism emboldens the enemy. What of it?

If our force is strong and our strategy effective, it would move our enemies to self-destructive recklessness. If our forces are weak and our strategy FUBAR, no amount of public relations is going to hide that fact from them for long. And, of course, if public dissent and criticism of strategy leads to an effective correction, isn’t that all to the good?

Our democratic openess is a weakness we don’t have in common with autocracies, they don’t have to cope with such. We hold as an article of faith that we are the better and stronger for it, that the sacrifices are more than worth it.

Autocracy has a powerful emotional appeal: order, hierarchy and certainty. But it invariably reinforces the mediocrity of whatever ruling class is saddled and booted, failure is not accountable, criticism can be muted, the yes-man is solidified in unimaginative conformity, the alternative possibilities are stillborn. And however much force it may take to prevail, it takes a lot more when you’re stupid.

Of course, if the policy for which you assert military force is itself stupid, not much can save you. We will not recreate Iraq in our image regardless of military force and/or political unity. We can render it a desolation, a smoldering ruin and a howling wilderness. You can kill a man with a gun, but you cannot change his mind with one.

Our Shia enemies don’t need to be emboldened, they have amost surely won. If they are restrained and quiet, and the Sunni are belligerant, our firepower will be directed to them. Infidels kill heretics, win-win. If we were, by some magic, capable of completely wiping out the Sunni insurgency, the Shia will thank us very kindly, there’s the door, here’s your hat, what’s your hurry, goodbye.

No amount of unity, however unanimous, however fervent, will gain the Bushiviks aims in Iraq. You won’t make a silk purse out of Saddam’s ear, no matter how many people swear that you can.

[Jurph]

How much bolder can they get? Stealing American-style vehicles from a gov’t ministry, wearing American-style uniforms, and driving into our compound where they’re outnumbered hundreds to one… and then shooting up the place and leaving with hostages and a computer full of useful info! George Lucas, in his wildest fits of masturbatory self-plagiarism, liquored up on Ewok moonshine, could not conceive of a Rebellion so fired up that they’d risk all of that to stick it to the Empire.[sup]1[/sup]

If anything is going to “embolden” the enemy, it’s two more years of just enough troops to lose.

1. Okay, so that last raid on the command station on Endor was actually pretty similar to the Karbala raid, what with Chewie stealing a walker and the squad taking the stormtroopers prisoner. But holy crap!

[JRDelirious]

All the “emboldening” rhetoric is just laying the groundwork for creating a right-wing meme that the reason we failed in Iraq was that Our Brave Boys were Stabbed In The Back by the weak-willed liberals back home, and if only we would have been steadfast with the President everything would have turned out right.

That’ll come handy thirty years from now, when some dude who sat around drinking beer with the College Republicans at Grad School will run for President against some other dude who led a platoon in Fallujah, but dares be a liberal…

[Tuckerfan]

@JRDelirious

All the “emboldening” rhetoric is just laying the groundwork for creating a right-wing meme that the reason we failed in Iraq was that Our Brave Boys were Stabbed In The Back by the weak-willed liberals back home, and if only we would have been steadfast with the President everything would have turned out right.

That’ll come handy thirty years from now, when some dude who sat around drinking beer with the College Republicans at Grad School will run for President against some other dude who led a platoon in Fallujah, but dares be a liberal…

Hopefully, the internet will still be around then, and those of us who remember just what a clusterfuck this thing is, will be able to find all the blogs, videos, and the like that have been posted by those who served in Iraq and clearly stated that this war was an unnecessary clusterfuck caused by the Chimp-in-Chief to respond to the charges of those who say we should have just listened to the CiC.

[Count_Blucher]

He’s right…it did ‘embolden the enemy’. It made Dick Cheney open his mouth and what fell out was plenty bold.

[Martiju]

@JRDelirious

All the “emboldening” rhetoric is just laying the groundwork for creating a right-wing meme that the reason we failed in Iraq was that Our Brave Boys were Stabbed In The Back by the weak-willed liberals back home, and if only we would have been steadfast with the President everything would have turned out right.

That, startingly, rings very true. Not thirty years from now, but probably in about a year and a half…!

[elucidator]

Well, good, because I’m already too old for this shit!

[Ponder_Stibbons]

@elucidator

Perhaps it is true. Perhaps open dissent and criticism emboldens the enemy. What of it?

If our force is strong and our strategy effective, it would move our enemies to self-destructive recklessness. If our forces are weak and our strategy FUBAR, no amount of public relations is going to hide that fact from them for long. And, of course, if public dissent and criticism of strategy leads to an effective correction, isn’t that all to the good?

Our democratic openess is a weakness we don’t have in common with autocracies, they don’t have to cope with such. We hold as an article of faith that we are the better and stronger for it, that the sacrifices are more than worth it.

Autocracy has a powerful emotional appeal: order, hierarchy and certainty. But it invariably reinforces the mediocrity of whatever ruling class is saddled and booted, failure is not accountable, criticism can be muted, the yes-man is solidified in unimaginative conformity, the alternative possibilities are stillborn. And however much force it may take to prevail, it takes a lot more when you’re stupid.

Of course, if the policy for which you assert military force is itself stupid, not much can save you. We will not recreate Iraq in our image regardless of military force and/or political unity. We can render it a desolation, a smoldering ruin and a howling wilderness. You can kill a man with a gun, but you cannot change his mind with one.

Our Shia enemies don’t need to be emboldened, they have amost surely won. If they are restrained and quiet, and the Sunni are belligerant, our firepower will be directed to them. Infidels kill heretics, win-win. If we were, by some magic, capable of completely wiping out the Sunni insurgency, the Shia will thank us very kindly, there’s the door, here’s your hat, what’s your hurry, goodbye.

No amount of unity, however unanimous, however fervent, will gain the Bushiviks aims in Iraq. You won’t make a silk purse out of Saddam’s ear, no matter how many people swear that you can.

Very well put. I think this is a good summary of the situation.

[BrainGlutton]

@col_10022

You can’t use the “embolden the enemy” rhetoric to basically call anyone who disagrees with you slightly traitorous and squelch dissidence.

Of course you can.

[marshmallow]

Personally, I’d be emoldened when my neighborhood was occupied/shelled, all tokens of modern civilization shut off, and I heard rumors of our overlords raping and pillaging. That’s just me though.

On a different note, I really hate the magical thinking that pervades this country. If 100% of the population prayed for and supported our troops our soldiers wouldn’t become immune to bullets.

[Scylla]

@mstay

On a different note, I really hate the magical thinking that pervades this country. If 100% of the population prayed for and supported our troops our soldiers wouldn’t become immune to bullets.

Actually, I think they would, especially if the “support” took the form of body armor.

[Bippy_the_Beardless]

I like to say col_10022 wrote an excellent OP, though perhapse it might do well in GD rather than the pit.
Unfortunately col_10022 seems to be speaking reasonably and objectively so his/her ideas are unlikely ever to be heard by the general public.