Democrats And The Surrender Myth

Allah has video coming of the President's speech. As for the Democrat response, it might have been helpful if someone had told Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) to lose the hey, it's my 15 minutes smirk he displayed at the close of his remarks. As for the actual speech, did he remind anyone else of Elmer Fudd? Apparently, Instapundit didn't think much of it, either.

Without jumping down into the political and numerical back and forth of our future in Iraq just now, can anyone name one instance in history where a Nation and its military came away stronger and more secure after a humiliating, non-strategic retreat? I can't think of one. And that is precisely the myth the Democrats are selling. This Nation was beaten and demoralized post-Vietnam. And there is no reason to believe the same thing wouldn't happen, again - assuming we bid a too hasty retreat from Iraq. Running from Afghanistan didn't exactly do the former Soviet Empire much good, now did it?

Until portions of the Middle East modernize politically and economically - read democracy and capitalism - there will forever remain a disenfranchised population ripe for exploitation at the hands of radical Islamists. Ultimately, as regards our long term security and strategic fortunes, there is only one answer to the question of what to do about Iraq: Win, dammit, Win!

Comments

[seekeronos]

Or bomb them (Iran) into submission. If it weren't for that Madmanin Adinnerjacket's racket, Iraq would be fairly well pacified.

Remember, strategic area bombing only counts as "war crimes" if you lose.

[BobInStamford]

"Remember, strategic area bombing only counts as "war crimes" if you lose."

Spoken like a true, demented Jeebus Freak. Amen, nutball!!

[seekeronos]

Obviously al-Boob doesn't have a sense of humour, or he thinks that we would actually carpet bomb his co-idiotarians in Iran.

I wonder which one it is?

[bloodrage bob]

is profoundly stupid liberal stamford bobbie therefore suggesting that beloved liberal *democrat* harry truman is a war criminal? or a nutball? or a jeebus freak? after all, truman ordered bombing **much worse** than mere 'strategic targeted bombing'.... no, he ordered the NUKING of CIVILIAN population centers. "general, go kill me tens of thousands of jap civilians!". will you attack beloved liberal saint fdr for ordering the firebombing of german & japanese population centers? causing literally hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths? moms, kids, old folks, puppies and kittens **burned to death** by a liberal?

so which is it, bonehead bobbie? will you attack (wildly overrated) democrats for doing what you attack republicans for just *thinking about*? or are you just another typical liberal dipshit? can i get me an 'amen!'?

[richard]

Democracy has "won" in several parts of the Middle East. And the people elected Hamas and Hezbollah leaders. They also elected Maliki, now scorned and shunted by a once-fawning Bush administration. I live in China, and I can safely say, Western-style democracy and capitalism do not work in cultures that are inherently hostile to such notions. Poor people living in squalor, infected with toxic notions like the inferiority of women and the need for religion to dominate everything in their lives are not going to be living like educated Western European gentry, stopping off to buy some gruyere cheese and baguettes on their way to the election polls. Dan, be up-front with us: do you sincerely believe we can force these people into accepting our way of living? The majority in Iraq has spoken, and they want an Iranian style theocracy founded on the principles of Islam and sworn to the destruction of Israel. And we are dying to bring them a form of government they mainly detest?

[Fred Beloit]

Seek, if you had said drop billions of rose petals on Iran, the Boob would be against it. The Boob's essence is to be contra. He drops his little contentless ladyfingers, they go snap, and he rests content (for a few minutes).

[Fred Beloit]

"

[BobInStamford]

Win? How about some MEAGER PROGRESS instead.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/14/iraq.benchmarks/index.html

miserable.failure.

[Fred Beloit]

"And we are dying to bring them a form of government they mainly detest?" Now richard, on the other hand, has big things to say. I'm not sure whom he means when he uses "we", but he takes the large view. It is the wrong view and offers only negativism, but it is large.

"We" are not dying to bring Iraqis (or force them, as he says at one point) to accept democracy. We went to Iraq to depose a dictator whom we should have deposed after the first war with him but didn't have the guts to do it. We also wanted to offer them the democratic system, which, judging by their heavy voting in the face of great danger, they seemed happy to accept.

Richard has decided it is all over, they are not going to accept or be able to handle democracy. He could be right in the long run. But let's give it a long run and not cut their chances prematurely short, as Richard wants to do. That would be like saying let's throw the Democratics out of the Congress now. They have failed to achieve almost everything they promised they would prior to the last election. Now that wouldn't be good would it, Richard? One fault democracy has that dictatorships don't have to worry about. Consensus. Consensus takes time.

Richard seems to want us to retreat. But then what? We lose a great strategic location for future operations against the fanatical, ruthless, enemy. What does Richard suggest, I wonder, as a better way to keep the war where the enemy is and win it? Or maybe he isn't interested in the war.

[Fred Beloit]

Mr christamfordmum, couldn't you find any stories about how Pelosi's plan for the first 100 hrs of Dem majority was a miserable failure? Why not?

[Terry Gain]

The majority in Iraq has spoken, and they want an Iranian style theocracy founded on the principles of Islam and sworn to the destruction of Israel. And we are dying to bring them a form of government they mainly detest?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is your proof for this view? And why is it that Petraeus doesn't realize this? Why do the vast majority of soldiers still believe in the mission? If what you say is true why did al Qaeda have to resort to such insane methods to attempt to gain the cooperation of the Iraqi people?

Every life is precious but the price now being paid in Iraq will seem very small if America concedes Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran.

The Iraqi governement has been in place for 16 months. Compare their progress to the first 16 months of American government. It took America over 80 years to reject slavery-and that was accomplished only by a civil war with massive fatalities and destruction. It took another 100 years to extend full human rights to black people.

The Democratic Party position is not being driven by what's best for America or Iraq but what's best for the Democratic party (in the short term).

It may take another two years before the IA, now measuring 170,000, can fully protect Iraq with minimal American support. I believe that even though there will be an election in the United States before that occurs continuing progress will be undeniable and the gains of the last 4 years won't be thrown away in order to satisfy the hunger of the Democratic Party for power.

BTW, excellent post Dan.

[Fred Beloit]

Here you go. I love to help Mr christamfordmum.

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~salient/issues/070312/070312_bolduc.htm

[Fred Beloit]

More help on the way, Boob.

http://republicanleader.house.gov/100days/p_performance.html

There's a lot more if you want it.

[BobInStamford]

Ok, elderly trailer-dweller, let me explain the difference. Pelosi's 100 hours didn't cost anything. The stuttering DECIDER's silly lost war costs BILLIONS and is an embarrassment (just like your valiant former male cheerleader) to boot.

Surge on, double-wide patriot!

[Fred Beloit]

Oh Mr christamfordmum, the corruption of Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, et al have cost and are costing plenty. And I think it is finally time for me to confess. I don't live in a trailer. Hate to take this super-good taunt away from you. I can see that, as a good Liberal/progressive, you care deeply, almost heartrendingly for the poor. But I'm afraid I don't have that quality going for me.

[nowingker]

It's all Iran's fault now, right.

There is NOTHING you guys won't fall for if it allows you to keep on with the idea of 'winning' something in Iraq, you have no idea what 'winning' means and neither does Bush.

Can ANYONE tell me...how will we know when the war is 'won'? What's the criteria?

Bombing Iran will do nothing for stability in Iraq, despite what the fool in the white house is telling you. But, you've never believed any of the advice that anyone has given you before, so I know that you won't believe it, EVER.

After Bush bombs Iran and a sea of unintended consequences--all bad--occur, you will simply find someone else to blame, maybe it will be all Syria's fault or Frances fault. I will never be your fault or Dubya's fault and you will never admit that this was all a terrible mistake that has left us weaker and the world more dangerous.

But, have at it people, Harry Reid is like Elmer Fudd, excellent, good debating skills.

[Skeptic]

I would like to add to Terry's point about slavery and rights for Blacks by also pointing out that women did not earn the right to vote in this country until 1920! The advantage of democracy is not that it automatically makes everything right, but that it makes the government answerable to the people which provides a self-corrective feature. Do you doubt that if Hamas continues to wreak havoc and remain a pariah in the world that the people won't eventually vote for "a change" (assuming they are given the opportunity to continue to vote)? Even if they don't, at least there is clarity, no question that the people deserve their pariah status. The government of Iraq may not be the best they could hope for, but this was their first attempt under the new democracy. What do you think their government will look like in 10, 20 or 50 years? They are moving in the right direction. And BTW, Iraqis are not semi-literate savages, I trust them to find the right path (with some wandering here and there).

[templar knight]

"I don't live in a trailer".

But...but...Fred, you have too. Boob has so much invested in you living in a double-wide. You have to, you just have to. You know, the fake but accurate bit the Left loves, from the fake National Guard papers all the way through to the fake Scott Beauchamp chronicles. No matter how big the lie, it just has to be true.

[nowingker]

What do you think their government will look like in 10, 20 or 50 years? They are moving in the right direction.
----------------

It will look like every other government in the Middle East other than Israel, it will be a repressive regime run by a select group of insider thugs, either religious thugs enforcing Islam or secular thugs enforcing their own brand of 'justice' a few will become billionaires, the government will serve personal interests and the majority of people will live in ignorance and poverty. They will say one thing at the UN and to the US and another to the muslim population. They will continue to desire the destruction of Israel.

I, mean, DUH, people. What kind of government do you expect?

[Terry Gain]

"They will continue to desire the destruction of Israel". Allwinger

As fervently as the American left?

[rwilymz]

"do you sincerely believe we can force these people into accepting our way of living?"

By and large you cannot *force* anyone into anything. What you can do is hold their heads and hands and compel rote obedience to certain decrees, but beyond that ... not a lot.

But that is not to say that the sunshine pump our national politicians attached to the recta of the electorate actually squirted our collective heinies full of god's honest [or Gaia's honest, for that matter] truth. What the politicians ***said*** our intentions were [give away democracy and western sensibilities to a culture completely mystified by both] is what the dumass recta of the electorate wanted to hear.

Americans of this faux-enlightened and solipsistically-sensitive era do not want to hear of foreign policy for mere national interest; we [which is to say *you*] want to hear that our foreign policy is serving a larger and more noble purpose.

We can't kick Hussein's ass simply because he's gone out of his way to be a thorn in our side; but if we kick Husseain's ass to bring them democracy and freedom ... well! that's something the neophytes and boobs can wrap their heads around. You swell with pride hearing that foreign policy can serve mankind, and you give your blessing. And then when foreign policy fails to be the microwave entree you thought it was -- zap it on high for 45 seconds and out pops piping hot peace and stability -- you declare, with the full 2" height of your knowledge and experience, that it is all a "failure" and you become so-o-o-o-o disillusioned and cynical.

...right up until the next snake-oil peddler comes along to sell you a war in ... Sudan, to save the poor, poor, pitiable Fur tribe revolutionaries.

"Where is your proof for this view? And why is it that Petraeus doesn't realize this?"

Proof: the majority is Shi'a, supporting the various Iranian-backed Shi'a militias whose collective aim is to either remove the factional government entirely, or dominate it to the point they can reconstruct it to remove meaningful dissention from it.

Petraeus is talking military tactics and doctrine, not politics. We can obliterate meaningful sectarian violence while at the same time creating a landscape amenable to the Shi'a theocracy. They are not mutually exclusive.

"...why did al Qaeda have to resort to such insane methods to ..."

Al Qaida is but one of the several theo-tarian operations in the theo-tarian-heavy panislamist culture. Al Qaida is Sunni [wahhabi-sect]; the Ba'athists are Sunni [semi-secular, by comparison]; there's any number of Shi'a groups.

"Every life is precious ..."

It is? According to whom? 75% of the planet operates on the assumption that life is anything *but* precious, and that there's always more babies where they came from.

"The Iraqi governement has been in place for 16 months"

Quite so. And all the other points are valid and m'l meaningful. How dare we expect that microwave foreign policy the idiot neophytes have come to worship? We can't.

But if -- and it's likely true -- that a meaningful reconstruction of Iraq on western philosophy will take generations, exactly how do we propose to get them there? Are we going to hold their hands for that long to forestall recidivist despotism? That is simply another form -- and incredibly expensive -- of "US foreign policy to serve the world's interests".

"Ok, elderly trailer-dweller, let me explain the difference"

The simpleton deigns to explain anything to his intellectual betters? This oughta be a good show.

"The stuttering DECIDER's silly lost war costs BILLIONS "

Indeed. Andit's costing the state-sponsors of the insurgency -- Syria and Iran -- billions to supply the [largely ineffective] insurgency. And so, instead of taking on the relatively hardened targets of US soldiery in Iraq, they are, instead, taking on each other in order to achieve a greater casualty rate per ton [or tonne, if you prefer] of explosive. In short, it's more cost-effective for them to have a civil war than it is to stand up to the Great Satan.

And even though it's cost us $$B, it's costing them just as many $$B [counted in Dinari, naturally], and we are the capitalism which makes money while they aren't. We can outspend them.

"Can ANYONE tell me...how will we know when the war is 'won'?"

How could we tell when the Revolution was won? England signed the treaty and left us alone? Then wither the War of 1812?

How would we tell when WWI was over and Germany was bolted down tighter than a drum? They capitulated at Versailles and paid off all their debtors? Then, Lucy, 'splain WWII for a second?

You resent being talked down to by the politicians, yet you are now insisting on being talked down to. Does that not strike you as self-defeating?

"Bombing Iran will do nothing for stability in Iraq"

If the bombing is effective, it'll remove one of the state-sponsors for insurgent support, thus throwing Iraq in the direction of the Sunni Ba'athists. ...whish, I suppose, will equate to a "better the devil you know" deal for the place, with the lone caveate that the Head Megalomaniac, now executed, cannot resume the throne.

"a sea of unintended consequences--all bad--occur"

The unintended consequences are only "bad" if you lack the ability or the willingness to manipulate them to your benefit. My one fear if the Democrats take office is not that they will refuse to undertake selfish foreign policy -- they will; they are quite good at it, as a matter of fact. My fear is, instead, that they will listen to the soft-headed dinks that make up the bulk of the Democratic constituency who believe that self-interest is "rude" and "insensitive" and beneath the dignity of the US to perform ... and that we will simply not be willing to manipulate those unintended consequences for our benefit.

...as in Carter refusing to sell Russia wheat in the winter of '77 [or was it '78?] at usury prices. ...as in ditto refusing to kick Iran's ass, hard and often, over the "student" takeover. As in Clinton going through great motions to appear strong and take-no-shit-ish, but repeatedly blinking at the last moment -- Somalia, Kosovo.

The entire world is built on that sea of unintended consequences, and it's hardly worse off than it was during the heyday of the Dark Ages. The difference is that some folks didn't give a flying rat's ass about polls and did what was necessary to do to manipulate conditions for their own benefit. ...instead of mewling about how if you didn't have enough for everyone you couldn't bring a cupcake to school.

We shouldn't care what the consequences of the Iraq War and Occupation are on the Iraqis. When have they ever done anything for us without cumpulsion? If we want to have a war there, it is for **our** reasons, and if they want to benefit from it, then they damned well need to start behaving in ways that please us.

...or else we just wring our hands and fret and blame ourselves for everyone's ills ... and admit that we have no spine.

[nowingker]

You didn't answer the question, how do we know when we've "won" in Iraq. There is no entity to sign a peace treaty and no army to lock down, who is going to capitulate?

Me, I don't believe Iran is spending "billions" to arm the Shia, I believe this is just another in the shifting 'reasons' for the war and now new reasons for the failure. We're not failing because our occupation plan has been a POS from the start and because we have been too stubborn until about 10 months ago to make any changes in the bad plan, but its because of Iran. Bullshit. Its another PR spin campaign based on lies and exaggerations. The Bush Administration has NEVER BEEN right in one single thing they have done in the ME or IRaq, so why should I believe them now?? Bush wants to bomb Iran, so he's got to have a pretense to do it, same way he wanted to invade Iraq and so he had to have a pretense.

[nowingker]

PS,

You presume that everyone who is against the war doesn't understand that foreign policy is supposed to advance national interest not humanitarian feel good concerns.

I do understand that, but I contend that the invasion of Iraq goes against our national interest in any number of ways. It SOUNDED GOOD, but the goals were never achievable in the first place. Whatever goal you want to choose: turn Iraq into a democracy, rebuild the ME, take control of their oil, reshuffle the balance of power away from Iran, send a message to the ME that we won't hestiate to use the military {Okay, maybe the world knows we won't hestitate to use the military, but now the know we don't know how to use it properly, so its worse than not using it at all), erase the bad taste of losing a war of attrition in Vietnam, curtail the spread of radical Islam....

What national interest has this war advanced?

[Terry Gain]

"What national interest has this war advanced?" Allwinger

For starters, al Qaeda is taking a shit kicking. Their leadership has been decimated and, as a result of their moronic tactics of killing civilians in their (so far) vain attempt to drive America ought, their repuation is in the toilet -in Iraq and spreading throughout Arabia. The great 9/11 heroes have been exposed for the moronic thugs that they are.

You want to reverse all that progress and hand them a recruiting boon as well as an opportunity to find a better sanctuary than Pakistan caves. They'll return to Afghanistan in numbers and with increased zeal if they are allowed to claim victory in Iraq.

And if you take the time to read McGrory and Bhattia's book Saddams Bomb, you will understand that Saddam would have turned his attention to developing nuclear weapons the moment sanctions ended.

[Chris]

rwilymz,
Excellent post.

[nowingker]

Well sure, except that there was no Al Quaeda in Iraq before we invaded and that Al Quada wasn't considered "heroic" for what they did on 9/11 by most Arabs, though they are now by many more.

If I set my neighbor's house on fire and then "save" him, I am still going down for arsen.

Jesus, the IRaq war has given them the biggest recruiting boom they could have asked for short of George Bush going on TV and saying "Yes it is true, America is run by a secret Zionist Cabal intent on Jewish Domination of the World"

WTF?

[rwilymz]

"how do we know when we've "won" in Iraq."

You really don't like paying attention to history, doya?

The same as ever: we say we've won. Winning the dance of military conflict almost never results in obliterating the enemy. It is a matter of "what do we want **now**, and how close are we to that?"

We won the Revolution, but had to fight it again a generation later. We won WWI, but had to fight **it** again a generation later, as well.

So did we really win them?

Losing, also, is a matter of temporal definition. If you want to lose a war, by golly, you will. Even if you have never lost a battle. Witness Vietnam. Witness the vietnamization of Iraq.

Militarily we won Vietnam 10 ways from Sunday; militarily Iraq was a walkover. But, boo-hoo, there's a group of tearful Tesses who just think that winning wars is an awfully rude way of being, and they're going to turn a dozen body bags into a strategic defeat.

And by golly, they have. We. Do. Not. Have. The. Willingness. to manipulate circumstances. To our benefit.

We are weak and spineless, which is as pathetic a condition for a nation that hasn't lost a battle in god knows how long.

"I don't believe Iran is spending "billions" to arm the Shia"

Of course you don't. It is in line with your pre-set conclusion to not believe it. I'm not surprised at all.

Just like those who have the pre-set belief that the whole "war against terrorism" thing was a neocon party trick believes that the "presi-chimp" they love to claim is brainless conspired to destroy a several block area of lower Manhattan without anyone knowing about it.

"I believe this is just another in the shifting 'reasons' for the war "

1] the war is over; it was over in 7 weeks. That's not going to change
2] I dearly hope you aren't going to sit there and claim that just because the US embarks on a specific bit of foreign policy that everyone else considers us E F Hutton and stops everything they are doing.

Does Iran not have its own self-interest to act in? Or are we the only nation, ever, in the history of the human race, to be so encumbered with the burden of self-interest?

"Its another PR spin campaign based on lies and exaggerations"

In other words: politics. From politicians. And this surprises you ... why? It offends you ... how?

Are you seriously going to spend time and energy complaining about a reality you cannot ever hope to change?

"The Bush Administration has NEVER BEEN right in one single thing they have done in the ME or IRaq"

Yes, actually, they have. They just don't tell you which parts of their bullshit is right and which parts are wrong. Which leaves you guessing. ...like always.

"why should I believe them now?"

You don't need to, certainly. And for those folks who know how to tell the difference between the rights and wrongs in their caca, and filter the irrelevancies out of it to boot, we'll sympathise with you when you, by chance, get indignant about one of those falsenesses. But then we'll laugh at you when you spout "LIES LIES LIES" at something that obviously one of the true parts.

But, sure, you can be one of those knee-jerk reflexive contrarians. And you'll be the photographic negative to those who repeat it all as gospel.

Partisanship is so predictable, idnit?

"Bush wants to bomb Iran"

He's not alone. And I'm not talking us American uber-patriot "neocons" either.

"so he's got to have a pretense to do it, same way he wanted to invade Iraq and so he had to have a pretense."

He's got one, fully supportible by IntLaw.

You are not allowed to interfere in another nation's internal politics, and support factional fighting. Iran is now doing that in Iraq. There is IntLaw justification for military action against Iran.

Oh, but you deny this is happening.

Okay, fine. They're doing it in Lebanon and have for thirty years [almost].

As I tried explaining the other day to one of the other boobs: Acts of War can be responded to by EVERYthing. ...which includes "nothing" and "full-scale war" and everything in between.

Just because we've had a habit of doing "nothing" for years and years and years does not mean we're obliged to keep up the pattern.

"You presume that everyone who is against the war doesn't understand that foreign policy is supposed to advance national interest ..."

That's certainly a recurring theme, yes.

"I contend that the invasion of Iraq goes against our national interest in any number of ways"

Undoubtedly it did. That's the way it works. Nothing is perfect.

But it also served many aspects of self-interest. Many that they don't make public. For a wide variety of reasons.

"the goals were never achievable in the first place"

The goals you cite I'm going to claim weren't real goals in the first place. They were means of getting the dopes and neophytes to see stars in their eyes, and become all moist with proxy altruism. "Awww, how sweet! We're going to give them democracy!!"

No. We're going to kick their ass because they've been a pain in *our* ass for over a decade, and are now interfering with the strategic interests of the US ... by doing nothign more than continuing to be a pain in our ass.

"...now the know we don't know how to use it properly..."

I beg your pardon?

We conquered Iraq, decimated the power structure and political infrastructure of a nation of 25 million with one of the non-western world's largest military forces ... IN SEVEN WEEKS.

Now you picture yourself as the HMFWIC of any non-western nation that resents the US in general or specific ways, you look at having your power yanked out from under you in seven weeks or, probably, a helluva lot quicker ... are you likely to get all boisterous and rowdy and thinking your safe from repurcussion simply because the US does not occupy well?

Nosir. You're now out of power, and that's what LEADERS want: power.

Don't be dumb.

"...the bad taste of losing a war of attrition in Vietnam"

And again, we lost the war without losing a battle. Remember how that happened?

We collectively defined ourselves as losers. Nothing more complicated than that.

"What national interest has this war advanced?"

We've been over this manymany times. The answer[s] ain't changing.

We were tied to Iraq as long as Hussein was in charge because the UN said we were; without Hussein in charge, the decision to be tied to Iraq was now ours.

Iraq was a state-sponsor of panislamist paramilitarism; now they are not.

At the moment we invaded Iraq, two other state-sponsors decided "whoa! they mean no-shit business" and they dropped out as well: Yemen and Libya.

We created a local, easy-to-get-to focal point for existing panislamist paramilitarism instead of allowing them to roam the globe looking for places to throw their bombs; think of it as a roach motel.

And one of the unintended consequences of this last bit is that once they got to the roach motel, they suddenly remembered that they don't like each other **at least as much** as they don't like us, and because none of them are wearing personal armor, they're easier to kill ... and so they are.

They are doing an exemplary job of ridding the world of themselves.

"...except that there was no Al Quaeda in Iraq before we invaded ..."

There was no group that called itself "Al Qaida in Mesopotamia" no. You're right. But there was an al Qaida-lite there. Another group of wahhabist wankers sitting around, semi-armed, and feeling all indignant.

For what it's worth, the "al Qaida in Mesopotamia" group is a knock-off, playing off the name "al Qaida", rather than being strictly indignant wahhabist wankers.

"the IRaq war has given them the biggest recruiting boom they could have asked for"

Just like the invasion of A'stan was earlier, just like US troops in Saudi were earlier, just like the Gulf War was earlier, just like the Marine barracks in Beirut getting flattened was earlier, just like the US Embassy in Tehran being overtaken was earlier ...

History is pattern recognition. You cannot allow yourself to be taken by surprise by simply the latest event in the pattern and declare it to be the One Defining Moment. It doesn't work that way.

Panislamist paramilitarism has used every event in the past 50 years as "the biggest recruiting tool" for extremism. Every success they have increases recruitement; every setback they suffer increases recruitement. Get used to it.

[nowingker]

One more question for you, wasn't Israel's dropping a bomb in Syria and flying over Syrian airspace an Act of War, and wouldn't Syria be justified in invading Israel?

As I've always said, you are a good debator and a good advocate, but when the real thrust of your argument is "it has succeeded but you just don't understand or know how because all the successes and the 'real' reasons are super, secret and NOBODY can identify them' rings kind of hollow and self serving.

The lesson of Vietnam that we appear not to have learned is that you CAN win every battle and lose the war and that wars of attrition are hard to win when your enemy is supported by a large swath of the population you are allegedly there to help. YOu are always walking a fine line between hitting the actual enemy vs. enraging the population by making mistakes.

I know you think we "lost" Vietnam because of the Democrats, but that is revisionist history, we weren't going to win and the North Vietnamese weren't going to give up.

[David M]

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 09/14/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

http://thunderrun.blogspot.com/2007/09/web-reconnaissance-for-09142007.html

[rwilymz]

"wasn't Israel's dropping a bomb in Syria and flying over Syrian airspace an Act of War"

Oh, indeed. But the tit-4-tatting that's been going on there is hardly unilateral.

"wouldn't Syria be justified in invading Israel?"

See... that's the thing. In the world of International Law, and contrary to the naive idealisms of those who got a B+ in their second year PoliSci course, Might does indeed make Right.

There are Acts of War going on all over the place, perpetrated by nearly everyone. And for folks to whimper about the big bully US is actaully rather laughable. If you're so outraged about the US having fomented revolution in El Salvador, then do something about it. Take us on. C'mon, big guy; put up or shut up. Putcher fists where yer mouth is.

International Law is almost uniformly high-handed. There's only a superficial nobility written into it, and mostly to discredit and marginalize those who achieve nation-statehood through "undignified" means. Like the Taliban. Or the Islamist Revolution in Iran. Or Castro.

Does Syria want to put up or shut up? They've tried several times and lost each and every one of them. So answer your own question.

"...the 'real' reasons are super, secret and NOBODY can identify them..."

Not "nobody", and not "never", either, for what it's worth. Just "not the hoi polloi" and "not now". That's the way government -- even democratic republics -- works.

"wars of attrition are hard to win when your enemy is supported by a large swath of the population ..."

Eh. Depends. Vietnam could, under a different political climate, have been another episode of Conquistadores versus Mexica; US Cavalry versus American Indian. Yes, those noble warriors were not going to concede their land to usurpers and dumb cyclopian domino-theoreticians [insert obligatory tear to fall meaningfully down the cheek]. But another 5 years of Vietnam a la 67-71, and there would have been no noble Vietnamese left.

Of course, we would have had a whole nuther set of PR problems to deal with, not the least of which would have been a more strenuous intellectualist baskwash. But I doubt we'd have the problems with the third world we have today.

"I know you think we "lost" Vietnam because of the Democrats"

Wasn't just the Democrats. The Democratic power structure was, in fact, too heavily invested in Vietnam to be able to let go; it was their comfy-cozy children and the nascent "group hug" philosophizers who constructed it.

They are Democrats today, largely, but at the time they were SDS, and Panthers, and Symbionese, and whathaveyou.

[richard]

This thread is scary. So much revisionism and self-delusion. From way back toward the beginning:

"We" are not dying to bring Iraqis (or force them, as he says at one point) to accept democracy. We went to Iraq to depose a dictator whom we should have deposed after the first war with him but didn't have the guts to do it. We also wanted to offer them the democratic system, which, judging by their heavy voting in the face of great danger, they seemed happy to accept.

Gee, and all this time I thought we went in because it was a fact they had WMDs and a mushroom cloud loomed imminent. Remember? And those aluminum tubes and yellowcake? Oh, how soon we forget. And who the f*ck are we to "offer" our system of government to a society that doesn't want it? They may want to vote (and I believe they do); they do not want our system or anything similar.

Too much crap to wade through here, but bottom line: I don't want us to retreat. But we have had more than four years to "win! win! win!" and look where we are. The situation is totally fubar, and the last great hope, the "surge" was, like the man who directed it, a miserable failure. We hd a chance to win and we lost it. Now we cannot define what victory is. Some nutball above said its when we can say "We won." Well, let's say it - and then high tail out of there. Because the only way that now we can truly proclaim a victory like we did over Hitler would be to smash a huge portion of the Iraqi population into a bloody pulp. Hearts and minds, remember? Flowers and chocolates? You've been sold a bill of goods, and in order not to be forced to face this fact all you can do is regurgitate jingoistic slogans. They may make you feel good, but just realize it's all hot air.

Last comment: Maybe the most foolish point, somewhere above, is (paraphrase): "If we've lost how come so many of our troops believe in our mission and want to keep fighting ti we win?" Easy. Soldiers in nearly every battle in history believed they were on the "right" side, the side that deserved to win. Thus millions of Nazi soldiers willingly laid down their lives confident they were dying for a truly moral and noble purpose. Same with the Confederates in our own civil war. It is always this way. Many of our troops are heroes, and they believe in their mission with all their hearts and cannot be faulted for it. But if we make the soldiers' enthusiasm the barometer for whether or not a war is just and right, then Tojo and Hitler were on the noble side of the battlefield. Do you have any idea how thrilled many of them were about their cause and their mission? Any idea at all? Sorry, the argument is so dumb it is embarrassing.

[Terry Gain]

You don't know the meaning of embarrassing. Look in a mirror, You just compared American soldiers to Nazis.

" Gee, and all this time I thought we went in because it was a fact they had WMDs and a mushroom cloud loomed imminent."

Bush specifically said the threat was not imminent. So it's pretty clear you don't know jack.

[bloodrage bob]

amazing. further proof liberals are spoiled children with the staying power, and attention spans, of gnats. when you go in to change the underlying culture of the sorriest people in the world - that'd be the arab/islamites, who've held the "sorriest people" title for well over a thousand years now - it's gonna take longer than the 22 minutes you idiots think is the requisite amount needed for all task resolutions.

germany and japan - nations *infinitely* more civilized than iraq; nations *already* familiar with the concept of 'rule of law', so it wasn't necessary to teach it to them - were occupied for ... what? 10 years? 15?

but that was back during democrat administrations, so evidently that doesn't count. meanwhile, back at riehl's the liberal morons continue their childish chants: "fonzie would have had it fixed by now!" "mork said all we need is love!" "this is boring, dude! let's change the channel!"

[BobInStamford]

It is with great sorrow that I report the following

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/118976097330620.xml&coll=2

Will this patriot be able to defend Family Values and Support HIS President while incarcerated? Time will tell.

[Terry Gain]

"every setback they suffer increases recruitement."

Bullshit. In fact, they are having trouble recruiting suicide bombers for what is becoming increasingly clear to them is a lost cause.

[richard]

Sorry, that second graf should have been in italics; it was a quote from a nutter above.

[rwilymz]

"This thread is scary"

So's thinking. Draw your own conclusion.

"and all this time I thought we went in because it was a fact they had WMDs"

They did. The UN found 6,500 that they didn't have the time to incinerate before they left in '98. So they left them in Iraqi warehouses.

"Remember" indeed.

When Blix went back in '02, where were they? Just where the US said they were: gone.

So where'd they go, Rich?

"who the f*ck are we to "offer" our system of government to a society that doesn't want it"

The same society that deigns to tell poor ignorant Africans that the only way to rid themselves of the scourge of AIDS is to use condoms -- which they find morally reprehensible, since their whole personal worth is invested in how many children they have.

We are busybodies, Rich. Always have been, always will be. We're busybodies across every possible dimension of our being. You can't pick and choose which of our busy-bodinesses are immoral and which are acceptible. Because, in the end, it will be **our** definitions we apply. Just like always. Theirs don't count. Just like always.

"Too much crap to wade through here"

Oh, I know. And to think, I hate typing just as much as you hate me typing.

"we have had more than four years to "win! win! win!" and look where we are"

Does look on the surface like treading water, do'nit? Looks can be deceiving.

"Some nutball above said its when we can say "We won.""
^^^^^^^
rwilymz

Aww, ain't that sweet. You wanna be friends!

"Well, let's say it - and then high tail out of there."

That's one way to do it. The Korean War model. The Great War model.

Iraq will, of course, descend into the Civil War that they've been dancing around for 3 years. And of the many many possible outcomes, few are in our favor. To allow them to settle some of their own hash means that we either:
1] accept the results, or
2] take unfavorable results and effectively start over

#1 is throwing in the towel; #2 would be using circumstances to our benefit.

"the only way that now we can truly proclaim a victory like we did over Hitler would be to smash a huge portion of the Iraqi population into a bloody pulp"

That, of course, is another way to do it. Nothing pacifies a population and makes them maleable quite like a siege full of desperation and random death. The conquerors become liberators. It's all very group-psychish.

"if we make the soldiers' enthusiasm the barometer for whether or not a war is just and right..."

You **do** realize the flip-side of that coin doncha, Rich? Ignore what the soldier believes, thus marginalizing him; impose instead your own interpretation of events which is, frankly, ignorant of the bulk of the considerations used for the war policy in the first place, and when the soldier comes home asking for handshakes and jobs he gets expectoration and insults ... welcome home, Baby-Killers.

It's a very thin line, bub.

Do you support the troops or doncha?

[Richard]

I never, ever compared us to Nazis. I said soldiers of every army - Nazi Germany, USSR, USA, England, Israel, France, Argentina - they all believe they are fighting for a noble cause. Such typical wingnut BS thinking - try to find a way to smear the "liberal" and put words in his mouth. Great way to avoid my point. Are you man enough to address it, or will you just attack the messenger? Come on, address the point: Do you or do you not believe that the soldiers' enthusiasm and belief in what they are fighting for is proof of the validity of their mission?

[rwilymz]

"Do you or do you not believe that the soldiers' enthusiasm and belief in what they are fighting for is proof of the validity of their mission?"

Proof to whom? The soldier? Or to the historian?

The "validity" of the soldier's mission is measured in terms of his survival, and anything which facilitates same is helpful. Belief in the cause, esprit de corps, just wanting to get a good lay from a local honey once the town ahead is liberated ... whatever it takes.

To the historian, the circumstances are quite different and not so narrowly focused. And the historian requires years, decades even, to come to his answers.

We simply have not had the time for historians to do their work yet, for several reasons, not least of which is that not only has the dust not settled, but the parade of events is still going on.

Sports reporters do not write their articles defining and describing the final results of the game with only one out in the top of the first. The thing you are wanting the post-mortem on is still going on. You do not know all the details; you know less than a fraction of 1% of the details. You simply cannot draw the conclusions you wish to draw knowing the infinitesimal amount you know.

And you're attempting to pre-marginalize those folks who are simply doing what they are told to do by those who you and I elected to be in charge of them have told them to do. You're trying to poison the well.

And then you complain because someone else is poisoning yours?

That's irony, right there.

[nowingker]

We are busybodies, Rich. Always have been, always will be. We're busybodies across every possible dimension of our being. You can't pick and choose which of our busy-bodinesses are immoral and which are acceptible. Because, in the end, it will be **our** definitions we apply. Just like always. Theirs don't count. Just like always.
--------------------------------------------

That's true, and its one of the hallmarks of "Western" culture, we like to make people think the way we think and we want them to agree with us. Other traditions simply get rid of anyone that doesn't say the right things but don't much care what anyone thinks as long as they keep silent.

We can't afford this war, it is folly to think the world is going to continue forever financing American debt as the ceiling goes higher and higher or that this country's economy can continue forever to run on nothing but consumer spending and no savings. It seems to me the underlying thinking is that the US economy is too central to the world economy and so, because we are big and important we are going to get as much money as we ask for for as long as we want it. This is pretty risky as far as I can tell.

[templar knight]

richard, you and chris might as well go back to defacing monuments, you're out of your league here.

[Terry Gain]

"Do you or do you not believe that the soldiers' enthusiasm and belief in what they are fighting for is proof of the validity of their mission?"

I presume that by validity you mean winnability, as obviously no right thinking person would argue that fighting terrorists and attempting to restore peace is invalid.

It's one piece of evidence, but a very important piece. Unlike the Nazi soldiers, American soldiers do not live in a fascist society where they will be shot if they protest or even decline to serve. They live in an open society where they have every right to dissent and a society where they know that 80% of the media and the majority of the population is against their mission. Yet the majority of them continue to express faith in the mission and complain of the MSM coverage. What does that tell you? It tells me that their reading of the likely success of the mission is more reliable than the opinions of people who want the mission to fail.

And I do believe if you want to demoralize the American forces then nothing will accomplish that faster than surrendering a winnable war. If America does that fewer and fewer people will be willing to risk their lives for a country that was prepared to let the sacrifice of soldiers be for nought because it was a good election strategy, or lacked the resolve to support those making the sacrifices.

[rwilymz]

"its one of the hallmarks of "Western" culture"

It's the hallmark of the **dominant** culture. A thousand years ago the Ottoman Empire, an "eastern" culture, was busybodying everyone they could reach. The Chinese busybodied those they could, the Indians, everyone is a busybody to the degree they are capable.

"We can't afford this war"

In an absolute sense? Maybe not. But since a war is not generally a unilateral operation -- there is an enemy -- it's only a matter of whether we can afford it better than the enemy.

"it is folly to think the world is going to continue forever financing American debt as the ceiling goes higher and higher"

Uh ... the rest of the world is financing **us**? How do you figure?

And even if that were true, that simply means that the rest of the world now has a vested interest in the success of our war. Dunnit?

If you are financing, oh, I dunno, your teenager's college education, let's say, and that teenager wishes to study Jazz Dance or something as worthless, do you prefer that he make a success of it anyway? Or are you going to finance your teenager and work to make him a failure?

...silly me. I just realized that I'm asking a contrarian of dubious monetary sensibilities to impute an answer on behalf of a world community which has bupkus comprehension of the value of a dollar, or the local equivalent.

I retract the question.

[southdakotaboy]

There is a rather simple way that we can walk away from this mess with our status intact. First we get on all the Arab news channles and announce that the situation in Iraq after several elections is now up to the people of Iraq. Address the civil war issue as an Iraqi choice, point out that we also had a civil war.
Next mass troops along Iranian border. Step two announce on Arab TV that we are going to invade Iran and destroy ( make a list of very specific places) certain places and do some very visual things (piss in the 12th immams well) that can be easily shown on tv. Set a time table say 80 days. Then announce that when we have done those things we win and that we are going home. *Note we are not rebuilding the smoking ruins*
Lastly have big parade down 5th Ave for retuning troops complete with ticker tape and cheerleaders and free beer.

[dumbblonde]

"how do we know when we've "won"?

When the enemy knows it has been defeated.

[Mr. Forward]

Maybe you should change your name to "profoundblonde".

[templar knight]

Maybe you should change your name to "Mr. Backward".

[dumbblonde]

It's common sense. It's not over until the enemy has been defeated, *knows* it has been defeated, and knows better than to try to f* with us again. So far, these criteria have not been met. Obviously. Will we ever have *won* this particular war?

I believe we have the ability to win, but I'm not sure we will allow ourselves to win. Too much self-loathing. Too little understanding of the nature of enemy. An inability to accept that maybe all cultures aren't equal after all. A refusal to see that this conflict may, in fact, result in the annihalation of our own culture and our way of life. And a lack of belief that our culture and way of life are worth fighting for.

[rwilymz]

"It's not over until the enemy has been defeated, *knows* it has been defeated, and knows better than to try to f* with us again."

Actually, I may steal this. It's a very neat synopsis of Klauswitz and says much more succinctly what I take five or six paragraphs to get out. Not to mention, it's spot-on accurate.

[Fred Beloit]

"I don't want us to retreat. But..." But I want us to retreat. Did I sum that up about right Nowinkie/Richard?