So. How’s that Republican pushback against the entrenched Democratic war narrative—the one clearly favored by many in the legacy media—coming along? From the Washington Post:
Democrats fumed last week at Vice President Cheney’s suggestion that criticism of the administration’s war policies was itself becoming a hindrance to the war effort. But a new poll indicates most Americans are sympathetic to Cheney’s point.
Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale—with 44 percent saying morale is hurt “a lot,” according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.
The results surely will rankle many Democrats, who argue that it is patriotic and supportive of the troops to call attention to what they believe are deep flaws in President Bush’s Iraq strategy. But the survey itself cannot be dismissed as a partisan attack. The RTs in RT Strategies are Thomas Riehle, a Democrat, and Lance Tarrance, a veteran GOP pollster.
Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to “gain a partisan political advantage.”
Full disclosure: I am not a pollster, nor am I a licensed statistician—so take my analysis with a grain of salt. But if I’m reading this right, 70% of Americans believe that Democratic party criticism of the war is motivated by partisan political impulses—a desire for power, to put it more forcefully—rather than a desire to help the US win the war in Iraq.
70%¹
Similarly, 70% of Americans think that the Democrats’ attacks on the war are damaging troop morale, which necessarily creates unnecessary problems in battlefield execution.
70%
Which suggests, to me at least, that a pushback was long past due, and will prove more effective than the naysayers in the MSM predicted; in fact, I suspect that many Americans were taking their cues from the administration’s silence in the face of relentlessless, vicious, and disingenuous Democratic criticism, and were simply waiting for the Bushies to reassert publically and forcefully the righteousness and importance of the war as part of an overall strategy in the war on terror—accounting at least in part for the President’s low approval numbers recently.
As a country, we were just waiting to hear from our leadership what we all secretly suspected to be the case—that the Democratic claims of failure and quagmire were opportunistic and wrong, and that Iraq was going far better than the Democratic leadership has led us to believe.
Glenn Reynolds notes, “It’s not surprising […] that the more connection people have to the war, the better they think things are going. That’s precisely the opposite of what we saw in Vietnam […].”
To which I’d add that this latest poll—coming as it does on the heels of a forceful Administration counterattack against its critics—suggests what we’ve always known, anyway: down deep, most Americans are optimistic, and will treat with suspicion those who preach US weakness and failure and dishonesty.
The Democrats are angling to take credit for inevitable and planned post-election troop drawbacks. The President needs to continue to make it clear that any removal of troops from Iraq will be a sign of strength and success rather than panic and failure—the latter the message the Dems have been pushing us to embrace.
¹Dorkafork looks at the raw data and notes that only slightly better than half of all Americans, 51%, think the Dems are criticizing solely for partisan gain; nevertheless, only 30% believe the criticism is being offered solely to help the cause of the war.
70%. Devastating. Simply devastating.
I wonder if the opportunistic Dems will take the opportunity to heed this poll. I mean I really wonder. Because if so whatinhell will they do? The American people (read electorate) have made it clear they don’t think the Dems are aligning themselves with the troops. Or the war. Or the prez. What are they going to do now? Piss off their funding base. Or the electorate at large? Know what? I’m rather AMUSED. Did that sound like I’m taking a swipe at anyone?
And, just so you know:
“RT Strategies, a newly established bipartisan corporate/public affairs polling firm headed by Thom Riehle, former president of Ipsos Public Affairs and a veteran of the Peter Hart and Patrick Caddell Democratic polling firms, and Lance Tarrance, who was one of the pioneering Republican pollsters in the 1970s and 1980s.”
Caddell had a great bit on Hardball while ago:
“I’m a liberal Democrat. I started in Florida politics. I worked for George McGovern. I worked for Jimmy Carter. I’ve worked for Ted Kennedy, Mario Cuomo. Nobody can question, I think, my credentials and my convictions. But I have to tell you, at this point, it’s hard to believe, but my party, the party that [my family has] belonged to since my great-great-grandfather … has become no longer a party of principles, but has been hijacked by a confederacy of gangsters who need to take power by whatever means and whatever canards they can.â€Â
Just in case you’re concerned.
About the only similarity between Iraq/Afghanistan and Vietnam is the anti-war lies and liars. The figure that stunned me was (I think, 55% of admitted democrats asked in the poll agreed. koskiddieskried. A lot.
“A majority believes the motive is really to “gain a partisan political advantage.””
The same majority that is uhappy with the war and thinks we were misled into it? Must be.
The Dems read their own clippings too much.
Excellent poll analysis actus.
Ain’t that the truth.
Jeff, you should hold a Carnival of Presidential Articulation. Ask people to write the speech the President needs to give to rally support to the war again. Then, a week from now, you get them all together in one place and comment, bitch, moan, praise forcefully, and whatnot. This is definetly the place for that with your focus on the importance of articulation.
There are a lot of good writers in the sphere and a lot of good thinkers too. There are probably some pretty decent ideas out there. You might could even get Frum, Steyn, or Sullivan to make an offering. A long shot, but not implausible.
Actus, I have no particular need to reconcile your fantasy with reality.
But if I wished to amuse myself, I’d point out that one could conclude that even people unhappy with the Iraq war recognize the fundamental vacuousness of the Democrats.
But… but… the plastic bags! the polaroids! the white phosphorous…!
The one thing I don’t hear mentioned (ever?) is that most of the opposition to the Viet Nam War came from sorry cowards concerned over being drafted, and other sorry cowards with cameras who were in the same boat. If Johnson would have had the foresight to make the military all-volunteer like it is now, he would have effectively neutered the commie-financed Peace-Mongers of the day.
In Berzerkly, in the late 60’s early 70’s, if you saw a pretty hippy girl wearing a military issue olive drab cap with a red star on the front at a party, you knew damn well not to mess with her, because she was spoken for by some hard-faced North Korean or Chinese agent provacateur. And you would get your ass feloniously whipped with a quickness.
I didn’t see hard, yellow faces like that again, until years later, when I was looking at them through binoculars across the South/North Korean border.
Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale…
Just as they recognize the white phosphorous smear reveals not just a callous attitude toward troop morale, but an underlying distrust of the U.S military.
It’s my understanding Bush is continuing the pushback with another speech tomorrow. Give ‘em hell, George.
“About the only similarity between Iraq/Afghanistan and Vietnam is the anti-war lies and liars.”
Today’s Daniel Ellsberg has been with us since the begggining.
Today’s Daniel Ellsberg has been with us since the begggining. <blockquote>
Actus,
Your acuity in poll analysis and the subtle rhetorical punch is simply astounding. The insight. The Gordian resolution you offer. Bravo, you magnificent bastard. Bravo!
Tell the president and vice president that you support the pushback:
A more detailed version of the report is (pdf) here. 51% said it was for partisan political advantage, 6% said a bit of both, 6% neither, and 7% not sure/refused. So only a simple majority of Americans believe the Democrats are criticizing the Iraq War out of purely partisan political consideration.
I am still waiting for those who keep pointing out poll numbers re: “dissatisfaction with the war” to provide a figure on how many of those folks are in the “dissatisfied we are not dropping the hammer hard enough” camp, not the “come home now, Iraqis? Screw ‘em” camp.
For science fiction fans, what we have here is an example of the Miles Vorkosigan Theory of Leadership: Find a parade and get in front with a big baton.
Troop reductions have been in the works for some time; I recall discussion in September. The only thing that’s changed is that some of the numbers have been firmed up in response to the actual progress made by the Iraqis.
The Dems know this because they’re included in the briefs from the people running the war. They’ve spun it in their favor and broken the news early, in the process once again spilling classified info into the papers like so much pigslop. Some “patriots”.
Regards,
Ric
tw: months. Clearly the AI is on track again.
Actus,
Ellsberg has been with us from the beginning, eh? Which modern Pentagon Paper “expose of the war” are you referring to? The Downing Street Memo? The WP cry-fest? Something I’ve missed? Enlighten me please. I missed out on a year’s worth of news, so it’s entirely possible that I didn’t get informed about some earth-shattering revelation that didn’t make it into the last Michael Moore flick.
Oh, and Major John, I’d advise you not to give up anything you enjoy, like breathing or sex, until that happens.
Regards,
Ric
tw: decided. The outcome in Iraq has been decided in the boardroom of the NYT, and the rest of us are invited to enjoy it.
I have a post here on my blog about this, and note the initial change in the weather about how the MSM is going to be writing about the war in Iraq in the coming year.
It’s an extremely grudging admission that things might turn out well, but with all the other caveats to make the liklihood look, well, unlikely.
The polls are bad for the Dems the same reason election day last November was bad for them – they’ve perfected the art of pissing, whining and moaning over Bush and the Iraq front in the WoT – yet they’ve offered no strategies for winning.
So Democrats, talking only to other Democrats, think the rest of America hates Bush more than they do the terrorists (like the Democrats do), and that losing in Iraq is o.k. if it helps defeat Bush (like the Democrats do).
Yet reality rudely interupts the Democrat wet dream at key moments with confirmation that Americans have no stomach for losers, or the losers who counsel quitting, or the losers who’d let the enemy win so they could defeat Bush. Democrats will have to learn over and over again Americans are not only patriots, they only vote for patriots – not limp wristed, knock-kneed bed-wetters bent on quitting and appeasing.
Finally, some good news again.
The numbers speak for themselves and they are devastating. Of the 70%, 44% say it hurts morale alot. To put this in slightly more personal terms, of the 1001 people surveyed, 700 said it hurt morale and 440 said it hurt alot.
However, from the numbers here, there also seems to be a growing consensus to get out. 490 said we should stay until we meet our objectives. Of the 460 who favored leaving, 160 of those said get out now regardless and 300 wanted fixed dates.
The pushback by this administration needs to continue and more & better explanations given to persuade those in favor of immediate or fixed date withdrawl to satay the course until it is reasonable to leave.
I have always had faith in our citizenry to see through the bullshit that the democrats and their choirboys in the MSM have been peddling. This is just one more thing to be thankful for this Thanksgiving weekend.
If Iraq continues to go well and it should and the economy continues to pick up, come election 2006 the democrats will hopefully get everything they so richly deserve for playing cynical partisan politics with the lives of the young men and women serving our country in this just cause.
So 70% think the Dems are being political, but 60% want US troops out in a year. How to explain the overlap?
Maybe people see the political calculation but still want to get out of Iraq. You guys want to get mileage on bashing the media but you should be arguing for keeping the troops in.
You say the Dems/media are warping the debate. Obviously people see the peacenik position of the Dems/media, and they don’t care. They still want the troops to pull out. By a landslide.
The important poll of course is the poll of army recruiting, which all the cheerleading in the world hasn’t affected. You guys can clap all you want. Until you get young people to join up you’re just bellowing.
You guys can clap all you want. Until you get young people to join up you’re just bellowing.
These the same ‘young people’ who won the 2004 election for the Democrats?
Landslide? Where are you getting a number, from a reputable source, that denotes a “landslide”?
Just Army? Or are you trying to imply all branches of the military are having recruitment problems or are you cherry picking and mentioning a particular age group to support your unsupportable position? If so, where are you getting your numbers? How about the re-enlistment figures? The soldiers in the field keep re-enlisting in record numbers because they feel their work is important.
As an aside, those soldiers also wonder which war the media is covering, because what they see and what they read in the media have nothing to do with each other.
Bellowing? We are not bellowing. We are supporting our troops in their heartfelt mission to free 30+ million people. They are giving their time, their lost time with loved ones, and their lives to accomplish their mission. The Iraqi’s and the Afghani’s want their countries back, but until that time they are supporting, and thanking, our troops as well. You aren’t. You are whinning about your own pitiful stances and wondering why people can’t understand your rightness.
Clapping? You bet. I applaud our troops every day. We, as a family, applaud and pray for them with every meal. Each time we see a soldier, we thank them for their service. I can’t do that with the President and the Vice President because we live in different towns, but they are doing, as the troops, what they think is important. Thank God they don’t do polls or PC crapola.
This is gonna leave a mark because the rudderless democrats live by the polls.
And, uh, the recruitment numbers I’ve seen seem to indicate that the service is doing just fine retaining and attracting men and women. Care to offer up a citation to back your claims of problems in recruiting, wellbasically?
When i was over there, the biggest damage to morale that this nonsense caused was that we raged against the anti-war crowd with no voice. i read on the internet time and again how teddy boy kennedy called us – called me! – a failure, and how we couldn’t win. we heard all about our ineffectiveness, our “quagmire” of a war, our vicious inhuman ways…and we had no way to refute it. we were there. we knew how well the war was actually going. we knew all about the “car bomb” ratio…for every one that went off, there were three more that we prevented. we saw the little kids thanking us for playing soccer with them, we watched the iraqi army slowly evolve into something resembling a fighting force. i wrote a weekly newspaper colum while i was over, but the circulation of the paper is small and rural, so very few “important” people heard what i had to say. soldiers constantly expressed disgust at how the anti-war politicians (most of whome voted YES on use of force) portrayed our “failures” yet we had no mainstream outlet for our story, the true story. thank god for milblogs and guys like arthur chrenkoff for his roundups, but we need a bigger stage, where currently serving soldiers and returning vets like myself can tell america how it’s really going in iraq, how WEL it’s going.
I couldn’t get a trackback to work, but I linked to this post here (with bonus Sheehanoid analysis!)
The best retention figures are coming from deployable units, both in theater and out. Maybe they know the score and want to be there for the win.
Funny, isn’t it?
This quarter (Oct-Dec) is traditionally the worst for recruiting. It’s a simple function of holidays combined with the onset of winter weather plus the fact that recruiters are concentrating on prospecting schools for next spring’s pool now.
I’ve been expecting a round of “recruiting falters” stories for over a week; they seem to come around every year at this time.
I’m not a professional pollster, either, but I’d dearly like to hear one comment on what a politico will do in the face of even a forty percent negative value. This subject is life and death for thousands, freedom for millions, and victory or defeat as a nation. Not who gets a bridge or building named after them.
Democrats. Like swimming with anvils, and that’s being generous.
Ooooh – the word is “death”. As in “What Democrats didn’t notice happening to their party”.
“wellbasically” has a point, of course, but then it’s been months since I saw a MSM story on military recruiting. Since you, I, and the tribesmen in Ulan Bator know that if it was going particularly badly it’d be front page above the fold, I’ve been concluding that recruiting has been meeting needs.
But Thomas Foreman reminds me—the Dems are about to get their wish, or part of it: some of the troops are coming home. Forty to sixty thousand of them is the number I’ve heard. Have they thought this through? (Not a question about Biden, of course—he doesn’t have the equipment)
Forty to sixty thousand guys, a lot of them Reservists rather than young and (arguably) inexperienced men. The vast majority of them ready, willing, and able to explain to their neighbors and friends that the MSM and the Democrats have been lying their butts off about what’s going on in Iraq. Showing up in the United States in the spring and summer.
Oh, and Bruce Willis intends to make a movie about the Deuce-Four. Summer release, of course…
So, three or four months for that to work, then the 2006 Mid-Term elections in the fall. Anybody care to make a prediction? Not I.
Regards,
Ric
tw: forces. Our forces in Iraq are being reduced, and redeployed to the home front.
Guys hear me now and believe me later. Army missed its goal, army national guard missed its goal, retention of roadside bomb specialists: abysmal. Why? Kids don’t want to fight the war you’ve got them into. Hell yeah they’ll join the navy!! What do you think that says?
>>>>i read on the internet time and again how teddy boy kennedy called us – called me! – a failure, and how we couldn’t win.
— I don’t buy this. I’ve been here in teddy boy’s state, the TV news had three soccerballs for every bomb, for 18 months after the invasion.
The prowar side had its chance, more than its chance to make the case that the gain was worth the cost.
That’s really the question, it’s not emotional, it’s something being considered every time a kid goes to sign up. And because enough of them are not signing or re-signing, we are getting out of Iraq.
Note also the glad-handing obsfuscation the Post engages in in reporting the damning figure:
Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq.
C’mon, people, accept your programming!
SB: alone
naturally
yes, recruitment is falling short, but far too many people portray this as some new species of problem. recruitment has been lagging for YEARS because at this time in america we have an unprecedented number of options for post-secondary employment and education. very few poeple “need” the military in this day and age. it is not an easy life, and for most young americans, the college money isn’t worth getting up at 5 am for three years and *gasp* putting down the one-hitter.
those of us who join the military under the all-volunteer program genuinely want to be there. some find that the military is not to their liking, do their time and get out. there is no shame in this. many others, myslef included, go the other direction, thinking one enlistment and done. i signed the papers for my 6 year reenlistment under the famous crossed sabres in downtown baghdad. yes, recruiting is continuing it decade or longer slide, and you’d be foolish not to somewhat attirbute that to this war, but it’s not THE factor. and retention is moving at record levels. those of us who have been there, who have seen the gains made by this war, are proud of what we did, and we’re saying we’ll do it again if asked.
Mred wrote in answer to a bit of crowing about recruiting:
Of course, it’s the only branch of the service “wellbasically” can seize upon to proclaim DOOOOOOM and stuff.
wellbasically, it’s been discussed here before. yes, army missed it’s goal for last FY. BUT, they are trying to increase forces by, i think, 30,000. recruiting didn’t drop by a signifigant number, it just didn’t meet the higher goal that was set. re-enlistments have exceeded expectations. see here, here and here.
For science fiction fans, what we have here is an example of the Miles Vorkosigan Theory of Leadership: Find a parade and get in front with a big baton.
And I’m certain Cetaganda tried to paint their pullout from Merilac as a “inevitable and planned post-election troop drawback” too…
Seriously. Does anyone doubt that all politicians are pushing the Iraq issue – one way or any other – without the hopes of gaining politically from it? I supported the war in the beginning, and I ALWAYS SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, but hopefully no one here believes this thing has gone as we were told it would.
Oh, and for the record? Posting comments about recruitment numbers is technically called “changing the subject”.
Not that I blame the leftists.
Ah, yes, our Carthaginian is back…
Yes, I’m sure that’s exactly how the Cetagandans explained things. But it’s interesting that a person who gets antsy if people question his patriotism identifies his own country with the nearest thing (other than Barrayar) to an unambiguous villain in the whole series.
Nor do I think it likely Piotr Vorkosigan spent much time blowing up civilian markets, babies, and/or weddings during the resistance.
Regards,
Ric
It’s actually, Jack, gone much better than I ever thought it would. If you’d care to insert a bunch of caveats, feel free, but that won’t change the overall success we’ve enjoyed in comparison to any other war in history (except Granada).
FY 2006
Active duty recruiting.
All services exceeded their recruiting goals in October.
The Navy’s recruiting goal was 2,244, and it enlisted 2,268 (101 percent).
The Marine Corps’ goal was 2,700, and it recruited 2,760 (102 percent).
The Air Force goal was 2,161, and it recruited 2,180 (101 percent).
The Army’s goal was 4,700, and it recruited 4,925 (105 percent).
Active duty retention. All services exceeded retention goals for the month of October.
Reserve forces recruiting. Four of the six reserve components met or exceeded their recruiting goals for October.
Army National Guard: Goal: 3,970 Recruited: 4,050 (102 percent)
Army Reserves: Goal: 2,133 Recruited: 2,198 (103 percent)
Air National Guard: Goal: 1,010 Recruited: 588 (58 percent)
Air Force Reserves: Goal: 693 Recruited: 700 (101 percent)
Navy Reserves: Goal: 811 Recruited: 724 (89 percent)
Marine Corps Reserves: Goal: 688 Recruited: 692 (101 percent)
Reserve forces retention.
For October, Army National Guard retention was 98 percent of the cumulative goal of 2,456, and Air National Guard retention was 110 percent of its cumulative goal of 986.
Losses in all reserve components for September, which was the end of Fiscal 2005, were within acceptable limits.
Indications are that trend has continued into October.
Fiscal 2006 Enlisted Recruiting from October 1, 2005 – October 31, 2005:
Recruiting Statistics
Componant Accessions Goal Percent
Army 4,925 4,700 105
Navy 2,268 2,244 101
Marines 2,760 2,700 102
Air Force 2,180 2,161 101
Army Guard 4,050 3,970 102
Army Res. 2,198 2,133 103
Navy Res. 724 811 89
Marine Res. 692 688 101
Air Guard 588 1,010 58
A F Res. 700 693 101
Why would you hope something so futile?
Will you now argue with me? I’ve been deployed. I’m going to be deployed again. I have friends hat are deployed now and we all talk to each other about this.
So what, in particular do you think has gone wrong?
I think he’s fresh out of talking points, RTO.
Thanks, RTO Trainer. (Inconvenient name. Do you mind, and is it accurate, if I call you “Sarge”?
Instinct correct again. No stories in the MSM about military recruitment = satisfactory military recruitment.
Shortfalls: Air National Guard, Navy Reserve. Neither of which has much to do with Iraq. Not much of a contributor to the “Narrative”, eh?
Reserve retention slipping a bit. Christmas is coming up, and some of those guys have been on some pretty long slogs. Wait&see item.
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along, move along…
Regards,
Ric
You can call me Sarge or Sparky, Ric.
Another thought, then to bed.
“wellbasically” says Hell yeah they’ll join the navy!!
But the Navy’s what they’re not joining. Navy’s margin is 24 out of 2244; Navy Reserve is short 87, out of only 811 wanted. In contrast, the Marines have 60 more warm bodies than planned for, and the (Regular) Army 225.
I’m beginning to see the relativists’ point. This narrative is getting compelling, y’know what I mean?
Regards,
Ric
But it’s interesting that a person who gets antsy if people question his patriotism identifies his own country with the nearest thing (other than Barrayar) to an unambiguous villain in the whole series.
And where exactly, he says chuckling quietly to himself as the wingnuts continue to make fools of themselves, did I do that?
Daniel Ellsberg got arrested in Mother Sheehan’s protest ditch and Ramsey Clark is going to Iraq to defend Saddam Hussein, this wingnut quietly chuckled to himself. . .
Iraq was going far better than the Democratic leadership has led us to believe.
The war in Iraq is going so well that Army experts in ethics are committing suicide over it.
I don’t suppose you heroes who “support the troops” will have the guts to read the story, since Westhusing was precisely the sort of American you imagine you are, but know you can never measure up to.
On the other hand, I do love seeing lefties comment on this site, like so many spawning salmon swimming upstream in hopes of getting their rocks off.
Ric: Interesting isn’t it, how Phoenie either cannot or will not see the difference between a general concept used in a work of fiction and a fictional historic event.
Okay, not that interesting. Unsurprising, actually. Some novelty in what he chose to use, but not much else. Typical twisting and turning.
(Aww… and now Phoenie’s being cute again. “I didn’t really SAY x nation, blahblahblah…” Ho hum.)
i can’t beleive i paused my lesbian porn to get into this, but..
phoenician guy, have you EVER served in combat? do you have any idea the stresses we are placed under? col westhusing was by all acounts a fine soldier, but you never really know what you’re gonna do til the bullets fly…perhaps a good man just cracked under the strain of a difficult situation. it happens all the time, in many many occupations. my sympathies to his family, and my everlasting disdain for you for trying to use his death to prove a vague point. i notice your tone in that post is somewhat, shall we say, smug.
honor is an increasingly difficult concept to find in practice in today’s world. when the bad guys are intenitonally targeting elementary schools and places of worship, it’s hard to force yourself to maintian the moral high ground is is just that honor, that sense of right and wrong, that pushes us to want to find and kill our enemy. they blow up kids..on purpose. they blow up weddings…on purpose. the blow up the old and infirm…on purpose.
i am not some armchair hero or what you would call a chickenhawk. i walked those damn hot dirty streets for a year, locked and loaded. i know of what i speak. you can debate, and i encourage you to engage in civil discourse, about the motivations or justifications of the war all you want. but unless you have been there, on the ground, in THIS war, i suggest you refrain from making judgements on the actions of individuals in such a bizarre, confusing and overall stressful situation. and gow dare you use the death of one or any of MY fellow soldiers to prove your point. it is typical of the anti-war “scorekeepers” who WANT to see that high body count, want that civil war, want that tail-between-our-legs retreat just so you can be right
Thomas,
Hooah.
You hit that one out of the park.
Phoenician, I read the story, and it’s a tragedy.
But I don’t think I’m a hero, and I don’t even “imagine” that I could “measure up” to the things that Col. Westhusing accomplished before things went so horribly wrong for him. That said, you don’t know me, and you don’t know anybody else here, so I’d appreciate it if you’d fuck off before trying to crawl inside any of our skulls again.
And while I don’t know you, either, I’ve just found out that you’re the kind of piece of shit who’s willing to score a cheap political point by using the suicide of a man who I’m guessing you never met. I’m sure his family, friends, and comrades would really appreciate you dragging his name into this, just so you can scream “CHICKENHAWKS!” at the rest of us. Classy.
Phoney Seance forgot to attach the standard disclaimer to his LATimes link regarding the unfortunate demise of Ted Westhusing.
A google search on the author of this article, T. Christian Miller, turns up an impressive list of leftist talking points masquerading as news. Mr. Miller’s work has sufficient political content to be served up by Michael Moore, Kos, and Juan Cole.
T. Christian Miller serves up his truth re Westhusing’s death, but I wonder if it is the truth.
A lot of cops commit suicide, too. I support them by asking that we take them off the street, so they’ll be safe. That way nothing bad will happen to them, and they’ll stop offing themselves.
Because unlike the rest of you, I CARE!
This was a news story? Looked more like an editorial.
Though I can see why a ghoul like Phoenie would seize upon it.
Dang it, I was all set up to blast wellbasicly’s bullshit over the fence, but I see that other people got to him first.
Ah, well.
In any case, RTO Trainer is correct; recruiting and retention for the Army and Marines, the two forces most heavily used in Iraq, is above it’s quota. The people who actually go and fight don’t seem to buy into the Dimocrat’s wails of failure and quagmire. About the only thing the Army is doing that makes me grit my teeth is the fact that the Army is putting the XM8 weapon system on hold for a little bit.
I’d love to replace the M16 ASAP. As in, yesterday. But that’s not gonna happen for a while.
Ah well. I see that I gotta get in quick if I want some moonbat bashing.
tw: results – Our military’s success in Iraq is showing results at the recruiting office.
I served in Vietnam in 1968…overlapping the time our fortunately ‘almost CinC’ served there.
I exited the service upon leaving Vietnam and returned to my undergrad studies. There I looney tuned with the rest of the student body and joined the war protests of the day. Hey it was the only way to get laid!!! Oh the self righteousness was intoxicating!!
But I was turned off fairly soon…the further you penetrated the anti-war movement of that era the more you sank into a swamp of anti-Americanism and outright treason.
And then almost without notice or much national debate, after we as a nation had left Vietnam in 1975, the democrat controlled congress cut off aid to S. Vietnam…the rest is history…boat people, mass executions, and concentration camps.
I am ashamed that I was ever on that side of the political divide…I will never vote for a Democrat again nor will I ever donate money to my alma mater which to this day glorifies its role in the shameful abandonment of the Vietnamese people.
Sound familiar? Like an earlier poster said much more economically: the only similarity between Iraq and Vietnam is the lies and the liars telling them.
My theory: The repeated declarations of “it’ll be another Vietnam” were not predictions of how Iraq would unfold, but threats, declarations of intent to commit treason.
From Mark:
Seriously? I’m not saying there were not successes. Capturing Saddam and the elections are huge indeed. But is it impossible to admit flaws? Doesn’t Rumsfeld’s belief that it might take (paraphrasing) 6 days or 6 weeks, but that he didn’t think it would take 6 months, so that there were serious flaws in the plan? I have heard people complain that Americans were too naive in their beliefs for this war, but I think that started with the Administration. It may pain people, but I am not someone who will simply point out the shortcomings, and I wholeheartedly want this to work out for the sake of all of us, and if and when it does work out, I will have no problem claiming it. But is it really to the point that no serious errors are visible? Does the Rove-Dean “attack and never admit error” philosophy have to extend to us regular folks? Where is the serious discussion? And I always have and always will support our troops!!!!! I look forward to hearing back from y’all. Enjoy.
36% of all statisticians are unlicensed
Jack;
Perfect is the enemy of good. Iraq has gone better than any war in history, that doesn’t make it perfect, because no war will ever be perfect. To paraphrase Clausewitz, war has a lot of moving parts that create friction, this friction cannot be planned for, because you never know which parts will cause the friction.
This war is not a success compared to the perfect war you are envisioning, it is however, a success compared to:
Normandy, intel missed the 323rd moving up to the beach, the lack of guns at Pointe du Hoc and the nature of the hedgrows. Troops were landed in the wrong place and equipment like the “swimming tanks” failed horriblly. The naval gunfire plan was ruined by a lack of battleships (the US had ONE WWI era BB) and once troops got off the beach they had no training on what to do next. The air corps got a lot of paratroopers killed and the Sherman tanks were festooned with hillbilly armor and hedgrow cutters made from german beach defenses.
Or the Civil War, where a lack of post-war planning created an insurgency (KKK) that still exists today, and it took a hundred years before the politics caught up with the promise of freedom.
My son is graduating from basic training at Parris Island on Dec. 16th.
Please STFU.
monkeyboy,
Don’t forget how the myth of hte “Alpine Redoubt” warped the Allied plans at the end of the war.
Monkeyboy,
Thanks for the response, although it appears you are debating with a straw man.
I envisioned no such thing. It appears, however, that your comments should be directed towards Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the Bush Administration. For among the “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns,” they seriously underestimated what they were getting the US into. Again, successes were achieved, but is it impossible for anyone here to note that the Bush Administration has made some serious mistakes? Senators McCain and Hagel can admit to this. And no one can question their patriotism.
I’m with RTO. I have 20 years in, and I sure as %$#@ ain’t leaving now. I’ve been over once, I’ll probably get another crack at it before it is all said and done. Twas peaceful and naught happening, I might be mulling over retirement. As is, I beleive that RTO, filecloser,myself and the rest will stick it out (and all the Punic whinging and sniviling won’t stop us from either patiently arguing back, or just serving as a living and breathing contrast).
Jack, What i am saying is that “they are incompetent because there were mistakes and things were not planned for” is an unreachable standard.
There will ALWAYS be mistakes and uplanned for events in any war, and compared to past events, this one is better than any other. perhaps it will help if you mentioned some specifics.
For example- one critisism is that we should not have disbanded the iraqi army. But did we? My memory is that the Iraqi Army disbanded itself. While there are arguments to keep it, there were also arguments to disband and start agin, and considering the efforts of a newly formed, american trained army later against a Saddam trained conscript army now, the results of that critisism isn’t in yet.
We have never been perfect, if Rumsfeld should go over Iraq, then George C Marshall should have been fired.
The biggest dissimilarity between Vietnam and Iraq? A. Jungle v. sand.
Monkeyboy,
Thanks again for the thoughtful response. It should be pointed out that what you quoted did not come from my post. Again, maybe you are arguing with lefties who indeed, like their counterparts on the right, only argue off of talking points. Perfection and a lack of mistakes were NEVER standards I expected. But the mistakes were at times quite large. To admit that should be easy.
But is it impossible to admit flaws? Doesn’t Rumsfeld’s belief that it might take (paraphrasing) 6 days or 6 weeks, but that he didn’t think it would take 6 months, so that there were serious flaws in the plan?
Jack, “gone better than expected” doesn’t mean there are not flaws. But I think if you check, you’ll find that “six days or six weeks” referred to how long it would take to achieve a military victory over Saddam’s forces, rather than how long it would take to set up a working liberal democracy.
Thought we weren’t paying attention, maybe?
But the mistakes were at times quite large. To admit that should be easy.
Uh-huh. So, why don’t you name some of them? I think a few of the folks that have engaged you here have asked several times for a few examples of what you’re talking about. Just pick the low hanging fruit, since there were obviously “large” mistakes.
I’m not saying there weren’t, by the way. What I object to is this mere recitation of a MSM meme without specifics. We don’t lay down for the “conventional wisdom” around here, Jack.
I read the article. I came away with something different from Phonecian. It wasn’t the war going horribly awry, it was Westhusing’s goin awry – his inability to stop worrying about being able to manage and control every aspect of the conduct of the war in his sphere, up to standards of perfection (coupled with the stessors of separation from family and fearing for his own physical safety) led to physical changes in his brain resulting in depression and his eventual release from self-torment.
He seems to have been, unfortunately, apparently very similar to some of the perfectionist, rigid personalities I have known that opted to take their lives instead of adjusting to being “dirtied” by failure or toleration of imperfection.
Jack, the point is that, yes, the administration made mistakes. But there’s no reason beating our chests over that—there is no human endeavor that is error-free.
Your fascination with having people say “yes, they made mistakes” is odd. It’s almost as if you think there’s a point to it.
Jack, Charlie is absolutely correct about Rumsfeld’s comment. This was in reference to how long it would take to liberate Iraq from the clutches of Saddam – NOT how long the war in total and democratization of Iraq would take. Just so you know, he was wrong in that estimation. In actuality, it took less than six weeks.
I know full well mistakes have been made. But the fact that mistakes are made, does not mean the war has been completely bungled.
Of course mistakes are made. War is fluid, unpredictable. You can only plan for it to the best of your ability. The best war plans are the ones that are flexible enough to change as the situation changes. I think we have absolutely excelled in this respect.
If all you are interested in is pointing out mistakes, then you’ll have plenty to choose from as the years go by. But simply put, mistakes do not mean failure.
Robert,
Thanks for the response. It should not be “odd” to ask for honest admissions of error. We all make mistakes and some are much larger than others. There is no desire to beat chests. It does seem to me, however, that too many on both sides believe that ANY admission of error is a flaw in and of itself. Of course, you can disagree with that. But far too much energy is spent blaming the “MSM.” And if the Administration should be forgiven for their errors, why do so many seem so mad at the MSM for their supposed flaws?
Fred,
What the heck is “meme”? I looked it up and found no entry. Anyway, do I really need to list the mistakes? To save my time, let’s just say that I am referring to the standard account of errors listed in the MSM. Aluminum tube mistakes, curveball mistakes as reported in LATimes, poor phase IV planning, etc. How ‘bout this. Rather than me listing what we all know are the errors reported by the MSM, why don’t you list a few serious errors made by the Administration regarding the Iraq war. Your list will undoubtedly be shorter than mine, so it would be easier for you to do. Now, can you sincerely tell me that there were NO serious errors? Pick from the bottom or top of the tree if you like. I look forward to your response.
Thanks to all for the courteous debate.
Charlie,
Thanks. If I thought you weren’t paying attention, then I would not waste my time posting here. I am here to learn and present a different perspective. I too will make mistakes.
Good point. However, according to accounts I have read, the bulk of what we are now fighting in Iraq is about 90% of Saddam/Sunni forces. If that is true, then Rumsfeld is wrong on even the revised point. Heck, if the number is even 50%, it shows serious error in Rumsfeld’s estimate. Still, I think it is very fair to believe that in Rumsfeld’s making that point, he believed that that would be the bulk of the difficulty in transforming Iraq. That is, that after beating Saddam we could quickly leave and be done with the nation. I believe it is well-reported that that was the assumption.
Sabrina,
Great stuff.
Agreed. This may indeed all work out. I sure hope so.
Oh yeah,
Here and there I mention things I read and I don’t cite anything specifically. Sorry for that. Just laziness on my part. You guys can trust me or not on the readings I have done. Suffice it to say that most of what I cite comes from the MSM, so whatever preconceived flaws that are held towards the MSM can be easily carried over to what I write.
Jack, it is not true that we are currently fighting “90%” of “Saddam/Sunni” forces. Whatever that is. We are fighting a small fraction of the forces Saddam had at his disposal pre-war. And they have no airpower, no armor, no artillery or any other heavy weapons.
There simply isn’t any way to save the misrepresentation.
I got the below quote from Frank Rich’s Sunday NYTimes column. Whatever the flaws of his writing, this quote seemed important:
Maybe I misunderstand what that means, but if we are fighting against 90% of something born and raised in Iraq, Rumsfeld was certainly off in his assessments of 6 months. We cannot reasonably be expected to believe that Rumsfeld foresaw what we were up against.
My goodness. If we are having so many difficulties against unarmed people, we are really in trouble. But I’m not sure what you are referring to there.
Jack, To admit that there were mistakes (in this, or any other war) is to state the obvious, hence, wasted words. The historians will write up their own perceptions of mistakes (and each book will be different)
I suspect too, that I’d not likely agree with the severity (or even the premise that it is a mistake in some cases) of the “huge” mistakes you reference but seem unwilling to articulate.
As to the 90% homegrown you just mentioned: The most common assessment I’ve seen is that the “insurgency” numbers about 25,000 (1/10th of 1% of the population) which means the General thinks 22,500 of them are former members of Saddam’s regime (or benefited from it) with the remainder followers of Zarqawi et al.
Well, anyone who thinks that either side talks about Iraq without 2006 on their mind is in DemocraticUnderground/Hugh Hewitt fantasyland.
One reality that is lost in the sloganeering from both sides is that ‘victory’ will not belong to the US or its armed forces, for the only victory will come through the Iraqis politically resolving their internal conflicts. Similarly, as much as the US in general and Bush in particular will suffer from failure in Iraq, the Iraqi people are the ones who really have the most to lose.
To put it another way, it is almost impossible by definition for the US to keep its troops there until ‘victory’ or ‘the job is done.’
There will be victory and the job will be done when the Iraqis can resolve their differences without the US acting as an outside arbiter and enforcer.
The ultimate success depends on factors outside of our control. That’s a reality that isn’t being discussed by either major party.
Jack is going to continue to pretend that he can’t see the difference between Saddam’s military and Al-Qaeda rebels, and that this incomprehension of his somehow makes the Rumsfeld quote relevant.
Don’t bother arguing with this.
You’re defining a job that U.S. troops have not been given. Their job is to help ensure that the Iraqis get the room to finish that other job you’re talking about.
**they have no airpower, no armor, no artillery or any other heavy weapons.
My goodness. If we are having so many difficulties against unarmed people, we are really in trouble. But I’m not sure what you are referring to there. **
This statement, dripping with the thin, tasteless gravy of sarcasm, served with the lumpy mashed potatos of ignorance, needs to be garnished with the parsley of reality.
To refer to people who strap bombs to their persons and blow up children as “unarmed” and wrap the characterization in a big faggoty “My goodness!” is revealing of a character that trades common sense for partisan nitpickery.
The far-flung army of terrorists boast a powerful weapon in the misinformation that confuses those who are weak-minded enough to believe that they are the “poor underdog” instead of the cancer of civilization that must be eradicated at every turn.
Other than that, I’m all for healthy debate.
Let’s see. Only about one battalion of Iraqi combat reader soldiers have been trained.
The US has been in Iraq now about 2-1/2 years. That’s about 280 men a year, assuming an Iraqi battalion is made up of about 700 men.
WHich means that in order to replace 160,000 combat toops, give or take non-combat support personnel, the US will have to be in Iraq for about 400 years or so.
Which merely supports the neo-con pipe dream of an American empire in the Middle East.
And the Brits were only in India a hundred years or so…
The Administration’s position all along has been to a) rebuild the country, and b) allow the Iraqi people to take care of their own affairs. Geek, you’re essentially arguing the validity of the White House’s philosohpy.
(arguing for, that is)
Carl —
That’s a Dem talking point borne of military speak and poor Administration PR. There are actually closer to 90 combat ready Iraqi units.
Only 1 is completely autonomous.
Goss, far more than one battalion of Iraqi troops has been trained. You are misrepresenting the reality of events.
Phoenician?
Phoenician?
Phoenician?
/Ben Stein voice
file closer,
“Ellsberg has been with us from the beginning, eh? Which modern Pentagon Paper “expose of the war†are you referring to? The Downing Street Memo? The WP cry-fest? Something I’ve missed? Enlighten me please.”
I’d say that the making of this war has been pretty transparently bad. And not as much as in vietnam. Unlike in vietnam, we’re only a few years in and already a majority believes we’ve been misled.
What we don’t know is if internally the pentagon and war planners secretly know that we can’t win the war.
One which this war is like vietnam is that the right wing seems intent on fighting the people it blames for losing that last war. Not the democrats who had power back then and waged that stupid war, but the democrats who were against it.
That’s precisely my point. Our purpose in Iraq at this point is to put the good guys in Iraq into a position where they can succeed–or fail.
Victory will not be military, and it will not belong to us. It will be political and it will belong to the Iraqi people.
Which is why talk of “we’ll stay until the job is done” and talk of “victory” is empty rhetoric. We won’t know if there will be defeat or victory until after US troops leave.
I want to se the M-16/M-4 replaced too. But not with the XM-8. Actually, I have little gripe with the XM-8 itself, it’s all the garbage they wnat to attach to it down the road.
The only things Iraq and Vietnam have in common are the vowels.
The Democrats should have started thinking about losing the military vote before they started attacking the war effort. (My god, if I disparage the heroic efforts of the troops and try to nullify their sacrifice, I’ll lose their vote? Un–fucking–believable!!! What’s the world coming to?!)
They must have believed–if it can be said the Democrats believe in anything–they can make up enough of these lost votes on the Lobotomized Left. I think they’re wrong. In fact, I know they are.
And you cancerous Progressive zombies can all crawl up Dick Durbin’s butt-hole until you reach Alpha Centaurii. I’ll lend you a flash light.
actus wrote:
The majority, or the majority of whatever poll you’ve seized upon to “prove” your wishes have come true and the holy grail of Another Vietnam has been found?
Jack;
Good debate. I can talk in general about intel and planning, having done it for a few years.
Intel is almost always wrong and at the same time almost right. When Colin Powell was in charge in the first Gulf War, he complained that intel reports were written so vauge that no matter what happened the analysts could claim to be right. Add to that the thousands of reports a day, many contradictory, and you can come up with any conclusion after the fact. There are hundreds of reports that say Saddam did not have weapons, but there are hundreds of thousands of better sourced assets that say he did. You go with what you have. Knowing that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, you can go through the archives and find hundreds of reports saying that they would. Intel is only obvious after the fact.
The problem with planning for Phase IV operations is that a lot depends on what the end of Phase III looks like, which depends on Phase II. There are a whole lot of “known unknowns” to contend with, and the planners are also realizing that there are a lot of “unknown unknowns” as well. That is why American doctrine relies more on initiative than plans.
Were there mistakes? Absolutely, but the problem is that if those mistakes had been addressed, that would have created “friction” in a other area which would have lead to different mistakes. There will always be mistakes resulting from poor planning and incorrect intel, that is a fact of warfare, and without proof of malfeasance or incompetence, I don’t think you can blame anyone for it.
Not Rumsfeld, not Eisenhower not Nimitz and not Joe Hooker.