In her latest Weekly Standard piece, “Irresolution,” Noemie Emery discusses the political and rhetorical repercussions of the Senate’s bi-partisan (though heavily-Democratic) move to pass a non-binding resolution criticizing the President’s surge plan, a revolting bit of political theater that would have had the practical effect of providing the military with a vote of no confidence—while simultaneously demoralizing Iraqis committed to a democratic republic and providing the separatists and terrorists inside Iraq with a crucial propaganda victory.
Longtime readers of this site will hopefully recognize in Emery’s analysis—which is more descriptive than it is assertive, though it does take its shots—many of the arguments I’ve tried, with various degrees of success, to negotiate here.
Writes Emery:
If Iraq is stabilized this side of chaos, the congressional Democrats will be remembered as the people who fought to prevent it, who tried to kneecap the commander and demoralize the armed forces, and all in all make the mission more difficult. If, on the other hand, the surge is seen to fail, they will be the ones who made it more difficult, demoralized the armed forces, kneecapped the commander, and telegraphed to the enemy that our will was cracking, and we would shortly be leaving.
The Democrats have also given Bush a partial alibi for a possible failure—he tried, but at a critical moment they threw in the towel. This argument would be plausible enough to attract support from a great many people. Had they let the surge play itself out, with best wishes but grave reservations, the Democrats could have gained a reputation for good will in any event, and for genuine prescience in the case of failure. But there is a difference between warning of failure and seeming to want it or cause it, and this is the line they have stumbled over. They have cut themselves off from all share in a victory, bought themselves a half-share in a loss, should one develop, and given the president they so despise an excuse he did not have before this. If a failure ensues, it is no longer his fault, in its entirety. Now it is his fault–and theirs.
[my emphasis]
Of course, anti-war folks don’t like to hear this kind of thing—after all, it diminishes their righteousness and forces them, in the afterglow of a Pyrrhic victory over the evil neocons, to come to terms with how methods they used to get them there might play out, ultimately, in the history books.
The anti-war crowd has made it memetic mission to try to discredit any argument making the common-sense declaration that, when your enemy is fighting an information / propaganda war, providing them with rhetorical cover for their tropes—or even, in some cases ginning up controversy for them (see, Willy Pete, NSA wiretaps)—is demonstrably damaging to any effort to combat the strategy. And the reason for this, I believe, is that they know it to be true—and yet have convinced themselves that there exists some perverse honor in bracketing that recognition as secondary to the importance of their own agenda, which has been to defeat Bush at any cost, even if doing so involves the kind of concentrated mental contortions that, if harnessed, would allow Uri Geller to bend a spoon 900 feet long and weighing close to 8 tons.
Continues Emery:
And why is it now at least partly [the Democrats’] problem? Because the Democratic tantrum comes at just the wrong time. For the first time in years, Bush has gone back on the offensive (which is where most of his disaffected supporters have longed to see him), and for the first time in a long time we may see some results. “The mere suggestion of a serious crackdown has prompted its targets to run for cover,” writes the Boston Herald’s Jules Crittenden. “Moktada al-Sadr is angling to get back into the political process. His Shiite militia men have hidden their weapons and are trying to act normal. Sunni insurgents are reportedly hightailing it to Diyala. Iran has signaled it wants positive engagement and negotiations, and is trying to look like a friendly neighbor to Iraq.”
From the start, Bush’s tendency in Iraq, when faced with a complex mix of political and military problems, has been to emphasize the political aspect, trying to engage or negotiate with people and agents who in retrospect should have been intimidated, disposed of, or otherwise crushed. Now he has altered course: The most important part of his new plan is not the number of men to be added, but the way they will be used–not only to train the Iraqis but to engage and dispose of the enemy.
A conservative who at times has been all too compassionate, Bush has at last been cured of his fancy that he could fight a soft and compassionate war. It is a fancy Americans have been frequently loath to concede. “For some reason, this is a lesson that the U.S. seems to have to learn anew every war,” writes the retired Army major and blogger Donald Sensing. “It wasn’t until 1863, for example, that the Union Army finally came to understand that the [Confederate] army would not be defeated until it had been vanquished in the field, one time after another, over and over again. U.S. Grant was the first Union general to understand this fact, for which President Lincoln rewarded him with command of all the Union armies in the field.”
On this time line, Bush’s new commander, General David Petraeus, stands in relation to the prior commanders as Grant does to Civil War losers McClellan and Meade. This is why pulling the plug on the surge now would be like asking Lincoln to fire Grant, accept defeat, and retreat into Maryland, because (1) all the generals before Grant had failed, and therefore Grant would fail also, and (2) Lincoln’s record as a war president to date had been such a disaster–picking bad generals, wasting opportunities, failing to crush a smaller and much less well-supplied enemy–that no one could trust him again. Count on this simile to be used over and over, by John McCain or by Rudy Giuliani, as a club to batter the “for the troops before we were against them” brigades. And rest assured that if things break up now, conservatives will hang it around the Democrats’ necks from here to eternity. Democrats will scream themselves blue in the face, but they will be countered by plausible arguments. The armed forces will feel betrayed by them. And no one will be able to prove that these charges are wrong.
On January 31, the Washington Times ran a front-page story detailing the statements of all the Democrats who had called for more troops to be sent to Iraq before they opposed the surge when Bush came round on this point. […]
It was […] no surprise that the congressional Democrats attacked Bush for doing the same thing they had once wanted at exactly the moment that he was changing his strategy; lavished praise on his new commander even as they lamented the plan he had written and ignored his warnings that they were helping the enemy; approved him without a single nay vote from any one of their number, and then sent him off with their wishes and blessings, after saying they knew he was on a fool’s errand, and cutting him off at the knees. A foolish consistency is not their hobgoblin. But no one can call them great minds.
[…]
In the long run, those seen as courting defeat are not thought of fondly. In 1974, triumphant Democrats listened to their base, and to the polls, and to public opinion, and closed down a tedious war against the will of a Republican president. As a result, in the next 30 years they elected exactly two presidents, one in 1976 as a reaction to Watergate (who was called back in disgust a scant four years later), and one in the 1990s, after the Cold War had ended, and in the midst of the “holiday from history,” which is not likely to recur. Democrats claim surge proponents are ignoring the lessons of Vietnam, and of history. They might give these some thought for themselves.
Assuming, of course, they could ever see the forest for the trees.
Which, after having “debated” them for five years, I’d say is unbloody likely.
[all emphases mine].
YIKES…Jeff, you forgot to close a link….
Format error?
A very good article.
However, I am not so sure that the author’s implied assumption is correct when saying,
While factually correct and very similar, the democrats’ future looks brighter than the republicans’ due largely to demographics. A substantial majority of our racial and ethnic minorities are solidly democratic, no matter how offhandedly they are treated. This is the fastest growing demographic out there. Additionally, new immigrants tend to vote democrat, another fast growing group. Finally within the white community, there is a not insubstantial minority that is solidly democratic.
I dare say, we may not see another republican (i.e. conservative) president after 2040.
Yeah, what’s black, white, and red all over?
An unclosed link at proteinwisdom …..
Okay: as to substance. I think the real problem is that this renovation of Iraq (or whatever you want to call it) could never have been achieved in the short time frame with the relatively small force commitment in which it was advertised prior to getting the authorization of force. I will go further: if there was any idea that it would take this long (and much longer), this many troops, and this many casualties, and this much money, the Congress never would have signed on to it.
The major blunder here is that the American people, in general, are clearly not behind this thing. A majority were, at first, but that percentage has progressively dwindled over the past four years. For good reason: they weren’t sold a 10 year counter-insurgency campaign, and they wouldn’t have bought it, if it had been advertised as such. That’s the major problem, here, I think.
I don’t much care for politicians or Democrats but I do think the reason we are getting the kind of reaction in the House and Senate nowadays is because of constituents who are highly P.O.’d about the “surge.” I don’t predict it will get better.
It’s all well and good to read—now—that there were those who foresaw the need for half a million troops for ten years in 2002 (cf., Andrew Sullivan, and some around here.) But that was not on the table back then, and the vast majority of Americans are not prepared for, nor do they support, that kind of commitment. I would imagine that someone is to blame for that, but it isn’t the MSM, or lefties, or Congress, or middle aged guys like me who read blogs from time to time.
Nor is it Amanda Marcotte’s fault either; and I register here my disappointment with the way that has panned out. Certainly, her posts are hysterically funny but I don’t see why someone like that can’t reform. The problem is, some kind of reformation has to take place before entering into serious political discourse. Oh, wait, this is the Edwards campaign? Forget it.
So the Democrats, who truly feel the “Surge” is pointless (along with 90% of Americans) should go along with it because it would be good politics?
Talk about a morally bankrupt argument.
As for this line:Bush’s new commander, General David Petraeus, stands in relation to the prior commanders as Grant does to Civil War losers McClellan and Meade.
George Meade is arguably the finest General America has ever produced.
He took command of the North’s troops at Gettysburg just three days before the battle took place and won the most important battle of the Civil War against Robert E. Lee.
Earlier in the war, he busted down “Stonewall” Jackson’s defenses with ease in another major victory.
But because he was unwilling to sacrifice his troops in futile gestures…he is less remembered now than some of his more political fellow generals.
Brilliant, highly effective, a winner on the battlefield…but not political.
What the right calls a “loser.”
Actually, no alphie.
You are what we call a “loser”.
No, alphie–the right calls you a loser.
great post… good analysis… surprizingly little to add from PW himself… and what more could be said. well despite the ‘others’ comments…
thanks for the very long link PW….
great post, and nothing for PW to add, a rare thing indeed… what more could be said though.. the truth is sometimes blindingly obvious.
thanks for the long link Jeff!
Re. Gen. Meade,
The battle of Gettysburg was essentially won before Meade even took the field. Being able to hold a strong defensive line on the high ground with superior numbers is not exactly a great test of generalship. The hard part was establishing that line in the first place.
Alphie seems to believe that Meade’s unwillingness to “sacrifice his troops in futile gestures” is a good thing, yet it was precisely that trait in Gen. Grant that eventually defeated Gen. Lee. His willingness to take horrific losses at places like the Wilderness made the difference, and it was why Lincoln trusted Grant to begin with.
Sorry, Alphie, try again.
Just like Iraq was won before we went in, Mastiff?
Too bad we don’t have any “losers” like Meade around today.
George Meade is arguably the finest General America has ever produced.
He took command of the North’s troops at Gettysburg just three days before the battle took place and won the most important battle of the Civil War against Robert E. Lee.
Earlier in the war, he busted down “Stonewall†Jackson’s defenses with ease in another major victory.
But because he was unwilling to sacrifice his troops in futile gestures…he is less remembered now than some of his more political fellow generals.
Brilliant, highly effective, a winner on the battlefield…but not political.
Uh, not! Meade was very middle-of-the-pack, which among Federal generals, made him among the better ones. But far from “arguably the finest.”
His Gettysburg victory was competently fought, but he had the advantage of greater numbers, and being on the defensive. And he didn’t harrass Lee in his retreat, much to Lincoln’s vexation.
His subsequent Mine Run “campaign” was a non-starter. Not for nothing did Grant attach himself to the Army of the Potomac for the remainder of the war.
As for “busting down” Stonewall Jackson, I assume you’re referring to his brief penetration of Jackson’s line at Fredricksburg, “another major victory,” but for the Confederacy.
Other than that, he truly was another Great Captain of history.
Cordially…
I’m not seeing an unclosed command. Anybody want to be more specific?
Greetings, CNN folk.
I feel obligated to leave a comment about your headlines for today. It has been established for some weeks now that there is an impending campaign to crackdown on security in Bagdad, the locus for much of the sectarian violence. From other internet sources, it appears this is under way, yet, in visiting your news site, I find that “Nasa Love Triangle†is the leading story and the only reference to Iraq is with a negative piece on a kickback scam.
What gives?
The American people have been constantly bombarded with stories and statistics about casualty rates (“grim milestonesâ€Â), how the war is not going well and has been mismanaged, and is responsible for the presidents and our country’s low approval ratings. And here we have a change in tactics and policy being implemented as I write this, measures that will have an enormous impact on whether the project in Iraq has any success or failure, and CNN can’t be bothered to mention this development in their headlines? What else could you be waiting for or consider more important? Ah yes, “NASA Love Triangleâ€Â.
Why would I not go elsewhere for my news in the future…
Sincerely,
Barbara West
No. They should go along with it because it is what they themselves were calling for, what Petraeus and Bush believe will work to quell the terror attacks and bring stability to the region, and because it would have the happy effect of not emboldening our enemies or demoralizing our soldiers.
That it is also good politics is coincidental. And when the stars align for you like that, you shouldn’t try to blot them out with a transparent resolution.
Alphie seems to think Lee surrendered to Meade after Gettysburg.
He’s been corrected on this before, and still keeps spewing it as though it were some article of faith.
Why does anyone bother with alphie?
If the Democrats are ever held responsible by the American people for a failure in Iraq, in whole or in part, they will have nobody to blame but the media who enabled them.
90%, Alphie? That number smells of ass. Where exactly did you get it?
Let’s be clear about what the “surge” really is…
We’re bringing the Kurdish militia to Baghdad to battle the Shiite militia.
Combined with the upcoming political battle over Kirkuk and its oil later this year, I predict “peacful Kurdistan” will be in flames this time next year.
And Bush’s job will be complete.
Rick, would you call Meade a “loser?”
alphie says “I wish I were big.”
the space goes down, down baby, down, down the roller coaster
I’m guessing
1) practice for a moment when a reasonable person with an opposing viewpoint shows up
2) hope that somehow it may be possible to get through
3) beats working
Aw, look, it’s widdle alphie again!
Alphie gonna teach us about the Civil War? How cute! So, tell us, alphie, how did Meade defeat Stonewall Jackson? Can you show us?
Mummykins will be sooo proud of you, if you can actually do that!
It’s okay, alphie. We’ll wait for you to type it out on your widdle keyboard!
Isn’t he just precious!?
flames?
You’ve been sniffing your keyster again.
Rick, would you call Meade a “loser?â€Â
Alpie,
I didn’t, and would’ve advised Emory to cite from numerous other Federal generals. McClellan, a true exit-strategy-obsessed/the enemy is an immense host and every one is 10’ tall/support the troops by retreat Democrat general, is quite sufficient as a stand-alone example.
Shoot, he’d make just as fine a Dem presidential nominee in 2008 as he did in 1864.
But I pointed out Meade has no cred as “arguably the finest.” Your attempt to argue that very thing has plainly failed, but you’re certainly welcome to dip back into your vast trove of Civil War knowledge to detail his tactical and strategic gifts.
Cordially…
Holy Crap!
With this post:
Posted by alphie | permalink
on 02/07 at 02:49 PM
alpo almost got one right.
The author was incorrect in conflating McClellan and Meade.
Meade was a winner, and will be forever remembered for defeating Lee at Gettysburg.
Here’s where alpo craps in his pants, once again:
“George Meade is arguably the finest General America has ever produced.”
Sorry alpo, but both Grant and Sherman were demonstrably better generals than Meade.
Nice try, however.
For a fucktard.
If you view Gettysburg as a defeat rather than a victory, I could see why you wouldn’t care for Meade.
But he won when it counted against generals that history accords the status of great, and he did it with skill instead of a huge butcher’s bill.
We all have our measures, I supoose.
Some people still think Vietnam was a victory for the U.S.
When did the TW generator start insulting people?
I am NOT a “large42” THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
And General Motors is a better historian than alphie.
Now, alphie, what did we say about using things like numbers?
I warned you that you were going to hurt yourself!
If you’re going to claim that Meade won the Battle of Gettysburg without a major butcher’s bill, you should’ve at least checked the numbers first.
Now look at the mess you’ve caused!
Really, alphie, what are we going to do with you? Words have meaning, and we just can’t have you going around making silly claims that won’t stand up to the light of day! I mean, when more Union troops were lost at Gettysburg than any other battle of the Civil War, really, alphie!
Sorry, alpo doesn’t know history.
alpo, the US defeated the the North Vietnamese and their puppet Viet Cong militarily.
That means “on the battlefield.”
It was the Democrats, in their first stab at cut ‘n run who betrayed our allied country and turned them over to communist tyranny.
Go. Read. Try to learn something, will you?
Nixon (a Republican, I believe) pulled our troops out of Vietnam, N.O.
The Democrats just cut back (not off) funding for the incompetent and corrupt puppet government we’d set up in South Vietnam a few months before it was defeated.
Go. Read. Learn something.
THEN post.
You won’t look like such a fucktard.
While alphie is busy putting the “U” “S” in pussy, I have to take exception with some of the nicknames that have been used for him. Too close guys. Too close.
Jeff,
I think you a a space where one shouldn’t be:
>“Irresolution,” </a>Noemie Emery discusses
the link close “< / a > has to be moved over one space.
I think.
The “Surge” is pointless? Oh, really? Yeah, I guess the commanders in Iraq just hate the thought of the equivalent of another division being deployed in the area with orders to actually engage the enemy.
The problem all along has been trying to accomplish the objectives on the cheap, with as few troops as possible. This was probably done to forestall the anticipated outcry from the left that too many soldiers are being deployed at too much cost, et cetera as nauseam. The CiC and the local commanders should not have factored the left’s (and media’s) “feelings” into the battle plan and just did what needed to be done.
What’s it all about, Alpie (sic)? Why do continue to insist on begging the question on everything done in Iraq?
Yes, but maybe they’ll employ the infamous, but super secret Chinese shipping container stratagem & catch the opposition totally by surprise.
I’m looking at the source and the title tag that comes right after the link pointed to by the href tag has any number of extra quotes. I bet if you clean that up and get rid of the “ in the portion enclosed by the /a tag, it’d work better.
Who lobotomized the trolls while I was out?
Could someone please mention Patton, MacArthur, Lewis Puller, Winfield (the “greatest general of our time”—the Duke of Wellington) Scott, and oh, George effin’ Washington to the moron-gallery, maybe just in passing. And then go through the list of hundreds of other consequential generals that people have actually effin’ heard of: Mead?
Isn’t that what pirates drank?
How many people have heard of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, Frenchie?
Meade busted ‘em both down like punks.
Fame does not equal skill.
Letting the surge “play itself out” implies that there would be some point, milestone or timeline used to determine at what point the surge would be called a failure. There is never going to be an admission of failure by the Bush Administration. Letting the surge “play out” is going to cost a lot of lives and will likely be followed by some other kind of surge/escalation. What does gaining a “reputation for good will” have to do with it? Good will for whom? The war was lost a long time ago. Bush’s ego and the inability of the war supporters to just admit that they were wrong are not reasons to continue a lost war.
You’re gay for Meade alphie.
Eh, “alphie” has been consistently stupid (here and elsewhere) for long enough, hasn’t he?
I mean it’s one thing if someone makes a cogent point once out of a 100 tries, but so far that ain’t happening…
Hell, even the doctor (Vega something) with the long name hits one out of the park occasionally!
That screams “battle cry”. It was the second 9/11 that tipped you off wasn’t it?
We could offer NY, NY as a burnt offering, on the altar of peaceyness.
Fame does not equal skill.
Posted by alphie
Yer livin’ proof of that, son.
Steve-the-pat seems to think Iraq is just about, well, Iraq.
Jeff, the whole post from after the first comma in the first sentence is a live link to the Noemie article.
Matt. JAPS BOMB PEARL HARBOR!!!
Rusty,
To Americans, The war in Iraq doesn’t seem to have much to do with Iraq. Whatever it was about, now it seems more like an ideological debate played out by using someone else’s country as a proxy battlefield. And even if you disagree and assign some higher motives or rationales for it, it is still already a lost cause.
Jeff … In your first line you’ve got
Get rid of
and it might work.
or rather get rid of
Verc, I immediatly thought of MacArthur, and Patton, and the moronic placement of Mead in their company. You were right to meantion them, but any response to
monkyboyalphie is a waste of time. Anyone can see the anus has been corrected ten ways from sundown, yet he goes on, as if everything he says is irrefutable.Stevexx, can you tell me by what measure you consider Iraq lost? If all you have is polls, I reject it.There will not be a political abandonment of Iraq until January 2008, at the earliest. You can’t enjoy your defeat until then.
errrr…Mark.
Lee,
I have already raised the point here before: By what objective criteria can it be said that the U.S. is winning? I could link to all kinds of things that I think make it obvious we are losing and that things are getting worse, but what would you accept as a measure of whether the U.S. is winning, losing or lost?
lee, how do you expect stevie to argue his case if he can’t quote (selective) polls? And not even that, he quotes anonymous numbers from anonymous polls.
87.5% of Americans think stevie is an idiot.
Right now you got:
pg=2” title=””Irresolution,” “>
You should have
pg=2″>Irresolultion</a>
And you are fine
Lewis Puller was only called that by his mom. He was Chesty to everyone else. And while he was a great regimental commander he never could have commanded an army effectively.
Mead = Meade
He was pretty good, but alphie is being a little hyperbolic here.
TomB,
I wouldn’t consider polls an indication of whether we are winning or losing. Do you have a poll that indicates we are winning, though?
Matt. Mark. Both four letter words, don’t worry about it TimB
Patton I’ll Grant (pun intended) was a decent general, but MacArthur?
MacArthur was a good civlian administrator, but a loser on the battlefield.
People forget we had the whole Korean peninsula sown up before he was dumb enough to have his troops fire into China, which led to the longest retreat in U.S. military history and the nuclear-armed crazy in charge 50 years later.
On the other hand, it should look like this:
“Irresolution”
which you should see in the e-mail.
Well, Alfalfa, you forgot the first rule of the military command: It isn’t what you’ve done, it’s what you’ve done for us lately. Not much after that, I’m afraid.
By the way, you still forgot George effin’ Washington. Ever hear of Cornwallis? Busted his punk azz…
Abraham Lincoln to Geroge Meade regarding the pursuit of the Army of Norther Virginia (1863): “(Your efforts remind me ever so much of)…an old woman trying to shoo her geese across a creek.”
Alphie (2007): “George Meade is arguably the finest General America has ever produced.”
Still waiting on your monument on the Mall, genuis.
As for engaging stevie ex: Iraq is lost because he says so. That’s a bout as deep as he gets, folks.
Why? Did I give any indication that I gave a damn what the polls said?
Your lemming-like worship of the polls (as long as you can find ones that support your point of view) is beyond pathetic, and clearly proves the bankrupcy of your ideology.
I look at Iraq and see a country that is no long sending $25,000 to Palestinian suidice bomber’s families, no longer harboring terrorists, no longer paying off UN and EU officals with oil for food money, no longer trying to further develop WMDs, and I see a population who is finally able to speak freely, and I see a success.
You see desperate terror attacks of Muslims on Muslims (and we’re supposed to think we made them more mad at us?!) and grasp on to it as “proof” of defeat. All for one reason, to defeat the President.
I never said Washington was a bad general.
Another great general was Caesar.
You might want to check out the unique way he took down your namesake, Vercingetorix.
Mmmm…doughnuts.
alphie, what exactly did Meade do at G-burgh that makes him the greatest general the country ever had?
Wishbone,
We are winning in Iraq based on what objective criteria?
It has gone on for four years. There is no improvement. Things have gotten worse. We have the same number of troops in the country (soon to be more) and they are being killed at the same or higher rates. Iraqis are being killed at higher rates as well. So, total troop numbers, troop deaths and casualties, Iraqi deaths. These are good starters.
as compared to what? previous wars? your imagination?
Oh brother…let’s forget Inchon, shall we? Probably the most brilliant amphibious counterstroke in history.
And, yes–let’s blame MacArthur for Mao’s invasion. What’s your next ignoratn rewrite of history, dumbass?
Stevexx is a retard, folks. It is pointless to argue with someone who thinks Iraq was better under Saddam. He is not in touch with reality.
Meade would have been handed one of the most embarrassing defeats of Union arms at Gettysburg if it wasn’t for the engineering officer who took it upon himself to set Chamberlain and the 20th Maine at Little Round Top and block the Confederate flanking attack.
I’ll paraphrase Peter O’Toole as Henry II in “The Lion in Winter”: “It has our troops all over it.”
If we leave, as you wish–THEN we lose.
And? I didn’t realize there’s a time limit on wars now. Of course, if Jack Bauer can get it done in a day, why can’t the military, right?
A nice nebulous statement.
Improvement of what? By what measure?
Yet another nebulosity.
What “things”. “Worse” by what measure?
.
Give me the specific numbers and dates that you are comparing, and the death rates.
Once again, higher rates as compared to when. And please be specific when identifying deaths of Iraqi civilians and terrorists.
We’ll wait right here…..
tw: We’ll be here all evening11.
But the kites! the KITES!!!
Holy shit Stevexx! Four whole years?
Damn, we best cut and run ASAP; paging Harry Reid…
for those of you looking for stats. the latest Brookings Institute Iraq Index report. (Feb 5, 2007)
just a quick note on troop numbers……
May 2003 – 150,000
Jan 2004 – 122,000
Jan 2005 – 150,000
Jan 2006 – 136,000
Jan 2007 – 132,000
there are many fluctuations with the highest levels being 160,000 nov-dec 2005.
TomB,
Do you believe no marriage is a failure unless it ends in divorce?
Still hammering the square French block into the circular Gaul hole, huh, Alfie? Makes you seem slightly less retarded than putting a one-victory general over generals that might have LOST battles but, you know, won the freaking wars.
Kind of averse to failure, huh? That’s why you haven’t succeeded in winning a point yet.
Because the left has made it so. A show of resolution and determination would be helpful; instead the left has declared defeat at every step, in every battle, in every war. The people who literally and figuratively spit on the military seem to truly believe they know better how to fight a war.
So we had the “dreaded Afghan winter” and the “breaker of empires”. “It won’t be another Gulf War!” we were told, before we went into Afghanistan.
Then the Taliban melted away, reformed in Pakistan, and ever since, the armchair pacifist generals have been declaring Afghanistan “lost” because, well, apparently because their politicians aren’t in the White House.
Then Iraq: “It won’t be another Afghanistan!” we were told. Before the declaration that the WMD concerns were all “LIES!!!”, there were the declarations that we’d be bringing home tens of thousands of US troops in body bags when Saddam unleashed the body bags. Then, when the troops paused during a sandstorm for rest and resupply, the same voices cried “QUAGMIRE!!!”—and never bothered to retract when the lines began moving just a day later. Then there was the declaration that US troops just couldn’t fight in cities—a claim disproved by a stunning strike through Baghdad and the fall of the city just days later.
The left has trumpeted every accusation made against US troops—whether from the enemy, foreign governments more interested in striking anti-American poses, or just pulled out of their own asses. So the Palestine Hotel is *STILL* being brought up—despite the clear evidence it was a mistake brought about by an idiot with a shoulder camera trying to film a battle from a place real damned close to where an observer was directing artillery. There was the “white phosphorous is a chemical weapon” crap—which is *STILL* being trumpeted, most recently at the silly “tribunal” at which Mahathir Mohamad declared Bush and Blair “bigger murderers” than Saddam.
Claims of massive civilian deaths in Fallujah? The enemy made them; the left bought into them.
Obviously staged photos and fake stories produced by unidentified stringers who seem to have an odd affinity for the enemy? The press spreads them around like butter at a Cracker Barrel; when they’re called on it, the left charges to their defense, seemingly oblivious to whether the truth matters at all.
Every damned time someone makes a ludicrous claim in Iraq, the left buys into it. To the left, a claim from an anonymous “source close to the insurgents” is more credible than video evidence from the US military.
Yes, there have been fuck-ups, both in strategy, tactics, and crimes committed by US personnel. But that’s never enough for the left—they have to turn every instance into the fault of every US soldier and the direct result of orders from the President. Damn the evidence! Damn the facts! The narrative is shaped, and must not be distorted!
War crimes committed by the enemy? Barely a whisper in response. Matt Maupin? Who’s that? Neil Roberts? Who?
The enemy shells a school full of children, fires from a mosque, uses a hospital for an ammo dump… *yawn*. A reporter attempts to run a roadblock and gets shot up? That gets endless shrieks and wails of horror.
The left turned Karpinsky—the failure of an officer who let her unit disintegrate and become the zoo that gave us Abu Ghraib—into a hero, while ignoring the man who exposed the abuses and the men and women who prosecuted the abusers. Why? Because Karpinsky blames her failure on the President, and so neatly falls into the narrative. The idea that the military policed itself? Doesn’t fit into the narrative—I’ve seen people claim there was a “cover-up” of Abu Ghraib, despite the military mentioning it in daily briefings MONTHS before the photos came out.
Every step of the way, the left has screamed “it’s another Vietnam!” Most of us thought that was a prediction, but I think it really was a threat. The left resurrected the old lies, the old slanders. They cranked up the propaganda machines and dusted off the agitprop. Anything to lose Iraq.
If Iraq is lost, it’s because half the country would rather us lose than the “wrong man” get any credit for doing what they urged us to do for most of a decade.
Nonseq of the year nominee.
Wha???????????
You sure you’re on the right thread, sparky?
Haven’t we played this game before Steve? Wilfully obtuse is not a good way to go through life.
For starters, a written consitution, freely elected government with massive voter turnout, developing judiciary, military and police forces, oh and a former tyrant at the end of a rope. Pesky little facts one and all.
Why are you so keen on walking away from all that has been accomplished?
Steve XX: You could never admit we are winning because you identify the Bush administration so strongly with your described “Country Club Republican Father” whom you were/are rebelling against.
You identify with the insurgency! They’re Young Stevie rebelling against his Republican Dad! You hope they win so you can stick it to your dad!
I picked immediately that you admire the insurgents and hope they win, but I didn’t understand it fully until you ranted against your Republican parents.
You don’t have a political point of view, you have a personal problem you are inflicting on us!
There is nothing we can say and nothing we can show you to change your mind because it would jeopardize your sense of ‘self’. You’ve lived your whole life rebelling against your parents and by association, Republicans. Grow the fuck up!
And you claim to be a fucking psychiatrist?!
No, but any marriage that creates a child is a success.
stylistic note:
I’ve thought about this a lot, and I think “not bloodly likely” is better than “bloody unlikely”
But that’s just my opinion.
I thought Jeff’s original post was a thoughtful attempt to argue why the Dems should shut up about the surge right now. Why does the thread have to turn into those who think the war is a success and we should keep on keepin’ on (vast majority here), and the minority who think it’s a failure (coupla guys)?
Aside from people’s PERSONAL feelings about the justness of the war, etc., is there a belief that the vast majority of Americans are still behind this effort? I don’t think they are, and that has to be addressed, one way or the other, and certainly not by calling them “fucktards.”
steve is right – there is never going to be an admission of failure by the Bush Administration. Democrats know this and yet they continue with their feckless enemy-encouraging political games. The political analysis Jeff has posted suggests that it is far more likely that the Democrats will be held responsible for any failure in Iraq if they elect a president in 2008. This is why Hillary is screeching that Bush has to clean up the living room and put away all his toys before she gets to the White House. For some reason I am writing sentences like this because my mouse is broken, but you get the idea.
TomB,
Just curious.
Iraq could be viewed as a troubled marriage.
Those who want us to pull out could be seen as those who believe divorce is the best way to resolve the problem.
Those who want us to stay in Iraq, no matter how bad it’s going (for the sake of the childr – err, the Iraqi people), could be seen as those who believe divorce is a sin.
Just wondering in there’s a connection.
or maybe some counseling would help. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!
So who’s screwing who?
crap – I meant steve x2 not dour steve
The left admires the “insurgents” because they admire anyone willing to use massive amounts of violence for political ends. See also Guevara, Castro, Arafat, Mao, and Ho Chi Minh. The exceptions (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot) come about only when a “superior” leftist hero denounces them or when the crimes become embarrassingly monstrous.
Even then, there’s a tendency to excuse them or damn the people who brought the monster down. Thus, Stalin’s excesses were the result of capitalists supporting the White Army; Pol Pot’s excesses were the result of US bombing; and US involvement in WWII was (variously) late, insubstantial, or done solely out of a desire to secure markets.
I can dig being dour.
Awwwww….. Did your Daddy beat Mommy?
Well it’s not Geo. Bush’s fault and it’s not the Army’s fault! Grow the fuck up and GET OVER IT!
Goddamn, you have a big personal problem you project onto Iraq too!
Iraq is like a big Rorshach Blot….
No alfie, there isn’t.
If you are so simple-minded that you see the geopolitical situation in Iraq and the Middle east as analagous to a marriage, there is absolutely no hope for you. You are a simpleton. You couldn’t think your way out of a wet paper bag. And the REALLY bad thing? You don’t even realize how stupid your analogy was.
Go have a cookie and have mommy tuck you in, the adults need to talk.
And take stevie with you.
Hmmmmmmm….
– Ted Fehrenbach
I have to agree with Emery that the Democrats are setting themselves up with this “strong letter to follow!” approach to the troop increase. I clearly remember that the Pentagon ignored many reasonable objections and initially sent the force we had, not the one we wished we had. Now years later the president has brushed aside even more thoughtful advice, gunned the Bronco, screeched around a blind corner, and we are hurtling through the rocks and brush, headed to God knows where.
The surge is a done deal. I think smart Democrats should can the outrage, adopt a concerned yet vigilant demeanor, fervently hope for the best, and throw all our energies behind supporting those troops over there. People generally don’t remember subtleties and don’t make distinctions: if you wanted a stronger force at the outset and now you balk at reinforcements, you are a waffling coward. Here, I think Emery is correct.
Steve, Jeff’s post also highlights some of the reasons that that monolithic entity known as “the American people” may not be behind the administration–media obsession with low level violence (yep–it’s low-level, ask any Rwandan), the intellectual dishonesty and silliness of voting for the AUMF–then voting for a nonbinding resolution against the war, and then there’s the whole patina of “failure” that our resident trolls and others use the smear the military.
Vietnam was not “lost” until the Democrats threw in the towel by cutting off funds. The same holds true today–we haven’t lost anything and events are largely within our control. We have to deal with the Iraq that we have–not the one that exists in fairy land–and we have to craft our policies with an eye toward what the consequences from failure really would be. And of this, I am certain–they would far-reaching, numerous, and catastrophic.
That’s our alpo… his secret to a happy outcome to a bad marriage is to leave the children with the abusive parent and walk away.
dour steve actually has a good point about the problematic non-fucktards. I say we should get some shiny things and place them around our cities in strategic locations.
Oh, shit…. I see you have ‘daddy’ problems too.
Try and unwind your personal problems from Iraq and the Bush Administration and see if you see anything differently. I’m sure it’s hard, but it’s worth it not to see this war through some weird filter of personal hurt and grievance.