Though George Will is hardly a supporter of Bush’s grand adventure in Iraq, that hasn’t forced him into the Democratic Party’s Camp Craven, where principles are traded like penny stocks, and where overmaneuvering for short-term gains generally leads to long-term self-inflicted wounds.
Which is why in his latest column he is able to articulate nicely what I’ve pointed out before is the anti-war Democrat’s uncanny ability to checkmate themselves—all without being called a pro-war Bushco stooge:
Suppose Democrats write their restrictions on the use of forces into legislation that funds the war. And suppose the president signs the legislation but ignores the restrictions, calling them unconstitutional usurpations of his powers as commander in chief. What could Democrats do? Cross First Street NE and ask the Supreme Court to compel the president to acquiesce in congressional micromanagement of a war? The court probably would refuse to get involved on the grounds that this is a “political question.”
The court has held that some constitutional controversies should be settled by the government’s political  meaning elected  branches. In 1962, the court said that a case involves a political question when there is:
“ . . . textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.”
In that welter of criteria there are reasons that the court will not rescue congressional Democrats from facing the logic of their posturing. They lack the will to exercise their clearly constitutional power to defund the war. And they lack the power to achieve that end by usurping the commander in chief’s powers to conduct a war.
They can spend this year fecklessly and cynically enacting restrictions that do not restrict. Or they can legislate decisive failure of the Iraq operation  withdrawal  thereby acquiring conspicuous complicity in a defeat that might be inevitable anyway. A Hobson’s choice? No, Nancy Pelosi’s and Harry Reid’s.
Precisely so. The Democrats, it seems, have a rather curious ability to OUTRAGE themselves into self-made traps, only to realize later on that they’ll have to chew off one of their feet to extricate themselves from their own hyper-political machinations.
And now they’ve gone and done it again.
Unfortunately for them, I suspect in this instance that they’ll die by way of “slow bleed” should they try to cut funding legislatively—unless, that is, they can come up with yet another way to distract us from their partisan maneuverings so that they can reshuffle the pieces on the partisan chessboard yet again.
Fortunately for them, this seems to be about all they excel at these days.
Well, now that you mention it, Nancy Pelosi does look kind of like Wile E. Coyote in polyester and botox.
Watch this space for the first gay black transvestite candidate descended from actual factual slaves and thus authentically “black”, and who as a bonus will be clean and articulate as a result of his rearing in swiss boarding schools that taught him he is superior to Lincoln and rendered him rich enough to truly understand poor people as only limousine liberals can. That ought to give them cover for a few weeks….
While Will’s outcome is the most probable, don’t you think O’Conner and Souter could write a decision that puts the power to micromanage the war securely in the hands of the Supreme Court?
Emphasis mine
If they do grow a pair and try and pass legislation with teeth, what kind of “slow bleed” do you predict?
What kind of distraction do you foresee?
TMTM,
First, Sandra Day O’Conner left the Supreme Court
last year and Alito now occupies that seat.
Second, the SC, for all it’s overeaching faults,
recognizes that the war-making powers delinieated
in the Consititution are strictly the province of the CinC. Even if the current Democrat Congress doesn’t.
Last, Souter has clearly been a huge disapointment to conservatives, but even he would not be bold/insane enough to try the judicial coup-d’etat you describe.
There are plenty of other things to worry about, but the SC “micro-managing” the war isn’t one of them.
Look for Glenn Greenwald’s(’s) upcoming explanation for not only HOW but WHY SCOTUS must give the power to micromanage wars to
parliamentCongress—or else they are complicit in the same kind of lawbreaking that the Neocon fascist eliminationists have foisted on a once great nation now in IMMINENT PERIL!Selective quoting will be in abundance—but that won’t stop him from getting another BEST SELLER out of it.
The progressives sure do like to codify their fantasies in hardback, don’t they?
I’d describe this as being more due to their innate stupidity, lack of moral and ethnical standards, and a curious inability to see beyond their next lunch appointment, rather than a “curious ability”.
Unless, of course, you are discussing a cage of chimpanzees on display in some zoo. Whereupon that would be a curious ability indeed.
John —
Well, as we know, history is not a guaranteed predictor, but defunding Vietnam didn’t turn out well for the Democrats in the long term, and I don’t think many Americans would support such a position now.
So in the long-term, I think they’d have proven twice, in the course of several wars, that they are unable to commit to a cause if the going gets rocky.
And this, I think, will devastate them any time there is a perceived threat to our national security.
The Real Jeff—I think you’ve about covered all their bases–though you seem to have left out “treasonous desire to provide aid and comfort to the enemy for their own personal perceived benefit.” If the Dem “leadership” had a motto, it would be “apres moi les deluge.”
Oh, ferchrissakes.
#1. The Bush presidency is still very much intact, no?
#2. Projection, projection, projection.
#3. Is this not evil? And is this not good?
I think we will see more and more stories in the press that will give them the cover they need to cut the funding. Stories like the recent Walter Reed expose that are designed to show that in reality it is they who really care about the welfare of the troops. When they have managed to convince 51% of the population that we should pull out regardless of the fallout, then the funds will be cut. I think the latest poll I saw put the current number at around 43%.
I only wonder if they want to string it along enough so that it can be the dominant theme of the 2008 elections.
A complicit press would help the Dems throw ink out like a cuttlefish as they swim off. It would all simply be recast as “Bush’s fault”. Kind of like now, only moreso.
Thanks, TMTM, I should have included that; possibly I forgot it because John Murtha isn’t included in the article, and is no doubt proceeding with the full approval of Harry and Nancy.
john, Murtha is already on record as to the kind of legislation he is planning on: limiting deployments, setting arbitrarily high readiness standards, and so on. That’s about as far as they have the guts to go.
Distractions? I dunno, global warming, oil prices, complaining that Cheney “crossed the line” with his statements, medicare, Walter Reed type problems, catfights between Democratic presidential candidates, silly legislation, blaming everything on Bush, and so on. With a compliant and supportive media, the Dhimmicrats have an open field.
Indeed, I’m amazed that Saint Cindy hasn’t been trotted out to push the moral high ground of the Dhimmicrats, and get the nutroots all riled up for some more demonstrations.
But only time will tell.
I think Major John has it right. The MSM is always there for the Dems to clean up after them. Besides defining public opinion has always been there right, hasn’t it?
I don’t see why this would be a political question. All somoene would need is standing. Say a soldier that was ordered deployed, or someone else.
None of those criteria are hit by this. It looks like a legal fight in the separation of powers between the powers to raise, support and maintain armies and navies, as well as to regulate and govern the forces, vs the commander in chief power.
I think that Congress should write restrictions on its use of farce.
Yeah. Like that’ll happen.
No, more like 70%, if it even gets that high.
Right now the Congress is conflicted because the American people are conflicted.
~ Large majorities think the invasion was a mistake
~ Large majorities think big mistakes were made after invading and that changes should be made
~ Harder to measure, this administration has little credibility nationwide
At the same time, large majorities
~ Want to win in Iraq
~ Do not want to de-fund the effort
Right now, public opinion is the best barometer for what the congress will do. It is also the best barometer for what the candidates will say.
Soldiers can’t sue the government.
All of which is already pretty clearly delineated in the Constitution, no?
Yea I read about that I was just curious as to what JG ment by “slow bleed”(sometimes you have to draw me a picture) I think he is spot on.
As far as the distractions go I was just curious as to which one of the many might be used.
Catfights gets my vote. For the entertainment value.
For those of you who may not be aware, this is the Appeal for Courage:
The specific wording of the redress is as follows:
As they say, Read The Whole Thing – even if you can’t sign, it’s good to know it exists.
BRD
Your first paragraph, emmadine, makes no sense. Perhaps you can do better.
Your second paragraph is a bit easier to parse. Under the Constitution, the Legislative branch (Congress) controls the purse strings and makes the laws for government. The Executive branch (the President) runs the government. The Judicial branch mediates between the two other branches.
The “separation of powers” card comes into play when one branch tries to take over the powers and responsibilities of another branch.
Fighting a war is a Presidential responsibility. Authorizing and funding a war is a Congressional responsibility. When Congress attempts to micromanage a war (such as what Murtha is pushing for), Congress steps across the line from “legislative” to “executive”. They are attempting to wrestle Executive powers and responsibilities for the Legislative branch.
That’s the “separation of powers” issue.
Now, since Congress has the obvious goal to of forcing the President to withdraw from Iraq by slowly cutting off the resources our forces need, when they have the power to openly deauthorize the war, well, that’s just cowardice.
Oh, and a ”…treasonous desire to provide aid and comfort to the enemy for their own personal perceived benefit” as well. Let’s not forget that.
Indeed. And on that note, I’ll just mention that Democrat Rep. Carolyn McCarthy recently introduced legislation for a new, stricter version of the now-expired Assault Weapons ban.
You know, the one Bill Cliton hisself admitted cost the Dems 20-30 House seats in the 1994 election.
Maybe, Maybe Not: I think they are going for little things because they can’t get a veto proof majority for a major thing. On the other hand, it might be political cowardice. Not that that’s unusual.
Okay, I really meant to write “Clinton”. Honest.
Damn that Freud and his theories!
I google “soldier sues government” and see cases of it. But you say they cant. And then you tell me those constitutional words have clearly delineated the issue.
I don’t think thats the case. But supposing it is the case, then the court would rule based on that clear delineation, not on political question.
real: Congress gets to support and maintain the army and navy, and make rules and regulations for its goverment. It is claimed that actions that congress claims to be taking under this power conflicts with the commander in chief power. This is the separation of powers issue. To me the solution is not obvious, and so it is a legitimate question for courts to decide this, and thus is not a political question.
No more need for distractions-
THE REVOLUTION STARTS NOW!
Then why are so many of them calling for a “redeployment”. The latest being Hillary with her 90 day plan.
Are they going along with, or trying to shape public perception?
“Redeployment” is a way to square the circle between completely leaving and the status quo. It involves basically letting Anbar be Anbar, Baghdad be Baghdad, while US troops adopt a withdrawn posture INSIDE of Iraq.
It really is similar to what we have now; in the sense of isolated American bases, except that the to and fro out of problem Iraqi areas would largely stop. It has been argued by many, including this Luttwack dude. I wouldn’t oppose it.
Let’s look: The First link says “Soldier cannot sue government for LSD experiments”
The second says: :Former soldier sues government over injuries. Last Updated: Monday, December 13, 1999 | 4:38 PM ET. CBC News. A former soldier in Calgary is suing the …”
The third says: “Soldier sues UK Government over alleged abuse.”
I know, it’s awfully confusing. But clicking on that first link shows you this:
and this:
But I suppose if you can’t be bothered to look too hard, we can just let soldiers sue their way out of following orders and let POW’s sue their way out of Gitmo and maybe even let moonbats sue the POTUS for their psychic distress.
Wouldn’t that be loverly? Think of the jobs we could create in the courts!
tw: peace66 through litigation!
steve,
I am not interested in what your definition of “redeployment” is. It means cut and run.
I will rephrase the question for you
<blockquote>Then why are so many of them calling for a cut and run, Iraq is lost, the war is a quagmire approach. The latest being Hillary with her 90 day plan.
Are they going along with, or trying to shape public perception?
Bolded is the question you avoided.
Apparently you don’t get out much, this has already been tried & in all cases, so far, the person refusing duty has been duly court-martialed & only temporarily propped up & used by the left as examples – mostly in local anti-war rallies, no real nationally publicized media campaigns outside of Code Pink or ANSWER pamphlets. Funny thing is they are dropped immediately once the person refusing duty opened their mouths ala Cindy Sheehan.
The Vietnam meme has little legs as the Dems are beginning to find out, because while most Americans may question the direction of this war, they fear losing it out-right even more. It’s the abject failure of Vietnam politically & the gapping wound left behind that defines it more than troops escalations or juvenile, counter culture demonstrations.
Cutting & running, or the hampering the effectiveness of the troops while they are in harms way, is going to cost the Democrats more then a little political traction, in the long run they will have no credibility in respects at all to foreign policy. In fact, their shrillness & public bemoanings against the current Administration, which partially aided in their re-capturing of the Congress in Nov., has done nothing more than placed a stop-watch on how long the public in general will allow one party to maintain control in the legislature or define the country’s vision w/o making any measurable progress. Given the fact that every talking point they have presented from the economy, unemployment, No. Korea, education, tax cuts, etc has gone the opposite direction of their predictions, their best hopes are that they continue the public, soap-opera-esque campaign follies to remove some of the attention from the Murtha movement – which is already beginning to take some heat- & Pelosi’s first 100 hours. That is unless they can serve up a political fall-guy, someone to take the heat for the Party itself & become the focus of the political directed ire – my money’s on Hillary right now, since Kerry isn’t running & has proven himself to be simply himself & Gore is currently the de facto ambassador to all things Hollywood/ the Oscars ala the Michael Moore method of legitimacy.
Meanwhile the MSM, playing its traditional 3 card Monte game w/ the truth is losing readers & viewers hand over fist & nothing short of the Fairness Doctrine, the death of Rush Limbaugh/talk radio or the silencing of the right side of the blogsphere is going to resolve that any time soon. While the left side of the blogsphere is great for generating large amounts of traffic or funneling financial support to candidates, they never seem to ever get beyond thinly veil anti-Semitism or the “satirically†nuanced styling’s of the likes of Mandy Mercotte.
It’s funny that they never can equate their views or interpretations of events to their decline in viewer ship & declining ad revenue. If nothing more this momentary spot-light of Congressional control has brought light to their lack of any plan regarding foreign policy or Iraq, & given their fringe element more & more opportunities to espouse their “real†ideological preferences upon an ever larger pulpit. They don’t seem to realize that Ward Churchill, Glenn Greebwald, dKOS, Mandy’s Vagina don’t reflect the hopes & desires of the majority of American citizens or how else could a President with approval numbers supposedly so low, still maintain support for finishing such a controversial war?
The real irony is that the Democrats are left w/ few choices. They can: prop up a Presidential candidate that either has no real experience & background (Obama or Edwards) or one that represents another failed political legacy (Clinton), pledge & place their full support to a war that would strengthen the legitimacy of their political opponents or finally, resort to a 40 year old political policy fueled by the unhinged of their political fringes.
No, it doesn’t. If it meant that, no one would advocate it.
Politicians? They are following the polls. That is why they are advocating “redeployment”, because it has all the benefits of a withdrawal (less troops, less casualties, less cost) with few of the defects of an actual withdrawal (anarchy, civil war, etc.)
If Colin Powell ran for president, either as a Dem or a Repub, he’d get more votes than most of the people I’ve seen so far.
If anything Bush, Congress or the U.S. military does could actually influence events in Iraq we would have won a long time ago.
Knowing our time in Iraq is limited, wouldn’t the best bet be to work towards the best possible future for Iraq once we’re gone instead of just hiding behind the people of Iraq and our troops there?
You can call Murtha’s or Hillary’s plan a redeployment or a withdrawal or whatever you like. I know what they are really after. Humiliation and defeat of the POTUS that stole the election from Algore.
Let me rephrase my question yet again.
Since most Americans support us finishing the job we started in Iraq, then why are Dems calling for us get out ASAP?
Or simply put
BTW a leader who follows polls is not a leader at all.
Steve:
I do know that a fair number of major bases were moved away from cities to reduce harrassment attacks back in 2004-2005; as you noted, “It really is similar to what we have now”. Except that foward operating bases were left in place for tactical reasons, but the main logistical effort was relocated to quieter areas. This was a “redeployment”. So maybe it’s already been done, just without that Congressional Seal Of Approval™.
But is there some detail here that I am missing? Why have our forces in Iraq if they are not where they are needed in Iraq?
Under “redeployment”, as I understand it, American forces would sit inside their bases outside of the hotspots. And do what, exactly? Stare harshly at the terrorists from inside a secure perimeter?
That’s not a “redeployment”, it’s a “withdrawal to Okinawa, only we don’t go to Okinawa”, henceforth known as the “Mini-Murtha Manuever”.
Also, that “to and fro out of problem” actually has two parts. One is that patrols are a necessary tactic. So moving troops away from “problem Iraqi areas” either means no patrols or a longer drive….which means more exposure to ambushes. Is this what “redeployment” means?
Second…..are you aware that logistical support in Iraq is largely by trucks? That redeployment will not alleviate the need to move outside perimeters to secure convoys? So if the intent is to reduce casualties by minimizing exposure to the enemy, well, that isn’t really practical.
Of course, I may not really understand this “redeployment” proposal, as proposed by members of Congress, who no doubt have much better connections to intelligence and operational data than I do. I just hope that they understand what they are being told by CENTCOM.
Also:
No, political cowardice is common enough. Witness John Kerry and his “I was against the war before I was for the war” schtick.
However, when the consequences of their actions betray Americans, while attempting to dump the blame on someone else, that shifts from covering their political ass to moral (and probably physical) cowardice. So they get no quarter from me.
Especially since cowardly acts in one aspect of a person’s life generally indicates a yellow streak across his/her entire personality. It’s rather hard to filter that aspect of someone’s character.
Steve’s right. Redeployment is not “cut and run.” It’s “stand back, watch as the brown people slaughter each other, throw up our hands at all the violence George Bush wrought, THEN cut and run.”
I agree, but I still like “Mini-Murtha Manuever”.
I posted somewhere, I thought here, that the American people are very ambivalent about Iraq right now. The contradictory, or seemingly contradictory, rhetoric coming from the Congress is just a reflection of that.
It may be that, in the long run, but it’s being sold as something else. You know, move the troops to Kurdistan thing.
As for logistics: yes, I am aware of this. And if in fact we redeploy to secure bases and stop forays, then the next step for the enemy will be to launch attacks on our extremely long and exposed supply lines.
Powell has more military and foreign policy experience than any other candidate in the field. Something to think about.
That isn’t a seperation of powers issue, that’s sophistry. I suggest you get a refund for that legal education, em.
The rules and regulations are things like the UCMJ, not whether the armed forces can even be moved, used or such. That is a command relationship/power.
If Congress passed a law that said no soldier on active duty could go more than 100 feet outside of the CONUS, would that simply be a “regulation”?
Yeah, well, but you also said ”I wouldn’t oppose it”.
Is that an example of “political cowardice”?
Oh, I don’t know Jeff; if Snake Plissken is still alive I’m sure we could “recruit” him in some way to get involved in Escape from Anbar. And then the bad men had better watch out.
Steve may have something here. Quick, someone get Carpenter on the phone!
Major John, I read his reply, and decided it was the result of poor education, period. I’m hoping his/her parents didn’t send em to a private school, because getting a refund from the public school system ain’t gonna happen.
steve,
So does Wes Clark. Something to think about.
Real Jeff: I would be willing to support a redeployment in Iraq, just as I support the Surge. I will support whatever works.
Yes, as I said in response to Jeff’s post, it could deteriorate. Then they we would have to try something else.
What does Wes Clark have to do with anything?
I heard he was dead.
Wes Clark as a presidential candidate? No.
However ….
Hilary – does anything more need to be said?
Obama – Nice guy, carbon copy of JFK, but too young.
Al Gore – Off the deep end.
John Kerry – No better now than then.
Do the Dems have anyone else?!
Mitt Romney – looks to be pandering.
Giuliani – Bernie Kerick’s patron not as electable as one might think.
Gingrich – too many wives, and new many novels re-fighting the Civil War
Does the GOP have anyone else?!
I would expect that we would need to have a president—this time around—with broad foreign policy and military experience. McCain is the only other alternative I see. I’d vote for either one.
steve,
What does Colin Powell have to do with anything?
You walked right into that one.
……your skilled at missing the point sometimes
Colin Powell is the next president of the United States.
Yes, Helen?
**************
Wesley Clark screwed himself with the “New York money” quote. It’s not that there are notinfluential and/or wealthy Jewish Americans who try to influence American influence this way or that. It’s just that phrasing it the way he did makes it look like he has a fear of Jews, and a belief that they are conspiring for XYZ. That is an unhealthy attitude to take. If, for example, he had in mind this or that group of people pushing for war with Iran, then name names and name groups, don’t go for this sneaky “New York money” stuff. Not good.
John: I was riffing on PMain’s post. If I missed something, I will make a sincere effort to address. That doesn’t mean I will succeed.
Hey, fuck you, alphie.
I should have been blunt, Steve: A redeployment such as you describe will not work. That is, if you are serious about the Iraq mission.
If you are not serious, then redeployment is the “feel good” plan du jour, why then, embrace it! Have the troops sit inside a secure perimeter, and watch the slaughter while chowing down on ice cream and near-beer.
From this, I conclude that you are either not serious about the Iraq mission, or you really don’t understand what this debate is all about.
In either case, I’ve made my point; I just hope you understand it.
I don’t see why this would be a political question. All somoene would need is standing. Say a soldier that was ordered deployed, or someone else.
Whether a matter constitutes a political question that is not susceptible to resolution in the courts is an altogether different issue than whether someone possesses standing to sue. Both issues fall under the broad heading of “justicability”, but they’re analytically distinct.
There’s a third way. Does Will honestly believe that the D’s next step wouldn’t be to actually defund the war during the next round of budget appropriations? Certainly not on the grounds that they’re against the war or the soldiers or anything. No way. Unhuh. Wrong again. They would simply be voting to defund it on the grounds that that dumbass Bush didn’t follow their dictates as to the proper conduct of the war and thus they are duty bound to withdraw their support until such time as a president compliant with their wishes can be voted in. Hang in their military. We’ll find you a worthy CiC soon. And the historians will record that all this was the right move at the right time. SCOTUS never gets a shot. Am I being too damned cynical?
You do know it’s not the year 2000 right?
Sorry Saddam,
Let me rephrase that.
We can blow stuff up, but we can’t put it back together.
Yeah, well they can build a fucking gallows, alphie. Fat lot of of good you fucking “useful” idiots did me.
Please define the mission in Iraq and tell me how and when we get there. Otherwise, redeployment is as good an option as any.
They put my ass back together!
Well, except for the schools, the water treatment plants, the electrical grid…
Steve
Because you asked.
Cry me the Euphrates, Pops. At least you didn’t get half your head shot off the day before you were going to break your own personal buggering record. I had 38 dudes lined up in the palace “wrestling room”. I wonder if they found them….
Thanks, Defense Guy. Much appreciated.
Steve,
Unfortunately, Powell, a Republican, isn’t going to run for anything, because he is a warrior & politics & the vicious little games involved has probably driven him out of political service for good.
Personally I wouldn’t rule out Giuliani marriages or not. He has more experience & perceived success than all of the others. He has succeeded in a very Blue state, polls higher than almost all other Republicans – especially amongst independent voters – & would wipe the floor debating any of the democratic stand-outs. Do you really think Edwards, Obama or Hillary want to debate, publicly America’s mayor?
Sure he doesn’t follow the rational Republican socio-political track, but a big difference is he has shown an unquestionable loyalty to the current administration & the troops throughout this war, unlike McCain, & Republicans, unlike the vocal portion of the Democrats, have to ability to accept the differences & move forward – look at Schwarzenegger’s acceptance at the last GOP convention. They may complain about such small things, but he has addressed their real concerns regarding judges, taxes & foreign policy.
Take notice this election is going to be about one thing & one thing only, Iraq. Look here at PW for example, every post that relates back to the war are the ones having comments go over a 100+. The economy & deficit have been removed from table, more is being spent in terms of the welfare state then ever before, home ownership & the stock market are still at record numbers & the unemployment rate has been consistent… so the traditional Democratic talking points are once again off the table. No other subject has the headlines or brings about the fiercest debate. This is why Hillary wants it ended before she runs, because if it is still the only real topic on the table, she, the most hawkish of the democrats running, will never make it past the debates.
Sure the left side demands an end to the war, but once again they do not represent the majority of Americans or at the very least, the desire of outcome preferred by most Americans. That is why the MSM has had to present Iraq as they have by never showing any positive momentum or belittling any success. Why is it that Cindy Sheehan is known throughout the country, but not one of the Medal of Honor recipients? Or even the soldiers that died along w/ Casey Sheehan? But this time, like the last Presidential Election, the focus will be on the democrat’s weakest positions & unlike before the Clintonistas are not running the entire show & the left is beginning to tire of Hillary altogether. This vacuum is going to be filled by the likes of Dean, Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Edwards & the rest of the not-so-ready for primetime crew of characters who have never won anything than almost guaranteed Congressional slots in very blue states.
Defense Guy: Thank you. This is the way the White House defines the mission in Iraq. I wouldn’t describe it as particularly clear.
The fact that this comes from the White House begs the question, who defined the mission; it wasn’t the Congress which allocates the money for it. I note also that there is no specificity (even in tense) as to where we are in terms of these three “terms.”
I would guess that we’re somewhere in “Stage Three”. but of these the definitions, “well integrated” and “full partner in GWOT” are hopelessly vague.
Under these kinds of conditions we could be there for anywhere from 2 to 20 years.
OK, I can’t resist…..
Steve denies there is an Iraq mission in the first place, but is happy to withdraw into isolated bases and let the fun begin because “…redeployment is as good an option as any.”
Which means that Steve actually favors “cut and run”, only with ice cream and near-bear being served, not sushi and Ashi beer.
Now, that is an example of ”political cowardice”.
I think so. And I think the GOP will get creamed, if not for the Presidency then everywhere else. I like Giuliani. But I’m not sure he can do it. I can’t get jazzed about any of these candidates.
Note in the third paragraph, that shouldn’t read “rational Republican socio-political track”, but traditonal Republican socio-political track” in my post above.
No, I asked YOU to define it. You failed to do so.
Yep. Exactly right. And if that’s what is giving you problems, you are in for a rough ride.
I don’t particularly like the idea, but, tell you what, let’s leave it up to the electorate for the next 4-5 election cycles. I’m down with that.
Defense Guy stepped in, doing what I would have done. I thanked him for it. And I know that you read it, you responded to him.
Which you would have acknowledged, except for your being willfully obtuse.
Yet more “political cowardice”. Yays.
TW: Oh, God, it’s europe85. Talk about irony!
Just like Europe, then. OK!
Boy, that last Turing word was really ironic!
I beg to differ
I think where both I and the public in general have lost patience is with vagueness.
It is a fact that the conditions of the original force authorization have been met, and were met years ago.
The current occupation is being carried out with a view—transparently as issued by the White House—to create an Iraq that meets conditions set by the White House.
It stands to reason, first, that any subsequent White House will set its own conditions for Iraq to meet. There is, certainly, no national consensus on these conditions.
Moreover, the conditions as stated are extremely vague. That is why I asked for greater specificity. In fact, while I thanked Defense Guy for linking me to the official (and extremely vague) White House conditions that Iraq should meet, you made no effort to articulate your own. Now you are in effect saying, you will accept whatever conditions for victory as are articulated by the Executive Branch. Those conditions will certainly change by January, 2009. I am sure you will support whatever they are.
That’s great, john.
We destroyed your country, have a billion dollar twinkie.
If the Democrats were just crass politicians setting up another win in 2008, they’d stick with round-the-clock hearings that highlight the corruption and incompetence of our past four years in Iraq.
That’s their fallback position, what’s the Republican’s?
I beg to differ. Somewhere between late 2007 and early 2008, the press will begin reporting on an “economic slump”. It doesn’t have to be real; they’ll find a way to spin the numbers to make it sound bad. Unemployment will be “too low, sparking fears of inflation” or it will be “rising at unexpected rates”—even if that rise is just to a more typical value.
Basically, the press is going to make good economic noise for 2007 to make the new Congress look good. Then they’ll make bad economic noise so they can claim we need a change in the White House.
What are the conditions under which we’ll leave Germany?
What are the conditions under which we’ll leave South Korea?
What are the conditions under which we’ll leave the Balkans?
In all three cases, the conditions have either been unclear from the start, or the initially stated conditions have been ignored.
Yeah, well if you’d had your AK in your hand instead of your dick, we might have shot our way out of there. I swear to Allah it was like Butch Cassidy and the Useless Buggerer.
Steve,
What were the clearly defined conditions of success in the Cold War? This war will not have a clear set of conditions & you can rule out violence or civil strife in Iraq, because that particular feud has been going on since the death of the prophet Mohammed. Don’t ask little “a” his concerns always fall back to the cost of freedom, not its worth.
The Marshall Plan spent $12 billion between 1948 and 1951. The source I have doesn’t mention what year those dollars are from; even if they’re from 2007, that’s a lot of cash. If that’s the dollar amount at the time, then that’s a hell of a lot of cash. I’ve seen figures saying that in current dollars, that’s around $100 billion.
Yes, and they could be turned quickly, if it was an issue. We aren’t taking constant casualties in those three locations, however, so it is not an issue.
The Cold War was about containment, mostly, but it was decided that containment would not work in this war. If you are talking about the GWOT, OK, I can see where you are going. But if you are saying that an end to violence in Iraq is NOT a pre-condition to victory in Iraq (since they’re going to fight each other regardless) then it seems to me that redeployment within Iraq is a viable option.
Oh, puh-leeeze! You just overlooked my comment thanking him. Have the grace to admit having missed one short post in a sea of rants. I do understand, being guilty of that myself. But backpedaling will just earn you the nickname of “Silky Pony, Jr”.
Which is an old argument from the Democrats/anti-war types, hearkening back to their “We want a time table!” campaign.
Their problem with that approach was twofold: first, a timetable would simply tell the terrorists how long they had until they could own Iraq. All they need do is hunker down, wait for the Coalition forces to leave, and then come out into the open, guns a blazing. Even Murtha got that point, after repeated blows.
Second…..well, I don’t recall anyone on the left offering up reasonable metrics as to what constitutes progress in Iraq, and rejecting evidence of progress.
As an example, the number of Iraqi provinces actually suffering from terrorists attacks are relatively low; only the larger cities are under constant threat. But this counts for nothing, unless 100% of the country is Terrorist Free™.
On the other hand, when the British announce plans to withdraw 1600 troops from southern Iraq (a relatively quiet area, in spite of the Iranian influence), Pelosi sees that as a failure, and asks why we aren’t withdrawing troops as well.
For some, the glass is half full (“the Iraqis are taking on more of their security now”), and others it’s half empty (”…the conditions as stated are extremely vague. That is why I asked for greater specificity.”).
So tell me, Steve, what do you consider to be “specificity”?
We discussed why I didn’t articulate earlier.
But I must admit, I have some personal knowledge of “whatever conditions for victory as are articulated by the Executive Branch”, having served a tour in Kuwait, and being involved in the nation building.
So I didn’t just read “whatever conditions” that were “articulated by the Executive Branch”; I saw the results of the plans put into place and executed by DoD and State Department. You know, after President Bush delegated the job to Secretary Rumsfeld, who gave the job to the CENTCOM commander, who gave it to MNF-I, MNSTC-I, JTF76, and so on.
And to Secretary Powell, who gave the Ambassador a sticky job (too bad the first one was a clown), who called in USAID, etc etc etc….
You know….delegation of authority and responsibility.
Did you check for those plans as well? Ever bother to look or ask for them? Or did you just assume that the White House is micromanaging the war? Bush has his problems, but with only a few exceptions, he has let his commanders do their job.
You might look at http://www.grd.usace.army.mil, for example. Browse around, see the progress!
No yard stick? Hmmmmmm! Why would that be, I wonder?
No matter, check out the news from Iraq, all the milbloggers and such. There’s bad news and good news there. Enjoy.
Please, I mean that. Enjoy.
Depends. I’m not in lockstep with the other Rethuglicans, if that’s what you mean. If Hillary! or some other Dhimmicrat gets the Oval Office, nope. A reasonably sane President….if one exists…..we’ll see what they have to offer.
Steve, You say the mission is vague, which seems to be willfull ignorance.
The mission was to remove Hussein, and leave a democratic allie in his place.
This president has a moral belief that abandoning the Iraqis and his commitments is wrong, and a duty not to let enemys like Iran and Syria dominate a stratigicaly important middle east.
We are in stage two (“Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.”) Stage three will be recognizable by our absence.
Jeff,
You left out the fact that the longer U.S. troops are in Iraq and things don’t change (or get worse), the more we just look like incompetent has-beens.
It is NOT like your presence here alphie!!
No, alphie. If we leave as a result of casualties that are the lowest of any major war we’ve ever fought (2/day), we will look like cowardly milk-sops to be eradicated on the way to the greater caliphate. This is not the time to “go wobbly”, as Thacher would have said.
It’s not the casualties, Eric.
No Iraqi government is going to be seen as legitimate as long as it hides behind our troops.
Don’t be an idiot.
The Dems are trying hard to convince the country they haven’t been taken over by the Left-Wingers, so they are playing it cool. They know that Lefties are a distinct minority, and that Dems can never keep the Congress, must less win the Oval Office if they try and govern like the rest of country is Berkley, Madison or Boston. A few wander off the reservation from time to time, but Pelosi stares them down (which is easy for someone who never blinks) and they get back in line pronto.
Basically, the Democrats plan is to make the republicans role in the war look incompetent, and for any success acknowledged, the Dems get the credit.
The plan, that steve doesn’t get, involves redeploying in-country (just like we did in Germany; there will be a US base in Iraq for a long, long time),after the Iraqi police/military are brought back up to stength from being destroyed by our invasion. When that happens, and most of the military leaves Iraq, because of the success of the mission, The Dems will say “see, we told you troop re-deployment and withdrawl were the right thing to do, and it only happened because we forced it on the war-monger republicans.”
With the MSM and pop culture on board with anything that will return us to the good old days of presidential blowjobs, the American public will probly buy it, too.
One thing you can say about the left, they gots hutzpah
Kind of OT: Interesting article I just read.
Hating America
Real “Lefties” are opposed to war, lee.
In fact, they’re rather good at it.
As for the Democrats trying to take credit for any Iraqi “successes” that may pop up the distant future, is that a joke?
ooops.
Real “Lefties” aren’t opposed to war.
Major: If the issue is clear, then it means that the court will simply reach the decision on the clear issue, rather than on political question. I have no idea where George Will is getting that idea. Maybe because he sees a partisan fight.
Of course, congress does play a role. Congress Authorized the use of force. Could it limit it by country? By evildoer? Congress does have some say in where the armed forces go: don’t they make base closing decisions?
I think it could certainly be said of your hypothetical that such a poorly rational (and quite strict) restriction would infringe on the commander in chief authority. However, one aimed at more long term goals of readiness, and without being so strict, might not. Obviously a commander must make decisions which ‘support’ and ‘maintain’ his armed forced. A commander also ‘governs’ the armed forces. So on both ends, there is a fine line between their powers.
No, but this must be:
I never thought I’d use the words “alphie” and “right” in the same sentence without irony, but…
Alphie was right the first time.
Even Bill Clinton launched a war, lee.
I think there are actually more “anti-war” types in the Pat Buchanan Republican camp than the Murtha Democratic camp.
Murtha’s guys are just opposed to losing wars, not all wars.
BWAH HA HA HAaaaaaaaa
maybe we can get Major John to regale us with his tales of the balkans and his love for Gen. Clark.
Can someone please point me in the direction of the memo that says “We lost.”?
Other than Zawahiri Al-Jazeera tapes, I mean.
Good company you’re keeping, alphie.