Let the battle over which metaphor comes to define the US quagmire begin:
Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards told Michigan Democrats Saturday night that the United States must quickly get out of Iraq, which he called a “bleeding sore.”
“America needs to be leaving Iraq, this is very, very simple,” said Edwards, a 53-year-old former U.S. senator from North Carolina, making his second bid for the White House.
Edwards was the keynote speaker at the Michigan Democratic Party’s annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner. More than 2,000 Democrats packed a ballroom at Detroit’s Cobo Center. They each paid $150. The proceeds go to the state party.
Edwards said that the war has already cost this country more than $500 billion. He also said President Bush’s plan to increase troop levels won’t work.
Edwards didn’t address what would likely happen should the US leave Iraq—presumably he has “very, very simple” explanation for that, too, though to hear it is gonna cost you more than $150 a plate in at least one America, brother—but then, given that his campaign (speaking of bleeding sores) hasn’t a chance in hell of picking up the Democratic nomination, who cares what some US politician has to say?
Well, besides the middle east press, I mean.
But we can simply bracket that. Because 1) the terrorists don’t pay attention to our media or our political battles, anyway, and 2) citing evidence that they might is simply unconscionable—given that it implies a direct relationship between the motives of terrorists and rogue states and certain high profile anti-war types in the US governing establishment, providing the former with a propaganda victory and a sense of hope, while demoralizing our own troops.
And in today’s political climate, the only inconvenient truth allowed on the cultural stage had better arrive in a Prius and be fueled by the mash from a thousand casks of subsidized hootch.
(h/t Michelle Malkin)
I like the idea of subsidized hootch, but I have to say that giving it to automobiles seems a waste.
Sweet! I am cutting abd pasting as we speak.
I’ll be the first to admit if I’m mistaken but can anyone remember a single troll who has waxed poetic about their vision of an Iraq without US military support? But, hey, Jeff, you’re right. Why take on the really complex, difficult problems when the simple ones have such a ready albeit craven solution.
Feh! Makes one wonder what the percentage of Ethanol intake is at one of these Democratic party events.
Don’t ask a car to drink and drive.
Iraq: “A festering bOil waiting to be lanced”
“ The Mid-East Pus Gusher”
Well, I always considered John Edwards a bleeding sore, but that’s just me.
I’m sure that happy ponies will be giving rides to all the children of Baghdad while they fly their rainbow-painted kites, just as soon as the last fascist imperialist illiterate American leaves the country.
The next president will have to deal with Iraq in some manner. The Congressional Democrats will not be able to force a withdrawal before the 2008 election. If Democratic presidential candidates won’t say what will happen after withdrawal then the Republican prediction of chaos will be the only story line available. I believe probably Democrats will accept the prediction of chaos and merely reply “so what?”
All of the Democrats will basically agree on Iraq. Iraq policy will not be much of a factor in the Democratic primaries. If in the 2008 general election the Republican candidate agrees to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq but says the timing needs to be worked out among the new president, congress, the U.S. military and the Iraqi government then I don’t see how the Democratic position is more appealing to a majority of American voters. Since the Iraq war issue can be neutralized so easily, I don’t see why the Democrat trolls who comment here are so confident. Probably its because they think they will be running against George W. Bush.
Retrospectively, I find that Jimmy Swaggert is more appealing. At least he didn’t promise results in this world.
And would Edwards advocate this solution to his wife?
klrfz1,
You need to get word to the Guiliani, Huchaby, and Romney campaigns as quickly as possible about your strategy. Their strategy, arrived at with careful deliberation with $400 an hour political consultants, seems to be to ignore it or comment “well, we have to fight them there or we’ll have to fight them here.”
McCain is the only Republican talking about the war in any depth. McCain loves the war and for his trouble is hated by PW and the rest of the right wingers. His campaign is dying faster than than the Maliki government and that’s saying something.
Point is the war is not neutralized by saying “well, I’ll work together with Congress.” The American people care about the war in Iraq and they want it done. Amorphous crap isn’t going to convince anyone.
kirfz1:
It comes from a willful misreading of the polls. Our esteemed trolls see “59% dissatisfied with Iraq War” and “53% say Iraq war was probably a mistake” and transubstantiate (just for your, Dan) those figures into “All of those people hate the war, hate the President, despise all conservatives and will sweep all into the sea come 2008.”
The trolls abandoned nuance for the peaceclub and have completely (willfully?) forgotten the significant number of Americans exit polled last November who were at least somewhat concerned that Dems would leave Iraq too early.
We should not remind them of this blind spot too often.
BJ,
Answer your own question. Do you think the US will ever leave Iraq? Sure you do. They’re not the 51st state, right? So, let me know what the Iraq you envision looks like. Oh and put a timetable on it for me: a decade, two decades, a century, your choice.
By the way, I like Edwards. I think I would vote if the primary were held today. Sadly, my state has a cool May primary. By that time, the candidates will be in general election mode.
And, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I give you Exhibit A.
Thanks, Timbo!
Hmmm. General election is November 2008, over 1 ½ years from now. Riiight!
Your timing was impeccable, timmy!
Um, I didn’t ask a question. I was answering kirfz1’s question. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
None of which has anything whatsoever to do with the point I was making, which is that lefty commentators of your ilk have willfully and ignorantly misread the polls to suit your own, preconceived notion of America’s disgust with all things conservative. Feel free to examine the link and answer the charge. We can discuss the other issues when we’re done with this one.
Your honor, I’d like timmyb to be declared a hostile witness.
Hardly surprising, but I guess he’s not so bad for a blood sucking tort lawyer.
timmyah, just because you confess to us that your mind is a quagmire does not mean that we must surrender.
Timmah, do you think the US will ever leave Germany? They’re not the 51st state, are they?
Do you think the US will ever leave South Korea? They’re not the 52nd state, are they?
Do you think the US will ever leave the Balkans? They’re not the 53rd state, are they?
A century from now Iraq will look just like New Jersey. Not the now New Jersey but the then New Jersey. Be sure to let me know if I’m right.
I like arguing with you timmyb, what you write always has something stupid in it I can ridicule. You make a great straight man. Too bad that’s not your purpose here.
tw: evening24. Is that tonight?
Unless we all start wiping our butts with rocks, we aren’t going to have to worry about the next century.
BIG WADS OF TOILET PAPER ARE KILLING THIS PLANET!!!
Don’t forget Okinawa, Bulgaria, Cuba, Iceland, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Greenland…<blockquote>
Rob, sure, yes, and yes.
Of course, there are huge differences between Iraq and Germany. First of all, Germany needed occupied so that we could re-build it and hold off commies. I know it comes as a threat to you guys to know World War 2 and Iraq are not the same, and I will skip the primer, but I will note that Germany, unlike Iraq, wants us to stay. The Iraqis have made it pretty clear that, except for the Diem, err, Maliki govt, they want us out.
The Balkans are occupied by NATO not forces, so, if we want to leave, we can. Haven’t exactly heard a hue and cry, either from the Bosnians or the American people for us to leave.
The South Koreans would like a peaceful solution to their 50n year old crisis. In fact, the latest poll I found (http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/9110) confirmed what I remembered. They don’t want us there either. As I recall, we have already withdrawn some troops.
Anyway, the question, BJ, was relatively simple, ‘the liberals” want troops withdrawn soon and you think chaos will occur. When should US troops leave? RTO said it would take a decade to set up an Iraqi Army. What’s your belief?
New Jersey is a desert?
Follow this train of thought, Timmy.
What is it “saying” to you about PW readers and “the rest of the right wingers” that they “hate” John McCain?
I mean, I thought all we cared about was warmongering. Seems McCain would be a natural fit, don’t it?
Go on, timmy. Draw the line from point to point and see what it does to your cartoon about “right wingers”.
And what to do about libertarians like Matt Welch, who is decidedly anti-war? What is the fact that he mistrusts McCain “saying”?
Say goodnight Gracie.
Bada boom, bada bing.
I like John McCain better than any Democrat now living. But since timmyb likes him too I’d rather not have him as President.
Oh, lordy, for the ten thousandth time I ask: why is it that reactionary leftists are so ignorant of history?
Now, just so I’m sure what I’m reading, it’s irresponsible to EVER leave Iraq? You guys aren’t going to say that are you.
Oh, and keep listing the places we lease bases. That was a fantastic response.
NATO allies too. Good work, fjord designer.
To encapsulate the inane responses to the question I asked BJ: To ask when US troops will leave Iraq is to a) mean US troops must leave every other country in the world, b) asking such an estimate is wrong when it’s me, but, when a fellow right-winger mentions the Republican candidate should say “consultations with Congress, etc., it’s okay, c) you guys have no idea how long US troops will be involved in Iraq, but are working on “forever”.
You should really let that be known, so the American people can adequately judge which side of this debate represents what.
In a round about manner I think that answers Klrfz1’s original question about why “trolls” feel good about 2008.
To summarize: you think US troops should be in Iraq 50 years from now; 57% of the American people think troops should be withdrawn in 2008*. Do the electoral math.
* “Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008?”
Should Should Not Unsure
4/9-12/07 57 38 5
CBS poll from last week: http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Funny, timmah bows before a poll consisting of people as ignorant as he is.
Oh, the irony.
N. O’Brain, name a way to test my history knowledge against your ANY day of the week. My left testicle has more historical knowledge than your entire family.
Jeff,
McCain thinks different thoughts in 2000, Republicans hate him. McCain has been hated since he and Russ tried to reform campaigns. For 8 years he’s been trying to win you back, but you know he’s lying. He loves the war, but you’ll find someone else to love the war…you think.
Personally, if the war was the most important thing for me, then I want to vote for the person who doesn’t run away from it, i.e. McCain. But, then again, I make sense.
draw this line: How do you the two guys who change their opinions are going to be true to your vision of war?
So timmy thinks he’s making a point in his favor by snidely comparing Maliki to Diem?
Boy, I wish my left testicle was as smart as his.
Pardon me, I made a mistake:
Funny, timmah bows before a poll consisting of 1,007 adults as ignorant as he is.
Oh, the irony.
Notice the “1,007 adults”.
Even as polling, this’d take more than one sheet to wipe timmah’s ass.
“N. O’Brain, name a way to test my history knowledge against your ANY day of the week. My left testicle has more historical knowledge than your entire family.”
Riiiiiggghhhhtttt.
You are an ignoranus, timmah, and a laughable one at that.
Oh, to explain the term ”ignoranus”, it’s someone who’s both stupid and and asshole.
So, your encyclopedic knowledge of history does not understand the concept of the representative democracy. Oh, well, you might have missed that day at high school, so here are the basics. You and your 38% will go vote. The other 57% will vote. %7 is more than 38, you will lose. You can denigrate those people are stupid and weak, but they outnumber you, thus you lose.
Besides, none of you geniuses will take the bait and indicate what you believe. Even the Godfather comes in and makes a non-sequitor.
HOW LONG WILL THE US BE IN IRAQ?
BJ wanted lefties to answer and I want righties to answer. What are you afraid to write what you believe? All you have is snark, red herrings, ad hominem attacks, and lists of other “libertarians” who don’t like McCain?
timmyb thinks one or more of us is running for President! OK, which of you jokers gave him that idea? Was it you, Collins?
Seriously though, I don’t ignore these polls that show the American public is getting more and more tired of the Iraq war as presented by our lovable liberal MSM. That’s why I think Republican politicians will find a way to agree with a majority of the voters by November 2008. Did you also see where the number who want to pull out immediately is only 30%? I bet that’s not much higher in 2008.
tw: analysis75. wtf? I count only 71.
2017: Ruled by a Shia strongman; may or may not have vague democratic features. 50/50 making nice noises at the USA while dealing with Iran under the table, or making nice noises at Iran while dealing with the USA under the table. These two options will be very hard to distinguish from each other.
2027: Subsistence farmers around radioactive city ruins.
2107: Subsistence farmers around slightly less radioactive city ruins.
TW: It’s going to get96 a lot worse before it gets better.
draw this line: How do you the two guys who change their opinions are going to be true to your vision of war?
yes how do you are two?
pray do the tell too?
My left testicle quivers not as two but as the one too. Perhaps I shall ask Bishop Tutu?
Your statement on post WWII occupation should put you in the pantheon of self contracdicting dimwitted trolls ever to post on PW.
Should? Could too?
timmyb:
blah, blah, bleat, bleat, posture, posture, poseur, poseur, snark, snark, POLLS! POLLS! POLLS!POLLS! MCCAIN!!!!
aaaaannnnndd….
Still none of it has anything whatsoever to do with responding to my original point. Your honor, I move that the witness be held in contempt of court.
Since you have proven yourself incapable of anything other than regurgitated talking points and thread jacking, I’ll now ignore all of your questions and pose one to you that is close to my original point.
If the US were to pull out in 120 days, what, in your opinion, would the conditions in Iraq look like?
This is a big test to see if you can make a tightly focused, reasoned analysis rather than hold a virtual partisan press conference. And…quite frankly I’m not answering any of your questions until you answer mine, which was posed first.
BTW: Automatic disqualification if you try to use a poll, any poll, in your analysis.
My money says you will fail the test.
kirfz1:
Do you see the evidence of what I was originally talking about in this little monkey dump?
New board game: Where’s Nuance?
BTW@: The last time I checked, representaive government is not ruled by poll results. But, as you said, your “encylopedestrian” knowledge of history may know differently.
Dear timmyb’s left testicle,
I’ve got a huge history test coming up and I was wondering if you could drape yourself over the front of my desk and help me with some of the more difficult questions. You are obviously very tiny, so detection will not be a problem.
On that note, I was wondering, how will you give me the answers. Clearly, you are hairless, so you won’t be able to point to the correct answers. You can’t possibly be producing semen, so any ejaculative communication is out. Come to think of it, you’re carrier is all for cutting and running from Iraq, so there’s a distinct possibility that you don’t even exist.
Never mind.
Thucyditestes: The Historicle Testicle!
Elementary politeness indicates that one never uses the term “cutting” while conversing with a testicle.
Thank you.
-Mrs. Grundy
BJTexas
It answers this one though.
tw: chance63. A million monkeys, Shakespeare, …
Keep hope alive!
It’s just a case of projection no reflection
Not just a taste of projection no reflection
Now, timmy
timmy, timmy, timmy
timmy…
timmy, none
Enough about you, already, timmah. We understand your worries about Democrat “leadership” quite well enough.
h/t Hall and Oates
BJT – Timmy’s testicle actually did – in his comparison of Diem and Maliki – answer your question about what things would look like in 120 days after the US pulled out : it will look like South Vietnam did after all military aid was cut off by Congress.
I don’t blame you for missing the answer – timmy himself didn’t real;ize what he was saying, and it’s hard to hear that tiny little peeping falsetto emanating from his Underoos.
You give yourself far too much credit.
You lost me.
But then again, I make sense.
ITYM “tried to stifle political speech”.
Reflect on that, and it might lead you to understand why we “hate” McCain.
Or not. Thought doesn’t appear to be your strong suit.
Yeah, Rob, me and the Supreme Court are gonna have to agree to disagree with you on that one.
Principled act by two principled guys
I’ll answer the question: we’ll be in Iraq, assuming the democrats loser caucus doesn’t prevail, as long as is necessary to assure our national interest in keeping the middle east from devolving any further is met. That probably means troops in bases (leased or owned) for at least as long as we’ve been in Europe post WWII.
I don’t see why that should be a controversial or radical proposition given our history as a conquering power, as well as the extremely unpalatable alternatives (see “smoking craters”, above).
Sadly the South Vietnamese situation, would be a default position, The Syrians would sweep into the Al Anbar region; along with the Salafi-
Wahhabi jihadists; The Iranian would do the
“Lebanon” option in earnest. The Kurds would
get massacred, by all sides; Turks, Syrians,
et al. There would mass ethnic cleansing on
a Rwanda level. The jihadist would spread South
ward to Kuwait, the Emirates and finally Saudi
Arabia. A coup in Pakistan would be likely, along with insurgencies in Egypt and Jordan. $ 20 a gallon oil, and the resulting depression would
not be out of the question
That is if you consider dancing a fandango on the First Amendment “principled”.
Still waiting for timmyb to respond to the original point made many, many hours ago….
<crickets>
Your honor, I request a recess.
Ah, there, you see? My left testicle was diagnosed as ADHD. If I’m not wacking it regularly with a fraternity paddle…
Well, you understand… Don’t you?
Cleansing breaths, Jeff. Step away from the abyss…
Step away from the abyss…
WHO’S THAT STARING AT ME??????!?!?!?!11???
Of course, it would all be Bush’s fault.
I just have one question… how do they conduct polls in Iraq? I mean, if some guy stopped me in the streets of Baghdad and wanted to know how I felt about the occupation, I doubt I’d feel free to just mouth off pro or con…
timmy is unable to respond because I am presently delivering a lecture on global warming to the IPCC. He will also be unavailable later because my colleague – Prof. Vas Deferens – will be appearing on Hardball.
BJ, so we’re playing the “who shows his prediction first game”? Fine, I’ll call (and trust from our previous discussions that you will answer the question of how long we stay and what your Iraq looks like).
First, I oppose immediate withdrawal from Iraq, as you might remember. I also oppose the silliness of doing the same damn thing we’ve done for 4 years that isn’t working. As you may again recall, I say we announce “we came to Iraq to do three things: rid Saddam of WMD’s, depose his government, and replace it with a democratically elected one. We’ve done that and we now redeploy our forward combat troops to the various FOB’s in Western Iraq, the leases having been signed today by the Maliki government.”
At that point we dismantle our strong points, allow the Iraqi Army to man them, and go into the desert and to Kurdistan (where we maintain two goals: keeping a watch on Iraq proper and keeping the Turkish Army from invading Northern Iraq as they have threatened to do). With our helicopters, fighters, and Special Ops (not to mention artillery), we can influence who wins the on going civil war in Iraq. We can assassinate foreign Al Queda types (the ones left over after the Iraqis take care of them). If Jeff and Bill Kristol like, we can step forward anytime and occupy the country again.
Less American deaths and, in the long run, less Iraqi deaths. There would be bloodshed, but you guys might notice from the 27 new deaths today, there is already bloodshed and our presence is only delaying the inevitable.
Besides, you guys hate Al Sadr, the right word to the right proxies and he’s taken care of.
My plan has the benefit of maintaining US presence in the Gulf, checking the Iranians (which the President was so nice to embolden with his “foreign policy.”), preventing continuing American deaths (most of those are caused by IED’s…no patrol, no IED).
Is it perfect? No. I wish Paul Wolfowitz’s wet dream of flowers and chocolates had happened and Iraq was a pro Western haven, but that’s impossible now. Sadly, we are left with a pile of shit and, whomever is elected President will have to clean it up. No option is pretty and all are ugly.
Let’s here your plan, BJ
P.S. If you guys want to see South Vietnam redux, then you should continue to oppose any changes in the war. Everyday the opposition to this war grows and becomes more radical. Already the Daily Kos folk clamor for immediate withdraw and they are bringing people to their side. If those people win, then a 2009 Democratic Congress might just cut off funds for real. That causes South Vietnam. I assume you guys are against that?
Perhaps then a hard headed compromise with Reality might help.
P.P.S. Jeff,
“How to you trust two guys (Guiliani and Romney) who change their minds about basic principles about your war?”
Sorry for forgetting the word, but the boss was coming down the hall with work. Sadly, he doesn’t see this as something he should pay for. And, I know you can’t answer the question except with a non sequitor, but it might be something for you to consider when you’re not be snarky.
If that is, there is a time for that. I’m still laughing over you saying I have a cartoon view of right-wingers, when you seem to the left-wing is comprised solely of the lefty feminists who didn’t like your writing and (for Dan) the psuedo-intellectuals who hate Catholicism. Apparently, we all have our cartoons.
I’ll check in later to see BJ’s Marshall Plan (I bet it has something to do with “Staying the Course.”)
timmy, timmy timmy!
Nothing, I just like saying timmy over and over. It makes me giggle!
Where was I? Oh, yea. After a monumental effort at thread jacking you finally came to the table. Let’s take a look at the timmy plan.
First I am struck by this:
Bravo! But then we have this:
Which, in other words, is a withdrawal to a place in Iraq which has no need for the security. Will there be the same number of troops? I’ll bet not. By immediately turning over all security to an (admittedly) unready Iraqi army this will result in less blood shed … how? Do the militias now come out, emboldened by the lack of American presence and start the Civil War from hell?
No, because of this:
I’m gonna leave real analysis of this little tidbit to Major John, Gray and RTO but since we are dealing with a homegrown guerrilla insurgency and urban terrorism it seems to me that fighters, helicopters (which already have a spotted records against urban terrorists armed with RPG’s) and artillery will have a very limited effect upon any of our civil war without a significant ground presence. Special Forces would be effective, but only on a limited scale.
Probably true about point one, pure projecting fantasy about point two. Therein contains the conundrum. Remove our presence (I would assume you are talking about a phased
redeploymentwithdrawal) in 90 to 120 days. Do you have any evidence to suggest that homegrown Iraqi forces will be in any position to provide security? Not even the most fervent war monger believes that.Your plan is John Murtha Light and, I suspect, will not pass muster with most of the PW trolling brigade, never mind the regular blood soaked war pimp commentators. Ultimately your planwill sacrifice thousands of Iraqi’s to save a few hundred Americans.
Why do you hate the brown people so?
I would propose an aggressive 6-12 month campaign to shoehorn security into Iraq. That would mean a hard commitment to see the job through without the daily hand wringing over American casualties and bombing victims. The nature of the enemy ensures that there will be deaths, because they are committed to that end. Relax ROE and pursue hard, establish and maintain ever expanding security zones, and work the Iraqi forces in with a sense of urgency. Redouble efforts to work with regional tribal leaders to enlist their advice and support for security in their sectors of influence. Once a level of Iraqi security has been maintained and demonstrated to be consistent, then the phased withdrawal can be accomplished.
All of this is dependant upon the duly elected Iraqi government achieving a functioning, working political and economic unit that reconciles with most of the parties. I’ll take you up on an injected heart attack for al-sadr, allowing Sistani to have more political say amongst the Shia. If in the course of the next 6-9 months it becomes obvious that no amount of help will sustain the Iraqi government or provide security for the urban centers, then we have to withdraw to bases and leave the country to its dark fate. But that would be a hideous stain upon our national character.
Mine is not perfect either and I certainly don’t consider myself a military operational guru by any stretch of the imagination. I will say that the one thing that my plan has over yours is the real consideration of what will happen to Iraqis if we are to
redeploywithdraw abruptly. I think that you are being deliberately naive about those consequences as they don’t fit your narrative.In the meantime, while we’ve wondered off of the topic to finally slug it out over Iraq policy, the original thought had to do with PW trollers (including you, my friend) willfully misusing poll information. Perhaps you could review, after your inevitably angry, bitter reply, the original topic and comment on that.
Take your time and don’t get fired.
we’re not doing the same thing. and you’ve been told that on many occasions. in fact we’re doing what some Dems previously suggested the administration do….
I didn’t read the rest of your comment because it would waste my time after that opening. nice to see you back to let us know how smrt you are. ;D
also, I’d highly recommend Small Wars Journal blog for more insite on the current counter-insurgency strategery.
At least timmyb’s idea for Iraq is better than the Ballon Fence® and the Mile High Berm©. But it would be just as ridiculous for an ignorant civilian like me to critique timmyb’s plan as it was for him to make it. War, war planning and war fighting should be left to those who are trained and experienced at it. In our democracy, civilians exercise the responsiblity for the major strategic decisions through our elected representatives. Blah, blah, blah …
Oh hell. I’m just wasting my time writing this to a troll, aren’t I? timmyb can’t change his mind or he wouldn’t be a troll.
Oh My God, he’s RIGHT, can’t you see!
No conflict has ever lasted FOUR YEARS!
No, wait, sorry, that’s stupid. Never mind.
Me, personally? Damn the torpedoes, assassinate terrorists and their sympathizers like it was going out of style, apologize briefly and insincerely for collateral losses.
But no one is going to do that, so we’re kind of stuck with what some people call “the real world.”
And it sucks.
But we ARE stuck with it.
Though I would like to hear the argument that Hillary or Lurch or Albo or Silky Pony would get all aggressive and bomb the shit out of a few neighborhoods in (nuclear) Pakistan.
I would really like to hear that one. That would make me laugh.
I would say that is a very sound analysis, BJTexs.
Could come straight out of the Hereford Handbook.
PJ O’Rourke on polling in Nicaragua:
“Excuse me, Mr. Peaasant. I’m a large, intimidating stranger. God knows who I am or who I work for. Now, do you want to give me your candid and honest opinion of the upcoming elections, or should we just save time and tear your ration card up right here?”
maggie:
Great points and on topic. I’m kinda hoping that RTO doesn’t read my “analysis” above as the last thing he needs is another peanut gallery opinion on war strategy. You are right, though. Where are all of the Dem pet generals?
kirfz1:
At least I goaded timmy into actually stating his opinion on Iraq policy as opossed to just flinging polls like globs of poo and trumpeting the death of everything conservative. I think it’s the first time a contrarian voice actually offered a plan and a vision. I credit him for that even as I find elements of it ignorant and delusional.It’s interesting that his mention of post US Iraq is very limited. His idea that there would be less Iraqi casualties is a deluded fantasy not based on any critical thinking. His only concern is limiting US casualties so he glosses over the potential horrors.
furriskey:
I’m grateful for the complement but, please, in the major leagues of military operations I’m a batboy for a single A team in Lakeland, Florida.
Merovign:
I suppose that I could have talked about carpet bombing and leveling urban insurgency centers, etc. but I was concerned that timmy would have a Grand Mal Seizure and I do like him. We are going to write a book together and pump the royalties by protesting at each others’ book signings.
GMG:
Yea, the Lancet study comes to mind.
To all:
I’m not expecting any of the regular commentators to be satisfied with timmyb’s analysis but we all should consider the idea that it’s a long sight better than the usual grumping, chest beating and carping. I think wer can give him that much credit.
QUAGMIRE!!!!
Also places where we’ve fought. Curious how that works, isn’t it?
On a completely different tack, I’ve noticed that a Brigadier General and about three dollars will get you a venti cup of Starbuck’s coffee. And yes, I’m aware that they don’t cost that much.
Re: timmy’s predictions/analysis/plans for extracting ourselves from Iraq, I’m guessing that by and large it resembles what’s currently being implemented, except for the wave of the magic wand that has Iraqi troops and police speed up their current rate of coming online.
Because aren’t we just wasting time, training them?
BJ, my plan was based on reality. I didn’t go into Iraqi casualties in depth, because they are slaughtering each other already and I don’t see that gets that much worse.
My only substantive problem with your analysis is you suggested something that’s just not possible. You call me here and on other threads “delusional,” yet here you have a proposal that requires something that doesn’t exist: troops. You people think wars are won by will? Why, ‘cause you read Clausewitz? The Belgians had a quite a lot of will in 1914, but it didn’t help much, because they didn’t have the people.
YOU do not have the people to do what you suggest. Security zones require troops. Those aren’t available. Unless you are suggesting a draft?
What sort of insane person writes that people in this country can’t opine on military affairs? There are all sorts of civilians who WORK at the Pentagon and organize our forces. There are think tanks (the Rand Corporation, for instance) who help shape US foreign and military policy. There are the Haliburton folks who know more about the logistical needs of the Armed Forces than any non-com in any service.
This is not a banana republic.
Yes. And not because I’ve read Clausewitz, but because I have seen 5 men drive off 400.
Wars are also lost through lack of will. All the soldiers in the world won’t win if they won’t fight believing that they will win.
TW europe46. This thing is uncanny.
Google “chickenhawk.”