From Sean at Brea Canyon, here’s the world’s worst ex-CiC using his absolute moral authority (civilian military? Bah! Did the founding fathers build houses for a select few poor, then keep them as indentured servants to property tax increases?) to attack VP Cheney before an international audience:
“[Vice President Cheney is] a militant who avoided any service of his own in the military and he has been most forceful in the last 10 years or more in fulfilling some of his more ancient commitments that the United States has a right to inject its power through military means in other parts of the world,” Carter told the BBC World News America in an interview to air later on Wednesday.
One wonders how exactly this characterization of a sitting VP in a time of war is particularly “helpful,” to use one of Jimmah’s favorite lines of mock profundity.
Further, though, it highlights the idiocy of the chickenhawk smear Carter and all the faux populists like to trot out whenever they find themselves unable to muster any kind of rational argument: to wit, it’s demonstrably true that Carter’s military service did nothing to make him a formidable CiC — and instead has made him so reluctant to use force, even when it was both justified and, one could argue, necessary, that were one so inclined, one could extrapolate out from Carter’s experience that military veterans are the least qualified to command the military as heads of state.
This is, of course, a ludicrous argument — some of those with military experience are perfectly competent to handle the position of civilian military leader, just as some of those with no military experience are entirely capable of handling the CiC position as envisioned by the founders.
But then, Carter is known primarily for ludicrous arguments and 70s-style “realism” (which, it turns out, was really nothing more than a literary conceit, a way to lend gravitas to affected ennui born from horrible policy prescriptions and a fundamental misunderstanding of both economics and the Cold War enemy). That he would trot out the chickenhawk argument for foreign consumption suggests that somewhere in his shriveled, self-aggrandizing heart, he recognizes that the argument relies for its force on the demand that those who run the military have military experience — and that no one without military experience has any right to affect military policy.
Which, I suppose, is par for the course for a guy who seems mesmerized by charismatic revolutionaries.
Still, you’d think a guy who once took a vow to uphold the Constitution would at least believe in the damned thing.
But not Carter. Because, well, he just knows better — though he can’t get enough people in this country to listen to his pleas to affect any real change. It is his tragic flaw. His cross to bear. His curse.
He believes himself a modern-day Cassandra. Chunky style.
I need to go do yoga. But a great idea for a post would be an annotated Ezra Klein.
Anybody feel like gathering up examples of the leftwing blogsites and MSM pundits performing every single charge he levels at “wingers”?
If so, send them to me and I’ll put the thing together when I’m done. Or else do it yourself, and I’ll post it when I get back, or you can post it while I’m doing yoga, if you have access.
We can call the post, “BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCREZRACY!”
Well, you’ve got me convinced. We ought to set to the business of shredding the Constitution once and for all and install a military junta in its place.
Having worked so well in Latin America, Africa, and SE Asia, I mean.
Well that’s certainly one way to characterize Mr. Carter. Very well thought out and articulated, I must say. Or you could just call him a dick. Samesame.
Chris Matthews helped write the Malaise Speech, someone pointed out recently. That’s why Disco was so popular.
So Chris Matthews’s criminality has been brought to light? Huzzah!
Slightly off topic, but I wonder (OK, not really) if Jimmah leads all guests in the most appearances on Larry King Live. Seems he on a few times every year. Another reason not to watch CNN.
This is the chickenhawk argument that you guys get all nuts about, and it is nonsensical. We have a civilian controlled military, and our leaders need to do what they think is best for the US – their personal service record is meaningless in that context. I would also agree that it’s meaningless in judging the war in Iraq – the personal service of the architects of the war really has no bearing on whether we should have fought this war or not.
This does not mean that the service question can never be uttered, lest it be the chickenhawk argument. It’s still apporpriate on 2 fronts, now that the Iraq War is a demonstrable failure on it’s own merits, at the VERY lest as compared with what we were told the cost of the war would be.
1. In looking to WHY the people who planned the war failed so miserabley, it is fair to ask whether they should have taken the counsel of military experts more seriously. This is a competence issue, and in the future we should be more attentive when non-military people plan a war that military people tell us will not work, at least as it was planned. That is related to their lack of service inasmuch as it is a lack expertise.
2. To justify this war, many have portrayed it as being similar to WWII or the Cold War. It’s a war that must be won for America to continue being America. It’s even been talked about as WWIII or even a war for Western Civ. So now we’re stalled in this war (that we’re told we must win), and our military people tell us we need more troops (although the politicos say that’s not true – see #1). How can I take seriously anyone who belives these things yet will not serve, will not encourage others to serve, will not come out for instituting a draft, etc? Lack of service in this instance is fair game as it goes to the credibility of those making the assertions that this war (et al. in the future) needs to be fought at all.
I’m sure everyone on the right would like to remove the issue of personal service altogether, but it really matters what the argument in question is.
Perhaps Mr. Carter would be willing to call FDR and Abraham Lincoln chickenhawks as well, no? I am afraid Mr. Carter and his ChickenDove comrades wouldn’t go that far.
Good luck with your yoga Mr. G. I am assuming this is hot yoga, and can only hope you have found a non-farting studio.
Watch out, Jimmah. It’s a swamp bunny !
steve – BBBBBBBBBZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTT. Wrong.
oh steve, where to begin… could you at least back up some of your assertions?
Carter has become such a shallow thinker that he can’t see the way his own words could be re-used.
What, you say? Are you really comparing Bill “terrorism is a legal issue” Clinton to Dick Cheney? Well Carter doesn’t make any statements about size of force or actual mission. On the basis of his plain words you could apply the very same concept to Bubba. Balkins, Somalia, Afghanistan, Sudan, what right did he have to project US military power into those regions? What were the short and long term vital US security interests in all but Afghanistan? (the asprin factory is eliminated because of the abject silliness.) Is it Ok if it’s limited and, aas a result, less influential? We can’t answer these questions because el presidente pepino only seeks critical sound bites in foreign countries to burnish his own, one world bona fides.
Tie this one up with “the no legal definition of Genocide in Darfur” and we’re vacillating between partisan self interest and teh stoopid.
Sometime around 1989, I think it was, Miz Lillian found a case of leftover Billy Beer that had been festering away in the basement of her house in Plains. Abiding by the axiom of “waste not, want not”, she decanted it and served it to Jimmah over the course of several days from an antique cut glass pitcher. Jimmah, under the impression that it was a particularly vile homemade lemonade, and not wanting to offend his aged and senile mother, drank it down and repeatedly requested refills (it being a hot, albeit pre-global warming, Georgia summer). Unfortunately, the rancid brew had an extraordinary hallucinogenic property. Ever since, Jimmah, suffering its effects, has been under the impression that he had been an effective and respected POTUS, and that people today actually give a shit about his wild-eyed, slavering diatribes.
As to an explanation for his obviously disasterous conduct while in office, historians and clinicians are still puzzled.
I’ve had an epiphany regarding the whole chickenhawking brouhaha. Chickenhawk works. It doesn’t work because it’s logical, it works because it pisses a lot of people that they don’t like.
steve is on board with the ongoing rule that any comment that relates in any way to the QUAGMIRE requires a comment that relates directly to the QUAGMIRE. Goalposts uprooted and planted on Saturn.
Any thoughts, steve, on the potential irony of one of the worse users and builders of the military complaining about somebody else’s lack of military service?
5 bonus points if you can comment on the post and not reference the QUAGMIRE!
MAggie @ 10:
“oh steve, where to begin… could you at least back up some of your assertions?”
Like what? That the war was poorly planned? That the people who advocate for this (and more wars) in the ME have claimed our situation to be dire? Thesea re really the only factual assertions – the rest is interpretation, which is of course open to criticism.
But those facts are pretty obvious by this point.
Was it poorly planned? on what do you base this?
“steve is on board with the ongoing rule that any comment that relates in any way to the QUAGMIRE requires a comment that relates directly to the QUAGMIRE. Goalposts uprooted and planted on Saturn.”
Well, that’s how the chickenhawk argument is being used. Would you prefer I tackle the chickenhawk issue w/o refernce to war? Or in refernce to another war? This makes no sense.
“Any thoughts, steve, on the potential irony of one of the worse users and builders of the military complaining about somebody else’s lack of military service?s”
I chose to talk about the chickenhawk argument whaich was well w/i the bounds of the thread.
Not that it would come as any surprise, but Caric has 2 favorable posts up about Jimmah speaking truth to power, and how Republicans are pumping Bambi full of lead by attacking the Frost child.
steve – any positive points you may have scored by the Herculean effort of addressing the topic were immediately negated by your spewing of moveon and thinkprogress talking points about the QUAGMIRE that is Iraq.
MAggie:
“Was it poorly planned? on what do you base this?”
On the planners own words of how their plan should unfold. The people who planned this war told us that the war would cost many, many less lives, take much less time, and cost much less money. If that’s not poor planning, what is? Are you accusing them of lying? Did they know all along, and simply not let on to lessen opposition? Even I’m not saying that, but this would seem to be the only way one could speak well of the planning of the Iraq War….
It really is too late for this sort of factual denial.
there’s another favorite troll that’s probably burning to defend Jimmah right now. I’m guessing cause they’re names rhyme.
“steve – any positive points you may have scored by the Herculean effort of addressing the topic were immediately negated by your spewing of moveon and thinkprogress talking points about the QUAGMIRE that is Iraq.”
Yeah – but they’re true. See my post at #20 – the war has not gone well. Does it really matter WHO happens to be pointing that out if it’s true?
steve,
now that the Iraq War is a demonstrable failure on it’s own merits,
Ah yes, the mess that is Iraq. Look steve, Saddam and his bastard sons are dead. The various terrorist orgs that were hiding there are now in danger of getting Jdammed on a daily basis, and the rest of the country is slowy grinding towards reconciliation after 30 years under a brutal dictator. You can’t call this a “demonstrable failure” anymore than I can call it a complete success. There are still problems and there will always be, but to call it a failure is to be willfully ignorant of the progress being made.
I’m sure everyone on the right would like to remove the issue of personal service altogether, but it really matters what the argument in question is.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
steve did you happen to notice that Carter never mentions Iraq by name? That is a generic quote about projecting military power in the world. If he had said something along the lines “like in Iraq” then your argument about the Chickenhawk meme would have validity. Instead, you leaped right into the Iraq issue without dealing with the central point of Carter’s criticism of Cheney based upon his “avoid(ance)” of military service. How about some irony directed at Navy Jimmah and his deplorable handling of the military during his tenure?
How about Afghanistan? Does that count as part of the chickenhawk argument or was that the “good” projection like, no doubt, all of Bubba’s adventures?
Or are we going to put up with this thread being hijacked back into the quintilianith debate in the Iraq war and occupation?
Until you’ve done battle with your huge, killer rabbit, you have no right to insist that he could have been more brave in battling his.
“oh steve, where to begin… could you at least back up some of your assertions?” But wait, absolutely NOone in the military had absolutely anything to do with the War planning. Steve said so. Damn you maggie.
BJ – You are right. Let us not get ensnared in steve’s attempts to derail this into a lecture on how he is right, and everyone else is wrong. I acknowlege that I am amongst the worst when it comes to self restraint in responding to mental midgets like the aforementioned, and will try to show more restraint going forward. I conclude with the following … steve is comment-bot, unworthy of my attention.
“There are still problems and there will always be, but to call it a failure is to be willfully ignorant of the progress being made.”
I disagree. Sure, positive has come out of it, but I think the negative outweighs the positive. There are other ways to strong arm dictators than to try and re-shape the entire ME by brute force land invasion. It may take a little longer, but the cost of this war has been HUGE in any terms one can name. I think one has to sort of be in denial to think it’s been worth it.
BJ – What’s your email?
“steve did you happen to notice that Carter never mentions Iraq by name? That is a generic quote about projecting military power in the world. If he had said something along the lines “like in Iraq†then your argument about the Chickenhawk meme would have validity.”
Yeah – he must have been talking about whether we should invade Burma. Please.
Wait, Cassandra was right when she was foretelling the future.
Her curse was that no one believed her.
When has Jimmah Carter ever been right about anything?
“But wait, absolutely NOone in the military had absolutely anything to do with the War planning. Steve said so. Damn you maggie.”
More pretend facts. Nocons didn’t plan the war. Military generals who disagreed with the plan weren’t fired. None of these things happened becasue you don’t want them to have happened.
thanks for explaining that better than I could. There seems to always be confusion about just WHO plans military operations. and HOW they come about.
Name one General that was fired because he disagreed with the war. One. And, I will give you a hint. Shinsheki was not fired.
Jimmeh Carteh. What a walkin’ embarrassment!
Only the Lord can shut him up. Maybe I’m lusting … er … hoping in my heart.
The heaven’s open, a great voice roars out, “Just STFU Jimmeh!” ZAP!!!!
I recall “long hard slog.” As for it being a demonstrable failure, I beg to differ with that assertion, as well. One of the reasons the Dems seem to be pushing it to the back burner of late, maybe.
Folks there on the ground continue to throw could water on the anti-war agitprop being fed to the US MSM by stringers with their own agendas.
I trust embeds and soldiers. Doesn’t mean things are always going swimmingly — this is, after all, a war, featuring an insurgency (who has some say in how things are covered, or in who lives and dies) — but neither does the successes of the insurgency mean that the war has failed “demonstrably.”
Indeed, I would say that given most insurgencies take over 10 years to quash, this one is dying prematurely. And the worldwide effect — rather than “creating more terrorists” — seems to be that it has created people more vocally claiming to support terror, but less likely to enter the fray against a motivated coalition military force.
If you can believe the reports coming out of other areas of the world where al Qaeda seems to be drying up, I’d say drawing foreign fighters into Iraq and slaughtering them while erecting the conditions for an Arab democracy has been quite impressive, historically speaking.
But then, I’m just a bloodthirsty chickenhawk warmonger. So take everything I say and run it past Jimmy Carter for verification. After all, only military folks are allowed to have opinions on military adventurism.
Unless they happen to be non-military folks AGAINST the military. Somehow, those chickenantihawks are, you know, wise — despite not having the requisite skillset, according to their own ontological calculus, to be making arguments at all.
Irony.
I hear it tastes like chicken.
Dammit. My self restraint did not last 10 minutes, a tribute to the troll-bot.
BJ said:
“Instead, you leaped right into the Iraq issue without dealing with the central point of Carter’s criticism of Cheney based upon his “avoid(ance)†of military service.”
Unfortunately for him, he does not read the posts well. To wit, Steve said:
“This is the chickenhawk argument that you guys get all nuts about, and it is nonsensical. We have a civilian controlled military, and our leaders need to do what they think is best for the US – their personal service record is meaningless in that context. I would also agree that it’s meaningless in judging the war in Iraq – the personal service of the architects of the war really has no bearing on whether we should have fought this war or not.”
On the planners own words of how their plan should unfold. The people who planned this war told us that the war would cost many, many less lives, take much less time, and cost much less money.
Steve, you sure seem to know a lot. Would you please tell this ignorant winger where you learned all this?
“Comment by steve on 10/11 @ 9:30 am #
Yeah – but they’re true. See my post at #20 – the war has not gone well. Does it really matter WHO happens to be pointing that out if it’s true?”
Well, considering that the war is going well, and that we are winning, that kinda makes your point moot, does it not?
“There are other ways to strong arm dictators than to try and re-shape the entire ME by brute force land invasion. It may take a little longer, “…and these are? Do you think that just ridding Saddam, or freeing Iraq, was the end game for the administration? This was a little more than just ridding one bad apple. This was about ushering in democracy into an entire region of the world. NOW that would be more than understandable if you were against that type of undertaking. I’d even agree. However, that ship has sailed long ago.
“More pretend facts. Nocons didn’t plan the war. Military generals who disagreed with the plan weren’t fired. None of these things happened becasue you don’t want them to have happened”…yes, steve NO military were involved int he planning of this war. Please prove post haste!
I remember reading something before the invasion of Iraq that thousands of U.S. servicemen would be killed. Sounds kind of like what has happened, to me.
I do love how steve uses his own assertion as proof of his own assertion.
steve : Unfounded claim
JD : BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZTTTTT. Wrong
steve : It is true. Just look at my last comment. I said it was true!
Isn’t that kind of like sock puppetting, without the pretense?
Jeff
It’s not a straw man to mischaracterize my point as saying only military people can plan wars just becasue I never said any such thing. Really.
And I stand by the statement you’re responding to. YOu’re right, we are mired in an insurgency – shohudln’t this have been anticipated? It was poorly planned or the planners were less than forthcoming. One or the other is true.
INfidels, the bill of goods Steve is selling you is called deception. It was sold to him by your reporters in the field, quite intentionally. I realize there are those among you who think that the solution to all this deception is to garner greater access to the media for those who agree with them politcally. It is not. the solution is ton confront the deception call it waht it is and end it. Substituting deception from one ideological standpoint for deception from another ideological standpoint does not make things better. Though I enjoy watching it immensely.
I remember seeing a speech by President Bush shortly before the war in which he told us this thing would take a long time. Don’t you remember that, Steve?
Oh, JD – I’m going to respond to your next BBBBBZZZZT comment any day now. Any day….
I enjoy watching all the deception, too. But I call it journalism!
klrtz1 – What ever happened to all of the claims from the Left and the media (redundant) that tens of thousands, if not hundreds of lives would be lost?
“#Comment by klrtz1 on 10/11 @ 9:48 am #
I remember reading something before the invasion of Iraq that thousands of U.S. servicemen would be killed. Sounds kind of like what has happened, to me.”
No the reactionary left was predicting tens of thousands of deaths in a fight to the death against a “battle hardened” Iraqi army.
Just one more thing they were wrong about.
Sorta like Jimmah Carter.
Truth is, the invasion of Iraq was so incredibly well-planned that it succeeded in spite of being denied an entire division to orchestrate a robust attack from the north. Thank French and Russian agitation in Turkey for that. With respect to failures on the nation-building side, there’s not a bit of it that’s not what would have been expected from the regime collapse from within that liberals are so sure was nigh, and in truth, the outcome that we have seen is far better for longterm US interests. There is equity in the sacrifices we have made in this region, as much as steve wants to piss on it.
I’m deceiveing? Constantly touting ‘progess’ and turning corners is not decieving, but I am.
Maybe this time it’s going to be different. Seriously. But when someone tells you something that turns out to be untrue once, twice, etc… you should treat what they have to say w/ skepticism going forward.
I just disagree that the war was “poorly planned”. If all you have is opinion then you are not going to change my memories, Steve.
“And I stand by the statement you’re responding to. YOu’re right, we are mired in an insurgency – shohudln’t this have been anticipated? It was poorly planned or the planners were less than forthcoming. One or the other is true.”
You know nothing of military history, do you steve?
There are other ways to strong arm dictators
Yes, but none of them would have worked on Saddam. He wasn’t going anywhere unless brute force was applied.
try and re-shape the entire ME by brute force land invasion
The entire ME? You’re a joke steve. Sorry I wasted my time with you.
“you should treat what they have to say w/ skepticism going forward”
That’s the way I feel about Democrats. And Steve.
Happyfeet @ 52:
All of these things were knowns or could have been anticipated (you explcitly say this re: the nation building). How come we were told that things would be much easier? Is it incompetence or lying?
It was poorly planned or the planners were less than forthcoming. One or the other is true.
If by “less than forthcoming”, you mean “unable to exactly predict the future”.
“That’s the way I feel about Democrats. And Steve.”
I couldn’t agree more. Now if you can just have the same attitude toward the Republicans…
Nothing wrong with being skeptical, is there, steve?
What do you remember about the “planning”, stevarouni?
“If by “less than forthcomingâ€Â, you mean “unable to exactly predict the futureâ€Â. ‘
No. When your job is predicting the future, and you’re completely wrong it’s incompetence. If you DID anticipate the future but kept your mouth shut, it’s lying. I’m saying it has to be one or the other.
We’re here to listen, steve. Open up, man!
“I just disagree that the war was “poorly plannedâ€Â. If all you have is opinion then you are not going to change my memories, Steve.” Hell, even it was poorly planned (NOT the war, but the post war invasion) when the hell is steve going to prove that absolutely no military was involved in any of the planning? That should be exceedingly easy to do, no?
steve – Name the General that was fired.
klrtz1:
“I just disagree that the war was “poorly plannedâ€Â. If all you have is opinion then you are not going to change my memories, Steve.”
It’s not my opinion. What metric of good planning would you use? I use the what the planners themselves told me. What they said is not my opinion, it’s what they said. What happened (whioch is also not my opinion) does noit match what they said.
Ergo, bad planning. I really don’t see how anyone can deny this…..
I suppose I could be skeptical of my memories, steve. Is that all you want? Well, I forgot something just last week and I had to look it up. Maybe you could look up a few Bush speechs from before the war and give me the highlights. I stand ready to be convinced! Good enough?
And that was supposed to have happened before Saddam was defeated, not even beginning to look at what was supposedly going to happen after the Baathist regime was brought down.
And I seem to recall even before Iraq was ever mentioned, that our troops were going to suffer bloody, ignominious defeat by “the brutal Afghan winter.”
“No. When your job is predicting the future, and you’re completely wrong it’s incompetence. If you DID anticipate the future but kept your mouth shut, it’s lying. I’m saying it has to be one or the other.”
You know nothing of military history, do you steve?
Shinseki
Over grilled cheese and tomato soup at lunch, your treat?
steve – Incompetent or lying is simply another Leftist talking point tactic of giving a false choice. Maybe Miss Cleo can predict the future, but nobody else can.
Cool, steve. What are the names of the planners you talked to?
“And I seem to recall even before Iraq was ever mentioned, that our troops were going to suffer bloody, ignominious defeat by “the brutal Afghan winter.â€Â
EVERYone knew that, McGhee.
was not fired. That is an anti-Bush talking point with no basis in fact.
Shinsheki was not fired, and your reliance on this Leftist meme shows you to be the douchebag that we all believe you to be.
Was Shinseki the neocon planner who planned the war, steve?
“You know nothing of military history, do you steve?” Well, steve’s whole point is predicated on his belief that Iraq is a “demonstrable failure”. Here is where steve needs to prove that it is a “demonstrable failure”. Then after that, he can prove how their was absolutely no military involved in the planning of the war.
“Maybe Miss Cleo can predict the future, but nobody else can.”
Cassandra could.
Hey, maybe steve is sort of a reverse Casandra.
He looks at the past and makes up crap.
Yall are forcing me to share my favorite Jimmah quote.
It’s from Jimmah’s mom, Lillian Carter:
“Sometimes I look at my 2 boys (Jimmah and Billah) and think…
Lillian, you should have stayed a virgin.”
“You know nothing of military history, do you steve?”
Then our planners knew nothing of it when they told us what would happen. They didn’t say “here’s the plan – but knowing military history, we can’t really say this with alot of confidence. If things DON’T go as we predict, here’s what might happen…10 year commitment, thousands more than predicted dead, Xtrillion more $, etc”.
So who doesn’t know military history well? Myself or the planners of the war?
… shows you to be the douchebag that we all
believeknow you to be.When did you talk to Shinseki, steve? Was it before the war? I bet you’ve got some good stories about those time!
I’m listening, steve. Really, convince me you’re not just blowing smoke here.
In fairness, I should footnote to this that I also expected far worse U.S. casualties in the initial major combat operations in Iraq. But since I had some historical perspective on warfare I didn’t shit my pants at the thought because I knew even those numbers would pale in comparison to almost anything else we’d ever done before.
N. O’Brain – He is
CassandraIncompetent or lying? It’s a war, stevie. Read a book.
JD, I insist you show steve the same respect you’d show SEK. We don’t know, steve could just be an SEK sock puppet.
steve – That would be you.
Is this a trick question?
McGehee – Dr. Pepper all over the place. It stings when it comes out your nose.
“So who doesn’t know military history well? Myself or the planners of the war?”
You.
Actually, JD, maybe you do know. I withdraw my insistence.
SEK has earned by respect. steve, not so much.
SEK is a grownup. This is key.
“No battle plan survives contact with the enemy”
-Helmuth von Moltke
If you understood that, you wouldn’t be such a douchebag, steve.
I should like this “steve” character to name one goddamn war that wasn’t full to the brim with incompetence in the general officers corp and rife with political miscalculations that cost men’s lives. They are ALL like that. A cursory review of history shows this to have been the case. What, exactly, is the point of saying that incompetence and miscalculations have been apparent in the conduct of the Iraqi campaign in the global war against islamic terrorism?
Well, steve. I decided not to wait. I googled “steve talks to Iraq war planners” and I got NO hits! Not looking good for your veracity, steve.
That’s ENGLISH language pages so maybe you spoke to them in a foreign language? Which language should I try next, steve?
I think steve is from East Gibber. Try “Gibberish.”
There are other ways to strong arm dictators than to try and re-shape the entire ME by brute force land invasion.
‘Cuz that 12 year No-Fly-Zone Enforcement and Sanctions was working so well.
Steve, there is a saying in the military (which you obviously know nothing about) that goes: “No battle plan every survives the first contact with the enemy.”
Does that make anyone who has ever planned a battle a liar, or incompetent?
War is the most brutal and chaotic human act. You want a refund ‘cuz it this war brutal and chaotic?
Hell, I’m in the Army and I don’t feel mislead or lied to in any way about this war….
What’s the matter with you?
101ST!
Sorry, I always wanted to do that…
SEK has earned by respect. steve, not so much.
C’mon, do I gotta be nice to Squat Erk Kweefman? I don’t think I’m up to it….
I thought the topic was Jimmy C. Didn’t he use to be president? That didn’t turn out too well by most accounts, including the opinion of the electorate.
So what credibility has he? Unless he’s trying to say he knows all about failure. That’s not the way I read him. Occam’s Razor says incompetence is more likely than the world’s longest string of bad luck.
I voted for Jimmah.
Twice.
Don’t hit! I was younger than SEK is now.
But less arrogant.
Gray – You do not have to be nice to him. I am often not. But I do respect him.
Belay that! To save time, steve, tell us what’s not the matter with you.
klrtz1 – Welcome to the right side. At least you learned your lesson, to the tune of forcing Carter upon this nation and world. Thanks a fucking lot. LOL
Apparently, after battling swamp bunnies, Carter is hell bent on not being content to being merely the worst President evah, and is now going for the Daily Double of worst former President evah.
On this aspect, he is an unqualified success.
Please, please, please, please tell me that I did not hear last night on the news (the better half watches it) that Gore is in serious consideration for a Nobel Peace Prize. Do they want my head to explode?
Shinseki said what this war would really require, in front of congress and the nation, and that didn’t sit well, did it? Where was his next stop?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12335719/site/newsweek/
I didn’t work hard for this link, either. The link was on his friggin wikipedia page (for Chrissakes).
How many other generals have since come out against the war as it was executed publically? Have said that the neocons don’t know what they’re doing? Not like it’s unprecedented or anything like that. You know military generals – crazy fringe move-on leftist commies all….
And I’m not linking every plain historical fact for you people. There is a time when it’s simply too well documented. It’s like this discussion is the thread that facts forgot. The planners had it all right (and explicitly told us so foem the beginning) and there’s been no objection from the military. What planet is this?
You guys can at least argue of the dire nature of this war – why it must be fought despite the costs and poor planning – without completely denying reality. I mean, I disagree, but it’s at least a disagreement about interpretation of an available set of facts, and not simply denying what’s happened.
I think Jimmah (just turned 83) is trying to overcome the shame of one term Presidency, complete failure when it came to springing the Iranian hostages and general all around life wimpishness.
Just as Bill Clinton continues his own (unfortunately lucrative) romp around the “world stage” to continue to try expiate his lies of Monicagate.
All the (often staged) adulation on the planet isn’t going to help either of those guys.
steve, what thread are you reading? Respond to the comments posted here, not the ones in your head.
steve – That link is from the Glenn Greenwald school of linking. Your link shows that he retired, as he was planning on doing long before this event. So, are you a mendacious liar, or unable to read?
“You guys can at least argue of the dire nature of this war – why it must be fought despite the costs and poor planning – without completely denying reality. I mean, I disagree, but it’s at least a disagreement about interpretation of an available set of facts, and not simply denying what’s happened.”
What happened, Helmuth?
There is a special place in hell for those that lie about the content of their links. Greenwald is a master at it, since he knows that we are not likely to click on one of his links because it will either redirect us towards thinkprogress, moveon., or brazilian midget porn. As such, they feel free to utterly and completely misrepresent the content of the link, or just flat out make shit up.
… an available set of facts
With this available set of facts being based on your assertions? No thanks.
Carter’s also probably feeling guilty that more Active Duty military personnel died during the last year of his presidency than during any year of George W. Bush’s presidency.
Cripples heart monsters. Teach the children well, their father’s hell did slowly go by, don’t you know. It’s still going by. Go by already.
How many other generals have since come out against the war as it was executed publically?
Yeah, “have since come out”…. Why didn’t they raise these objections when they were serving the country instead of just self-serving? I have no respect for them–you can’t win points by playing “I didn’t told you so…” Shitsacki was on his way out for a long time–he fundamentally misunderstood the nature of future warfare with his push towards ‘transformation’ away from heavy armor. I am still enjoying my Shitsacki Black Beret he stole from the Rangers. He was the most PC of PC Generals and we are still suffering for his stupid decisions.
Have said that the neocons don’t know what they’re doing? Not like it’s unprecedented or anything like that.
No, formerly generals advised the President and National Command Authority instead of going to fucking PMSNBC….
You know military generals – crazy fringe move-on leftist commies all….
Hey, at least they are honorable in that when you buy a general at least they stay bought!
You clearly don’t understand what kind of Political Animals this new breed of Baby-Boomer generals are.
In fact, you are so goddamned ignorant about this war, the military, military politics and the role of civilian leadership that you’ve lost the right to have any opinion on these subjects.
What planet is this?
I live on planet Earth, steve. Welcome!
2. To justify this war, many have portrayed it as being similar to WWII or the Cold War.
I thought it was the balsa-wood planes.
Slartibartfast @ #25.
“Until you’ve done battle with your huge, killer rabbit, you have no right to insist that he could have been more brave in battling his.”
Truer words were never spoken.
http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20070905
If I have said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times. To any leftist who believes in the chickenhawk argument I have 2 questions:
1) I served in the military. Thus, do I have absolute moral authority on military policy and national security matters? If not, why not and how then can you claim the chickenhawk argument has any relevance?
2) The logical endpoint of the chickenhawk argument is that only people who serve or served in the military have any right to an opinion as to military / national security matters. I am more than willing to limit the right to vote for the president, senate and house of representatives to only current and former military personnel – are you? If not, again, how then do you believe that “chickenhawk” is a valid argument.
And a third question for fun – do you believe, based on the chickenhawk argument – that a person who has failed to serve in the U.S. Military should never be elected president? I assume then you will never vote for Hillary, Obama, or Edwards and believe that they should never be president, correct? After all, if they become president Iraq will still be ongoing, and they will therefore be a chickenhawk as CIC. Moreover, they may have to make military decisions regarding Iran, South Korea, etc. Thus, logically, you must be completely against Hillary ever becoming president.
steve, in your haste to rehabilitate the chickenhawk argument, you’ve poorly formulated your approach. I think in their own way the commenters here are trying to help you with that. Your hypothesis is that a lack of military experience within the civilian leadership of the U.S. is associated with problematic military outcomes directly related to failures in military planning? Let me know if I’ve got that wrong, but it’s a perfectly reasonable empirical proposition in itself, and seemingly amenable to an objective review of the facts.
Seemingly. Hard to test a theory based on one observation, of course, so we want to broaden our search for data to include other administrations and their associated military conflicts. So people mention military history. Also, we have to determine how we want to measure the successful or problematic nature of the associated military conflicts, and once this variable is metrized whether there’s any variance at all. Again, military history comes up.
I think you need a much better framework for this project of yours.
Why didn’t they raise these objections when they were serving the country instead of just self-serving?
I’ve wondered the same thing about some (retired) generals making this and that critique.
I thought maybe they were just trying to still be important in their own minds.
Tommy Franks book describes the war planning right through Phase IV (the beginning of reconstruction). The book was published two years and two weeks after the fall of Baghdad and is well worth a read.
Of course, General Franks was only the man responsible for preparing and executing the plan in detail so I’m sure that some staff flunky Lt. Col. in logistics should be accorded more respect for saying “there was no plan”.
If one wishes to examine a totally screwed example of planning, the Iranian hostage rescue operation that Carter signed off on is a fine primer.
Ok, so to recap the goings on in ‘Magical Fairy Land’
1. the war went as the planners said it would, or at least as best as could have been hoped/planned for
2. Military people planned this war, not neocons like Wolfowitz and Perle.
3. even though the military experts here tell me that NO military people expect their plans to go as planned,the planners were very, very frank about the chances that their plan would hold up and DID give us some idea of what this war might cost should things not go as planned.
4. Per number 3, Wolfowitz (who did not really plan the war) did not contradict military experts who said that we’d need hundreds of thousands of troops to stabalize Iraq. The neocons (who did not plan the war) were quite welcoming of an open debate about their forecasts for the war (even though they didn’t make any), and admitted that if their plan (that they didn’t have) didn’t break just right (and no plans break just right) we could be in for an open ended occupation that would cost much more than their plan (that they didn’t have) called for.
That you guys buy this is simply a denial of facts that one finds hard to swallow. We’re not talking about interpretaion. Again, simple facts.
“Your hypothesis is that a lack of military experience within the civilian leadership of the U.S. is associated with problematic military outcomes directly related to failures in military planning?”
And then to prove it linked to a post about Don Rumsfield.
I will concede this: when I say Iraq War, I’m talking about the occupation/ nation building portion of things – all that came after the initial invasion. Notwithstanding whether wee should have invaded in the first place, the initial invasion went well. No debating that.
Listen to him steve! DrSteve can get you an NSF grant!
Name one General that was fired
I know! I know! Wesley Clark!
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, so much. Thank you. Thank you, so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
I’m Hillary Clinton and I’m reporting for duty.
Thank you.
As for chickenhawks (squawk !squawk !)…it’s the hugest irony of all, the ridiculous amount of individuals whose own “warriorism” will never itself go past the armchair…
yelping about who has who hasn’t served in the military.
(And for the record, Jimmah Cartah STILL says “nukear” worse than President Bush !)
“I think you need a much better framework for this project of yours.”
Clearly. But argument by assertion takes much less effort. Steve epitomizes the lazy and stubborn.
2. Military people planned this war, not neocons like Wolfowitz and Perle.
Now we are getting down to it: This a ‘jewish thing’ with you, isn’t it steve?
Carter said it was Cheney that fucked up the war.
“Hey, at least they are honorable in that when you buy a general at least they stay bought!”
Your respect for the military is touching. Generals have come out against the war not becasue of belief, but becasue he’s been paid. Very nice. And anything to not have to say “I think I was lied to by my infallible conservative leaders:
Cognitive dissonance isn’t just a river in Egypt.
“Now we are getting down to it: This a ‘jewish thing’ with you, isn’t it steve?”
Leave my heritage out of this.
Comment by steve on 10/11 @ 10:47 am #
Ya know, I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen a troll screw himself into the ground.
“Listen to him steve! DrSteve can get you an NSF grant!”
Having nomorals whatsoever, I would agree with all of you if it meant my NSF got funded.
JD: bjtexs at gmail.com
“Comment by steve on 10/11 @ 10:51 am #
I will concede this: when I say Iraq War, I’m talking about the occupation/ nation building portion of things – all that came after the initial invasion. Notwithstanding whether wee should have invaded in the first place, the initial invasion went well. No debating that.”
Ya know, I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen a troll cockslap himself.
“Ya know, I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen a troll screw himself into the ground.”
So this is what passes for a troll? Disagreement.
And like the last time, I actually agree with you guys about the illogic of the chickenhawk argument as it’s usually used (as Bananna put very well above).
But group thinkers require complete group think. There is no room for any disagreement, despite sunstantial agreement. Not everyone here meets that requirement, but certainly you do O’Brain.
“But group thinkers require complete group think. There is no room for any disagreement, despite sunstantial agreement. Not everyone here meets that requirement, but certainly you do O’Brain.”
Sorry, steve, but you’ve proved your total ignorance to the satisfaction of everyone here.
“Clearly. But argument by assertion takes much less effort. Steve epitomizes the lazy and stubborn.”
Actually, my argument was about something different entirely (please don’t trouble yourself with actually reading what I wrote before commenting – that would take some work).
We ran into a problem because some of the easily demonstrable facts I sited were not agreed upon, and then we ended up here.
steve, I think what you’re seeing is not the reaction to disagreement but to your wholly ridiculous Theory of Chickenhawks As It Relates To Just The Iraq Conflict No Actually Just Parts Of It.
“Sorry, steve, but you’ve proved your total ignorance to the satisfaction of everyone here.”
Only the people like you – and I really couldn’t care less what you think.
Don’t understand DrStev. Clarity requires a certain amount of specificity.
Not disagreement, steve. Aggressive ignornace, or being willfully obtuse.
Based solely upon accomplishment, what field would accept any advice from Carter?
Dictator maintenance?
Arab ass kissing?
Nothing else comes to my mind at the moment.
N.O’Brain – steve aka the Typing Mushroom Bruise.
At least steve is willing to make a point, however wrong it may be. With him, you can disagree. Recently, the trolls like andy do not even make points, just ramble incoherently.
Where is Donkey Kong? Must have got nailed by the gorilla throwing the barrels. This post is right up his alley.
The President of the United States cannot be an expert in all things. Otherwise, he’d/she’d have to be one of the most brilliant economists in the Western Hemisphere, a diplomat deeply versed in foreign affairs, and a doctor, besides being a masterful tactician and commander in chief. Hence the need for delegation.
That said, agreed, military planners must be heard.
The war in Iraq or the War on Terrorism?
What if the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak? I visited the Marines shortly after high school and when I told them I had asthma, they sent me on my way (with some cool posters). Should that automatically rule me out of running for President?
Young people are ready to be responsible when they get to be that age and can decide for themselves.
Meanwhile, have you visited your local recruiter?
Is a draft necessary? More to the point, would a draft ensure an effective and willing fighting force?
Steve,
And like the last time, I actually agree with you guys about the illogic of the chickenhawk argument as it’s usually used (as Bananna put very well above).
Well, I guess the problem is that you have not shown us a way to use the chickenhawk “argument” (in reality it is just name calling) in a way that is not how I described it.
You can argue that the decisions that were made were wrong or bad decisions. You can argue that those alleged bad decisions were made b/c the people making them did not have an understanding of the military and failed to listen to their military advisors. And, those may be valid criticisms.
The ‘chickenhaw’ name-calling is simply stating that someone is unqualified to hold an opinion or make a decision b/c they did not serve – which is a completely different thing.
Now, in this particularly instance (Iraq), I don’t think anyone disagrees that some bad decisions were made.
What people are arguing is that bad decisions are made in every war, by every military and civilian leader – that is the nature of war. Those bad decisions were not made b/c the commander in chief or vice-president did not themselves serve in the military (any more than Carter’s dishonesty and total incompetence is a result from his service in the military).
Instead, the bad decisions were made b/c people are imperfect, and we had imperfect information. You can always find military leaders on both sides of an issue, just like you can find the same in the civilian population. Just b/c one general says decision “x” was bad, does not make it so.
In other words, would you vote for Hillary, Edwards or Obama? If you would, how do you sqaure them becoming CIC with your embrace of the chickenhawk meme?
The problem with your argument is that you are attempting to raise “chickenhawk” above name-calling, but your arguments and reasoning to do so are sorely lacking. You are simply using “chickenhawk” the way everyone else uses it – name-calling.
The issue isn’t whether you’ve had military experience or not, the issue is whether you’re an idiot or not. Carter is.
Jimmy & entourage were recently barred by some of al Bashir’s thugs from talking to some, you know…
recent victims of the carnage in Darfur
Jimmy said he was gonna complain to his buddy, al Bashir.
The President of Sudan, the guy whose thugs first helped effect the carnage, the guy who rapes Sudan’s oil wealth for his buddy China’s benefit, the all around self serving probable manager of Sudan’s current crop of thugs.
Jimmah is such a dork.
(adios for the nonce)
Steve,
You ask how you can take anyone seriously on Iraq who has not served. I served and I support what we are doing there.
Moreover, almost every poll ever done shows that the vast majority of those currently serving, and veterans, support what we are doing there.
Moreover, the vast majority of people against what we are doing there never served.
Thus, taking your question to its logical conclusion, based purely on the support of those who served, you should support what the U.S. is doing in Iraq.
That is the problem with your chickenhawk argument. The argument, taken to its logical conclusion, means that you HAVE TO SUPPORT what we are doing in Iraq. If you don’t, then you are merely name calling for the sake of name calling.
“The war in Iraq or the War on Terrorism?”
The argument I’ve always gotten is that they’re inextricable, so toward the end of my argument, the War In Iraq.
“What if the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak? I visited the Marines shortly after high school and when I told them I had asthma, they sent me on my way (with some cool posters). Should that automatically rule me out of running for President?”
Of course not. did you miss the part where I specifically said the chickenhawk argument is nonsenical?
will not encourage others to serve,
“Young people are ready to be responsible when they get to be that age and can decide for themselves.”
My point here is that the projection of the war as being something we can handle w/o a bigger military was a farce. The country would not have been behind this war if those behind the war made it clear we needed more troops to win in the manner they said we would.
“Meanwhile, have you visited your local recruiter?”
I’m of enlistable age, but absolutely not. I think this war was a bad idea from the get go, and still think that.
“Is a draft necessary? More to the point, would a draft ensure an effective and willing fighting force?”
I don’t know the answers to those questions, TBH. I’m not a military expert, but I know that I trust the people who predicted accurately what would happen over those who were wrong. And obviously, I know the difference (no expertise needed for that) If our military leaders who said we’d need 100,000+ troops to do the job think we need a draft, then I’d probably agree with that. It’s an expertise issue, and I don’t have that expertise.
“… he recognizes that the argument relies for its force on the demand that those who run the military have military experience…”
But Cheney doesn’t run the military. It seems to me that Carter is disparaging Cheney’s spearheading the neocon agenda that the U.S. has a manifest destiny to militarily transform the world. Cheney avoided the military and cannot honestly claim any understanding of the military experience, but he advocates using that very tool to force change.
Maybe that undercuts Cheney’s credibility, maybe not.
Clarity requires a certain amount of specificity.
My last comment was meant to suggest that you’ve dumped the whole bag of specificity in to your case (or at least Point #1) for a new and improved chickenhawk argument. That’s well beyond the “certain amount” required.
More broadly, I think you have to admit that if someone is making the case that a failure to appreciate the advice of military experts, directly tied to a lack of military experience held by civilian leadership, leads to failure in military conflicts, there’s a pile of evidence that must be collated, coded, and analyzed. There are lots of questions that have to be considered, among them:
“which civilian leadership?”
“what counts as military experience?”
“what constitutes a failure to listen to military expertise?”
“what military experts are being considered?”
“what constitutes failure in any given military conflict?”
You haven’t begun to consider these questions fully in the Iraq case, let alone applied them to other conflicts. You seem to be trying to generalize from Iraq, when others are telling you that when you consider virtually any other example (as you should) your thesis becomes problematic.
steve,
I am afraid you over estimate what impact folks like the neo-con Boogie men like Perle or Wolfowitz have on drawing up a campaign plan.
Have you ever sat in on anything like a simple Brigade Operations Order work-up? I have even been in on divisional (and in my own, small, humble way) or theater level orders. There is very little done by anyone other than military. The civilian command element (CinC, SecDef) gives the overall mission (i.e. defeat Iraq’s armed forces) and they get briefed back on the plan. If they say go, we go. If they have problems with anything, they exert a negative influence (see if you can slog thru Wesley Clark’s self-serving Waging Modern War for plenty of examples. Another, famous one, is LBJ in ‘Nam) – no bombing aspirin factories, no dropping JDAMs on Baby Milk Factories, no shooting at mosques no matter what, stay out of an area, etc.
After that, it’s all reaction by the civilian command structure. Just like the Balkans, Somalia, etc. Something happens, and the civilian side says “We don’t want X happening, what can you do about it?” (ie. ethnic warfare and Kosovo air attacks against Serb police and army)
You seem to say that some dread Neo-Cons were standing, peeking over the shoulders of some trembling generals and making them change plans or such. Not really grounded in reality, as much as in opinion.
As for the war being a failure – that’s your (I believe misinformed or willfully held in the face of reality) belief. Funny how those of us fighting the darned thing seem to differ with ya. And if you think that is just defensiveness from a bunch of participants, you have not heard military folks talking about Somalia, Lebanon, etc. We know when we screw the pooch…
“You ask how you can take anyone seriously on Iraq who has not served.”
I never said any such thing. I said I doubt the claims of those who assert we’re in an existential War in Iraq but aren’t willing to serve. I doubt they really belive that we’re in an existential war – it’s just rhetoric.
“That is the problem with your chickenhawk argument. The argument, taken to its logical conclusion, means that you HAVE TO SUPPORT what we are doing in Iraq. If you don’t, then you are merely name calling for the sake of name calling.”
Again – I’m not making the CH argument. I specifically disagreed with it above. See post #7 and read more carefully please.
In short, if you think chickenhawk is a valid category but (as it turns out!) only applies to the people who’ve run the Iraq War, you’re really just name-calling again…
@157
OK. Maybe it’s not that generalizable. That’s my interpreatation for our failures – it could very well be wrong even for Iraq.
That said, my evidence is:
1. Neocon plans for this war ran into conflict with military plans – that’s a fact – especially over troop numers and troops suficient for nation building
2. Military people probably have useful expertise on military matters
Those are facts, but it doesn’t mean my interpretaion is correct or generalizable. I still think considering those facts I’d go w/ my interpretation, though.
“Cheney avoided the military and cannot honestly claim any understanding of the military experience, but he advocates using that very tool to force change.”
Hmmm… say, anyone tell me who the SecDef was back in 1989-1990? Any “understanding” gained at that time? Hmmm…
“In short, if you think chickenhawk is a valid category but (as it turns out!) only applies to the people who’ve run the Iraq War, you’re really just name-calling again…”
I repudiated the CH argument completely, but said that one’s service record is not irrelavent, then went on to mention specific circumstance where I feel it is relavent from the Iraq War.
AGAIN, PLEASE SEE POST #7 FOR CLARIFICATION
My comment #24:
Nostradamus, I am.
Steve, I’m begging you. Anything to say about Carter and some of the points that have been made about fraggin’ Jimmy Carter and his friggin’ comments which was the original point of the post NOT ABOUT THE THE INDIVIDUAL ASSESSEMNTS OF THE MILTARY AND CIVILIAN HANDLING OF IRAQ OCCUPATION!!!!!
(pant) (pant) Whew! Thanks!
“Neocon plans for this war ran into conflict with military plans – that’s a fact – especially over troop numers and troops suficient for nation building”
OK, you’re losing me here. Try not to drift toward conspiracy land – pray, point out such examples of Generals being told to go pound sand when they wanted more or said we would fail.
If you are going to cite Shinseki’s spouting of the Colin Powell school of, “I’m from the Cold War, and I need 1,000,000,000 troops and 50,000,000 planes or I’ll not play”, then I am afraid we are going to remain at loggerheads for good.
@164
If people here reply to me that’s their business. I don’t think they need a Mommy Moderator.
Also, I adressed this in POST #7 (wjhat I think of the CH argument)
Apparently everyone here ios able to read all of my post save for 7.
BJTexs,
I consider myself chastened and will refrain from participating in the threadjacking.
I simply wonder why Carter gets the press time he does… well, not really.
Then we shall remain at loggerheads for good.
Steve,’
You are using a typical leftist tactic of slowly changing your argument as people address you.
You stated “Lack of service in this instance is fair game as it goes to the credibility of those making the assertions that this war (et al. in the future) needs to be fought at all.”
That is the chickenhawk argument in a nutshell – however you want to call it. It is idiotic. Like all good people on the left, you are basically saying that biography matters more than facts and/or rational argument. It doesn’t matter what someone’s arguments are, I can’t even listen to him if he did not serve.
Yet, someone who did not serve (in your ‘mind’) can have the opposite opinion and somehow that is perfectly acceptable. Go figure. It’s nice when the standards of credibility match up so well with your own opinion.
Your logic is twisted. You are attempting to use the “chickenhawk” name-calling while attempting to deny that you are doing so.
If you truly believed you were right, you would make arguments, instead of making arguments for why name calling is still o.k.
If I am in a wheelchair, am I allowed to believe that the War on Terror is, in fact, a war for western civilization? Or, b/c I cannot serve am I not allowed to have that opinion in your esteemed view?
What about people over 60? Are they allowed an opinion on this issue?
Don’t these examples make you realize how foolish your argument is? The bottom line is that you are never going to beleive that the War on Terror is World War IV and as important as the Cold War regardless of who holds that opinion. Instead of making rational arguments to discredit your political opponents arguments, you are looking for ways to personally discredity your political opponent. Which is fine, but it does not refute the arguments that are made.
In other words, if I come up with a devastating argument demonstrating the correcteness of the war in Iraq, and you say – yeah but your are ugly – that does not discredit my argument, anymore than calling me a chickenhawk (or, in your polite terms, questioning whether I served) does.
So, again, your entire point is illogical and easily refuted.
I suppose I should get back to work. One week left before I go on long-term military leave to go participate in our loss, er…debacle, um defeat (?) in Iraq. Training the Iraqi Army, oddly enough. I do the strangest things in the face of defeat.
In regards to steve’s comments about flag officers against the Iraq war; this is more a situation of looking at the dogs that aren’t barking, steve. Sure, there are some dissenting voices in all the services, but when you consider that there are around 875 flag officers distributed throughout all the branches, then it’s pretty lopsided in favor of those who believe in this thing.
It is quite apparent that steve has absolutely no concept of war planning, and the adage that no plan survives contact with the enemy is very much the rule. Historically, no nation has been able to plan for an insurgency. Fighting insurgencies requires going into a defensive posture and learning to understand the nature of the insurgency and how to fight it. Having learned to fight the insurgency – each one, historically, is different in terms of objectives and method – you go on the offensive, having tailored your new operational method to the nature of the enemy, local politics, logistics, etc. Historically, counterinsurgent warfare is marked by countless mistakes at the beginning of the conflict, and if the counterinsurgent force survives – both militarily and politcally – and adapts to the situation, oft times it will achieve victory. If steve bothered to read any military history or attempted to understand it, he would know that. He would also know that these things take time; sometimes a very long time.
“Lack of service in this instance is fair game as it goes to the credibility of those making the assertions that this war (et al. in the future) needs to be fought at all.â€Â
I could have been more clear here, TBH.
This is not the CH argument. I’m questioning whether their assertions that the war is existential or not is rhetorical, NOT whether the war should be fought or not. There are non-existential wars that should still be fought.
IF I were saying War X should not be fought becasue Person X wants the war but has never served, then i would be engaging in the CH arguement. I’m not doing that. I’m saying PErson X if FOS for saying the war is existential, and my evidence is that if he REALY belived that he’s be fighting it right now.
See the diiference?
I’m sorry if offended you, Major John. I hope you succeed, make this whole discussion moot, and stay safe. Thanks.
steve’s position appears to be “I was against the chickenhawk arguement, before I was for it”.
Sorry if I was unclear, steve, I saw your repudiation of the (let’s call it “traditional”) “chickenhawk” argument in your post — no need to remind me you did it (least of all in ALL CAPS). You agree that you went on from that repudiation to say that sometimes a lack of military experience is “fair game.” That’s what I and others are saying is what looks like an attempt to rehabilitate the chickenhawk argument.
Let’s all just leave well enough alone and agree that you think the recent civilian leadership at the Pentagon are incompetent. Satisfactory?
steve, for what it’s worth your point #2 is something Glenn Reynolds says about the AGW folks all the time: “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who are telling me it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis.”
Steve,
Finally, as to your assertion that “1. Neocon plans for this war ran into conflict with military plans – that’s a fact – especially over troop numers and troops suficient for nation building.”
Cites please. Moreover, as I stated above, the military is like any other human endeveaur. You can find people on both sides of an issue. So, as many military people as you can point to who were against the “neocon plans”, I can find military people who were for those “neocon plans.” At the end of the day, the CIC, etc., get advise and then make decisions. Some decisions will be good and some bad. The idea that you are spouting (that is totally unsupported and unsupportable) is that the entirel military establishment was against the “neocon plans” and the “neocons” went ahead with their plans anyway. That is hogwash – and I defy you to find me any credible evidence of that.
Ultimately, we will see who was right and who was wrong on Iraq. I still believe my side will ultimately be proven correct and that Iraq will be seen as a success story. Of course, mistakes were made in execution, but that will always happen to some extent, particulary in war. I lament the loss of life such mistakes cost and I sincerely hope our military / intelligence, etc. study those mistakes and learn from them so as not to repeat them. That does not make the entire endeavor wrong, however.
You also state that “2. Military people probably have useful expertise on military matters.”
Of course. Nobody would argue against that. However, you find military people who agree with your point of view and then shut down and pretend that means that is the only military view out there. As I have stated many times, you can find support for both sides in the military leadership. So, who do you listen to? You assume that you listen to the people who agree with you. That is fine, but it discredits what you said b/c you are not listening to military experts, you are finding military experts who agree with you to support your position, while ignoring other military experts.
Good enough DrSteve
And it’s a good point for me to get the hell out of here so I’m NOT here past midnight!
Making your own hours is the biggest curse for people like me….
steve:
I think we’re getting to the heart of the problem.
Anyway, back to El Doucho, Jimmah Carter, Exactly what issue, apart from building houses, has dickwad been on the right side of?
Anybody?
I mean, he basically travels around the world and provides cover for dictators, thugs, and murderers. I wonder if he and Ramsey Clark belong to the same country club or something?
Does anyone else wonder if it’s just severe retardation or actual evil that causes Jimmah to choose wrong just about every time? Or is it just all those Dictator Donations that did it, or resentment that “his own country” rejected his “leadership?”
One does have to wonder how someone gets that far off the rails and maintains a following.
Obviously, he’s getting some kind of positive feedback, mainly from the MSM, with its defiance disorders.
Quagmire, John. The word you’re looking for is quagmire. Or, to put it into its more familiar form, QUAGMIRE!!!!!one!
existential?
steve,
you have not offended me at all. I simply disagree with you. I don’t take a lot of this type of stuff personally (except one troll at Jules Crittenden’s site some time ago all but wished me dead).
I appreciate that you are trying to discuss this with folks (I think you’d agree this is a heck of a lot more civil than some places – yeah, John Cole, I’m looking at you). I guess I’ll just have to accept your good wishes and agree to disagree, for now.
Sad to say, I have read what you’ve written, steve. You’ve provided a veritable abundance of assertions and very little else. Let’s sum up, shall we?
Iraq = demonstrable failure
War planning = total FUBAR or lies (pick ’em)
Casualty/length of war estimates = see above
From here, those look exactly like stubborn assertions.
But, hey, you kinda, sorta, agreed that the chickenhawk accusation is lame, so…kudos.
#126 et seq. — No, steve, the only thing you’ve established here is that our next question needs to be: are your eyes (a) in the back of your head or (b) in your butt-cheeks.
There is no doubt that there was advice, from both military and civilians, to the effect that the war either needed more troops or shouldn’t be done at all. There was also advice from both military and civilians to the effect that the number of troops was adequate and that the war ought to proceed. It is only in hindsight that we know which of them was correct, to the extent that any of them were correct — and I don’t know of anyone who was fully correct. Furthermore, it is a known constant of military planning that no General worth his or her stars will ever fail to ask for more troops, more and bigger weapons, more time, and more money to do the job. (Hell, no sensible planner of anything can ever be convinced that more resources won’t make the job easier, nor should they be — but part of the duties of any manager is to draw lines and say, “This is what you get. Get ‘er done.”) It is therefore usual and normal for the civilian managers of the military to discount that kind of request when plans are being made. So unless you can demonstrate that all the advice was against, and that the discounted demands were entirely reasonable, you’re talking (and looking) out your ass. And you can’t, so you are.
Furthermore — if the common conflation of “the plan didn’t work” with “there was no plan” is the way you do business in your life, may God help any employee(s) you have or may have in the future. Several people have quoted the standard maxim — “No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy” — to you. Do you have any idea what that means? There are people out there whose dearest ambition is to frustrate the plan. They work hard at it, and the more details they have about what the plan is the easier the time they have of it. That’s why they’re called “the enemy”.
There was one basic failure at the beginning that has resulted in the present situation: nobody, Left or Right, truly appreciated just how badly Saddam and the Ba’ath had damaged Iraqi civil society. The looting at the beginning is a case in point. Should New York be invaded, would you expect the NYPD to go hide in their holes while people came out to loot the museums? — the concept is ludicrous. But that’s what the Iraqi police did, and that is only one example. The original plan in Iraq was to depose Saddam and sit back while the Iraqis rebuilt their society. By its very nature, such a plan would require a long time even if it worked and even longer to establish for sure that it wouldn’t work, which is exactly what happened. But to look at that and say there was no plan is just stupidity and bad faith on your part. If they’d known then what they know now, things would have been quite different. They didn’t.
Regards,
Ric
I sincerely hope our military / intelligence, etc. study those mistakes and learn from them so as not to repeat them.
Yes.
http://call.army.mil/
Ezra Klein. No idea really. I wonder if he wears shoes. The only Ezra I know hated shoes or kept leaving them at home or something. When the Internet first got started, not wearing shoes at work seemed logical I guess. Haven’t thought about him in awhile, but this Ezra, I think Glenn links him sometimes but mostly when he says something really uncommonly dumb. Yup. That looks like a good start there really.
OOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMM!
Master Locke-san floats down into the mortal commentators and delivers teh pithy smackdown.
We bow and scrap….. OOOOMMMMMMMMM!
In New Orleans a lot of the police hid in their holes after that big storm that hit there. I saw it on the tv. After that they went to Las Vegas.
BJ, if that was intended as a compliment I’ll do without in future, thanks.
Regards,
Ric
“If our military leaders who said we’d need 100,000+ troops to do the job think we need a draft, then I’d probably agree with that. It’s an expertise issue, and I don’t have that expertise.”
Except that none of them have, and would react like a vampire to a cross to the idea of reinstituting a draft.
“Then we shall remain at loggerheads for good.”
‘Cuz Steve knows more about war planning and troops needed than a fricking Major in the fricking Army….
Wasn’t that what he was excoriating the (jewish in particular) neocons for?
Is that your own petard you are hoist on?
There was a time when President Carter was a fairly noble guy for being an ignoramous. Over the last four years he’s demonstrated himself to be an anti semite liar who is deliberately attacking his own country. A more ignoble and wretched figure we’ve not seen since Laval took over the Vichy government in France.
This man has crossed the line from goofy and leftist cant into deliberate and calculated lies about the country and its past, even while he was President.
“Comment by steve on 10/11 @ 11:38 am #
Then we shall remain at loggerheads for good.”
You just lost the argument to a professional.
Buh-bye, now.
Sorry, ric, just my goofy way of expressing admiration for your writing skills.
Ric – I believe that was a compliment of the highest order, insofar as you occupy a higher plane of consciousness than most of us, or some of us, or maybe just me. At any rate, well done. steve, not so much.
He’s a propaganda factory for the international left. You have to remember how this works. They get different media than we do. Like for example remember that Drudge link yesterday about a noose on some professor’s door at Columbia? I didn’t click on that cause it was like so not particularly interesting, but come midnight last night BBC has a whole story on it being symptomatic blah blah blah of troubled race relations in America and how we live in an atmosphere of hate. Which is to say that this is really a big deal when Carter slanders his own country. They lick it up overseas.
No sense in me adding any more abuse on poor Steve. This is kind of like a Whack-a-mole game where the poor mole is just a couple of seconds too slow. But, being mechanical instead of intelligent, he just keeps coming back to play.
“A more ignoble and wretched figure we’ve not seen since Laval took over the Vichy government in France.”
I dunno – Vidgard Quisling started his run two years after Laval fired up Vichy. It really requires some study to determine which comparative is more suitable. I generally settle for Vallandigham but you certainly raise additional possibilities.
What Ric said. I just wanted some sources for steve’s implication that no military personnel were involved in either the planning of the war or the planning of the aftermath. He just couldn’t do it. He stammered. He stuttered. But no answers. I guess I should just give up hearing from him about how Iraq is a “demonstrable failure”. Steve, I think what you want to say is, ” I was against invading Iraq” and be done with it, because all this other bullshit is just that, bullshit. And I say that as somebody who was against going into Iraq. That decision has been made and implemented already. But, I still am interested in the “demonstrable failure” thingy, because I just don’t see it. Maybe, when you have the time.
Comment by klrtz1 on 10/11 @ 10:20 am #
I voted for Jimmah.
Twice.
I voted for Ford in ’76, but actually felt that (for once) two good men were running. I did not (initially) feel bad about Carter winning as he had a great resume: Naval Officer, Governor, capitalist (farmer) and a certain morality due to his religious beliefs. I’m afraid that President Carter turned out to be a loser as President and almost worse as an ex-President. I’m waiting to see how his image is rehabilitated after he passes and is no longer around to remind all of us what he really is.
Slogan time!
Jimmy Carter: Because the Dixie Chicks Aren’t Always On a European Tour.
Jimmy Carter: Foreign Policy Surrealism.
Jimmy Carter: Because These Retarded Slurs Don’t Write Themselves, You Know.
Jimmy Carter: Because Once Walter Cronkite Read the Lyrics to “The Goober Man” on National TV, the World Would Never Be the Same.
Jimmy Carter: Even My Hyper-Evangelical Parents Saw Through Him. (True story.)
or, to rip off a local radio DJ’s promo spot:
Jimmy Carter: Making the World a Little Worse, Every Time He Opens His Fat Mouth.
Jimmy always was a annoyingly clueless schmuck. A classic “reform” pol, he’d geek at the drop of a hat. I’d rather have a cynical manipulator like BJ Clinton than a well-meaning but deluded fool.
PCachu: I vote for Foregn Policy Surrealism! BRILLIANT!
Jimmy Carter: Freeing Ex-Presidents from dignity worldwide.
Jimmy Carter: Shining the light on the lack of difference between Israel and Old South Africa.
Jimmy Carter: Arafat the Magnificent!
Jimmy Carter: Splodydopes are peopleses too!
jimmy Carter: Genocide, legally, the other white meat!
PCachu,
Gesundheit!
mojo – he’s not clueless – he measures his venomousness quite exactingly. He did go overboard on the anti-semitism in his last book and did a quick rehab tour for that, but his words are measured precisely to the ears of those whose approbation he needs to maintain the free ride of his whole creepy Elder schtick.
Great Mounds of Moles, Jimmah is delusional. Here’s a money quote from Examiner.com via Drudge: (emphasis mine)
It’s as if the oxygen has been removed from his air.
Cause Bush is not just a worse president than Carter, he’s a WAR CRIMINAL:
here’s a good wrap-up, but point being, this is how the guy raises money. Simple as that.
Sheesh BJ – that’s just sad. It’s like Bill Clinton saying if I had only gone for her face instead of her dress. You can’t torture yourself like that.
happy – Bill gave us hand dipped Presidential cigars. Bill and Jimmy both had loony loser relatives. Jimmy, though wins on the teeth though.
And the thing is, Major John, I remember the news people sounding all relieved that an old cool hand like Cheney was SecDef for that fight. From Solid Servant of the Republic to Avatar of All That Is Evil in one decade.
I would vote for Clinton (either) in a heartbeat before voting for Carter. Did he happen to mention WHY he was short a helicopter? Or anything about running that mission in real time from the White House?
Well, buzz, at least he stood up to his Sec State who wanted the Spec Ops guys to shoot the guns from the hands of those holding the hostages. You know, for the casualties and all.
Besides, Commander Jimmah had the perfect background, as a nuclear systems engineer, to run foreign spec ops in real time.
Right?
Dick Cheney knows more about military operations in his left ass cheek than Carter will understand in his lifetime.
BJ – But jimmah has good intentions.
Someone tell me that I was hallucinating when I heard that algore is under consideration for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Yeah, Vance quit over that didn’t he. Forgot all about that.
Turns out ol Jimmy exaggerated a bit about being a nuclear engineer also. I don’t have the inclination to look it up, but he was more of a tech or something. Not an engineer.
BJTexas,
Cheney might have picked up some glimmering about the military during his stint as SecDef for GHWB – there was something known as GWI that occurred during that period. He might have heard something about the military when he served as Ford’s Chief of Staff too.
Cheney’s toe nail pairings would have the upper hand on Carter regarding anything to do with governance.
But at least the schedule of the White House tennis court ran smoothly. Let’s see Cheney do THAT!
buzz: Was Vance Sec Def at the time? Warren Christopher is alleged to have made that remark. RTO told me so and I believe him. Also yes, you are right. He was an advanced nuclear systems Tech which means he had many of the skills of an engineer without the degree. Perhaps one of our Navy guys could weigh in on that.
JD: No, you were not hallucinating. Your conscious mind probably shit canned the info to protect your fragile sanity. Wish I had been so lucky.
Nope your right. See. I desperately tried to block that whole administration. Thats my excuse anyway.
Vance quit cause he was against the rescue attempt. I’m not sure what that was all about.
I guess if the Nobels can give Arafat a Peace Prize, why not toss algore a bone too. If he wins a Nobel, that prize will have gone from being relevant and important, to the level of an etched mirror one wins from a carnie after shooting a squirt gun.
Carter was short a helicopter because way off in the future Bush spent billions on a Jew driven quagmire and then God punished America for it’s Gitmo torture by going back in time and taking Jimmy’s helicopter away.
See the Book of Revelation (KJV) for proof.
Idi Amin used to talk like Carter, but he had syphilis to fall back on as an excuse.
I suppose he had some nuclear skills. After all, I dont remember anything in the navy melting down. He saved that for our country. I know the comment you are talking about re:not killing any of the bad guys. Terribly unrealistic. The mission to save the hostages was done with absolutely bare bones with very little margin for error. I believe that was the first Delta Force mission. I think the Presidents that came after words used the example as a way NOT to run a mission. Give it to the military, tell them what you want to do, approve the hardware and the plan and then stay out of it. Cyrus Vance was the Sec of State and I thought he quit over the mission. I remember the remark you spoke of, but not who said it. I was 18 at the time. I do remember when he and his family walked down the street carrying their empty suitcases and wondered just what in the hell we are in for. Carter governed by symbolism. Everything was symbolic of something else. Just the absolute worst president ever, and he still hasn’t forgiven Reagan for having the nerve to beat him. There is nothing good to say about Carter.
buzz,
His nuke skills didn’t stop him from asking his daughter Amy for advice concerning nuclear disarmament. The emptiest suit to ever sit in the Oval Office.
Oh ho, Rick! I had forgotten about that little chestnut!
I think he asked her at the dinner table what the most important issue of the day was and she answered Nuclear Disarmament. Then for whatever reason, he thought it would be a good topic to discuss in one of the debates with Reagan. Turns out, once again, he was wrong.
buzz,
Good catch. At least I remembered dear Amy’s name. I remember something about inflation, too. Then I break down crying. He was such a miserable, small, cur of a man.
Yeah, he ran on the “misery index” against Ford, then 4 years later was all “what? Who? Which? look over there, shiny object” It just astounds me that not only was he elected once, but that the Democrats actually ran him again. He should have taken a page from LBJ on that.
“He was such a miserable, small, cur of a man.”
Was?
Well, the alternative was Anvil Head.
Forgot about Kennedy. then again there was a lot to forget about that time.
Hard to believe he was also seriously considered back then. Man, it wasn’t just the disco and funny clothes back then. The drugs must have been out of this world.
Yeah, having grown up with only Jimmah! between me and nukular armageddon, is it any wonder that I’ve chosen to pursue my hobby as a career and forego medical insurance for my family?
Live for today, man!
Who could forget about the epic primary battle between Jimmah the Peanut and Anvil Head ?! Good times.
I think the Democrats were so jazzed with Nixon’s resignation they felt invincible and figured they could throw anyone up there and get a quick win. Reagan proved them wrong.
“But then, Carter is known primarily for ludicrous arguments and 70s-style “realism—
Was withdrawing support for the shah realism? Or Somoza? Or springing an “afghan trap”? Didn’t he switch a bit from a focus on containment to a focus on human rights?
If by ‘focus on human rights’ you mean ‘stand idly by while they are trampled’ or ‘make futile gestures, such as an Olympic boycott’ then yes, you are correct.
Jeff G – This really was not fair. Posting about Jimmah calling Cheney a chickenhawk was going to draw moonbats like deer to a saltlick.
“If by ‘focus on human rights’ you mean ’stand idly by while they are trampled’ or ‘make futile gestures, such as an Olympic boycott’ then yes, you are correct.”
So, realism, or idealism?
andy – That was a rhetorical saltlick.
Realism or idealism? False choice. Stupidism. Or is it stupidity-ism?
I like Jimmy Carter, but I wish he wouldn’t hold himself out as a statesman. I never thought of him that way — more like a rural high-school principal, just tryin’ to keep the darn kids in line.
I like Jimmy Carter, but I wish he wouldn’t hold himself out as a statesman.
Maybe this is kind of like how I like Bono?
“I never thought of him that way  more like a rural high-school principal, just tryin’ to keep the darn kids in line.”
There’s a fine line between rural high-school prinipal and President of the entire fucking country.
And I’m quite sure that Carter would’ve failed at the principal gig, too.
happyfeet, exactly. Since when does Bruce Springsteen speak for me? And while I’m on a rant, this whole politics-is-personal crap stems from the outing mentality that has pervaded both right and left. Rather than confronting one another honestly on the issues, it’s most important to destroy the human figures that oppose you. I think this is a tremendously bad thing, but it is fed by the blogs and by osmosis the MSM.
So it’s like a self-imposed gag order; who wants to speak out if they could be trashed the next day?
N. O’Brain — I understand the difference between a principal and the president. But thanx for the civix lesson! TTYL
“Realism or idealism? False choice.”
Could be. But I didn’t call it realism to begin with. Thats why I asked.
In fairness to N. O’Brain, I’ll admit that I thought Carter an improbable president. I just don’t have the same ghoulish antipathy toward him that you have.
I think the MSM frames those confrontations far more so than do blogs, really, cynn. The New York Times and “Bush’s War” is the quintessence of this, really, and the MSM, this time exemplified by the Baltimore Sun, is at the root of the whole Frost thing inasmuch as Matthew Hay Brown’s transparent lapdoggery left so much to speculation. Had his initial story been credible, the blog reaction would have ended with just a general note about how Democrats pimp brain-damaged children – instead, young Matthew threw blood on this family and pitched them into warm Caribbean waters.
In the current case, Carter targeted Cheney personally, and to a foreign press that pimps anti-Americanism with the ardor of Nancy Pelosi in a room full of retarded orphans.
andy – Could be? How about trying to make an actual point.
If jimmah was my daughter’s principal, we would switch schools. He would not even be a good dog catcher.
happyfeet – I enjoy it when you are energized about a topic. Don’t be afraid to say what you think.
“andy – Could be? How about trying to make an actual point.”
I dont get into whether his foreign policy was smart or stupid. But I don’t think it was realism.
Well, I keep doing it. For what it’s worth.
The thing kind of it is JD is that the “attacking the poor family” meme is just once more into the breach for these people using that kid as a human shield, as somebody put it, and really, this tactic is something that the peopleses are pretty easily innoculated against. It’s Wellstone’s funeral all over again, at least how I see it, the appeal of psychologizeresque fatalism notwithstanding. Cynn’s pov on this one is really and truly instructive.
Because of the outing.
Yeah well it’s all fun until a kid gets hurt, and people always blame the parents.
But in this case, happyfeet, they do not blame the parents. They blame us evil warmongerers for reacting to their crass production.
Good god that’s cynical. I blame psychologizer.
Oh – that was just to follow #254 – JD – I think this would be a real hard narrative to pitch to a more general audience – the idea that this innocent kid just told the nation how best to spend thirty five billion dollars and then his family was viciously attacked because of this big lie that they were undeserving of welfare just cause they had a nice house and sent their kids to private school but not really cause they got scholarships and stuff and they don’t make enough money cause the poor Dad only works sometimes and Mom only works part-time and just look at how sweet these poor dirty hippies look and aren’t Republicans awful?
Cynn, I remember the day my dad became a Republican. It was in December ’78 when Carter lit the National Christmas tree and then turned it off ‘to save energy’.
My pop went off:
“Dammit, this is America! We have Christmas! How can that rotten little sonofabitch creep around the Whitehouse wearing a sweater, let Castro wag his finger at him and then turn off the damned Christmas Tree!”
My pop was a Korea Vet and a Nixon-hating anti-vietnam war beatnik philosopher who worked in the Nuke labs. He became the quintessential ‘Reagan Democrat’…..
He discovered Limbaugh in ’88 and said to me: “Hey, there’s this Jonathon Winters kinda guy who says the stuff everyone is afraid to say. You gotta hear it!”
Sometimes, when I see things through his eyes, I’m glad my ol’ man isn’t around to see what happened to his country.
He didn’t leave the Democratic Party, it left him…..
I should say just cause I haven’t yet that I find the way they’re funding this far more offensive than the program’s intent and the dubious means testing. It’s just the ugliest most viciously pragmatic and evil sort of blatant redistributionalism I think.
The reality, hf, is that it is going to cost a lot more than $35 billion. As usual, they used a clever little accounting trick to hide the true cost. I can’t give you a source just now but I’ve heard that the real cost is going to be closer to $60 billion. And that figure doesn’t even factor in that the estimated costs of programs of this type are notoriously below actual.
That should get more attention. What does Graeme think the actual costs will be I wonder. All I know is ethanol fetishist Chuck Grassley is a cosponsor, and that farm boy can’t do math.
This is how it works. This year the program costs $5 billion. This bill would ramp up spending to $16 billion by 2012. Then, miraculously, the program will cost only $3.5 billion in 2013. Then it disappears off the books. An explanation by an opponent is contained here.
That should be the story right there.
And little Graeme gets to own this one? Thanks Mom.
Should be. But the story is the evil right-wingers picking on a disabled 12-year old.
With Social Security and Medicare what’s another $3 trillion entitlement anyway?
But it was such a big story when Iraq cost more than projected. I’m perplexed.
Wars are supposed to have definite timelines and fixed costs. Unlike entitlement programs.
My bad. I sent him the link.
The only country allowed “to inject its power through military means in other parts of the world” is Iran, right? I don’t want to fail the quiz.
As I said in another thread, making it about the Frosts is exactly where you don’t want the debate to go.
“Wars are supposed to have definite timelines and fixed costs. Unlike entitlement programs.”
Timelines are on the side of al-qaeda. So are 75 year projections of being in Iraq.
Sure, andy – AQI can keep this rate of attrition up foevah!
I must have missed your lecture series on insurgancies at the Command and General Staff College.
They are beseeching the couch-jihadis of the world to come to Iraq, becuase they cannot replace their losses, the locals have turned on them, and they have already scaled back in the Phillipines, Indonesia, Kashmir, Chechnya, Somalia, etc. Why do the tapes that come out from AQ try to push the line for the run-away crowd here in the West. AQ needs help and since the average Abdul and Adjmal ain’t exactly racing to Iraq, AK in hand – they have to turn to political opportunists here in the West to fight their battle for them.
Motives and intentions aside, the actual result of pushing “The War is Lost, bring ’em Home!” is to assist AQ’s last hope to salvage anything out of it’s brutal series of defeats.
steve,
What makes you think that’s the case? Surely, many more troops means much more money. It probably also means a lot more American casualties by virtue of there being more of us to shoot at. It would also mean an increased perception of occupation and an intent to dominate Iraq.
The strategy we’ve been working with, or, if you will, the plan, has been to empower Iraqis to take care of their own business. And yes,it has taken a lot longer than a lot of people hoped/thought it would. But it is happening. It is working. What makes you think that another 200K troops would have made it happen better?
And as for a draft, don’t you think we ought to authorize a significant increase in the size of the military first? And then see if we can fill it with volunteers? We’ve been there and done that before.
And having said all of this, I was a strong proponent of a more robust ass kicking than we delivered, though my problem was more with the rules of engagement than with troop levels.
How so? They’re currently in danger of losing the only place they’ve got left that they can operate freely.
come on, andy! Chant with me!
D’oh! Again, andy, chant with me!
WE CAN’T KILL THEM ALL!!!!! (so don’t bother trying)
Your ignoranace is like one of those trick birthday candles. Just keep blwong.
I think the current leftist mythology regarding AQ is that the set of all potential jihadis is equal to the set of all Muslims. Certainly any thinking Iraqi would be justified in strapping him/herself up with explosives and hitting the detonator in a marketplace full of fellow countrymen. I mean, that’s what I’d do if Red Dawn ever happened, here: just go blow up a bunch of Americans. Twice, if I could swing it.
Slart…exactly. They bitch and create the whole “Rethugs want to kill all Muslims” strawman, when it is indeed, a great number of them, that equate all muslims with all jihadis. Unserious assholes.
“How so? They’re currently in danger of losing the only place they’ve got left that they can operate freely.”
I guess you’re right. Ok. Lets have some timelines then.
here ya go! last slide.