Dems want a do-over? Excuse Me?

[Mini D]

Originally posted by Kieran
Exactly right. Bush is trying to do number 2 while ignoring 1.

That is a silly thing to say keiren. Plus... it's a silly choice of options.

Of course bush hasn't adopted the tactics that allow us to win, since we haven't won. The statement is the same as saying you refuse to make wise investment choices because you're not a millionare yet.

[LePaul]

Hasnt anyone learned from the eras of Lyndon Johnson and Mr MacNamera?

Let the commanders on the ground handle the execution of the war.  Have the President listen to them....not the politicians.

[Kieran]

Originally posted by Mini D
That is a silly thing to say keiren. Plus... it's a silly choice of options.

Of course bush hasn't adopted the tactics that allow us to win, since we haven't won. The statement is the same as saying you refuse to make wise investment choices because you're not a millionare yet.

Semantic argument. That one won't win a war, either.

[Mini D]

Do you think bush would ignore tactics that he thinks would "win the war"? It's not symantics to point out you said he'd ignore them.

[Kieran]

Yes, I do think Bush has largely ignored his generals. Bush isolated himself with a very small ring of his trusted advisors. His demeanor didn't change until the Dems won control of Congress.

You're not really saying he didn't... are you?

Sure, I think Bush wants to win. I don't believe he's capable of it.

But just so I know what we're debating, are you arguing the point I can't definitively state Bush ignores winning tactics, or are you arguing Bush is on a winning path?

I mean, if it's the former, whatever, you understand the point. If it's the latter, what are the other options? Seems pretty simple to me.

[tedrbr]

They want to reverse the 2002 vote on going to war.

It's a political mulligan.   They are playing to The Mob.  The same Mob that was in support of the call to go to war, at the time, but whom now conveniently forget now that they supported the war then.  

"We were misled"  "We were lied to".

The Mob wanted to be misled, they wanted to believe, they still wanted revenge.  The Mob wanted to hurt someone for what was done and be made to feel safe.  Little Joey Goebbels may have been a monster, but he had the mob figured long ago.  The Leadership saw what it wanted to see.  The Mob saw what it wanted to see.  

We went to war.

We won the war.

We screwed up the Peace..... which is getting habit-forming for US.  

We failed to acknowledge we were screwing up the peace..... for a long time.....(still, for some folks).  

All which has led to reaping political hay.

[tedrbr]

Originally posted by LePaul
Hasnt anyone learned from the eras of Lyndon Johnson and Mr MacNamera?

Let the commanders on the ground handle the execution of the war.  Have the President listen to them....not the politicians.

Unfortunately, the highest military leadership (and in the intelligence community) are often political hacks themselves, like the idiots who put them in those positions.  Yes Men.  Tell the Boss what the Boss wants to hear.  These folks are in turn backed by a well entrenched bureaucracy whose goal is to keep their comfy positions safe.

Then, military operations are highly reported upon, especially when things go wrong.... which, oddly enough, happens in combat....

These news reports get the public up in arms, who turn on the politicians, which go into full Governor William J. Le Petomane mode: "We've gotta protect our phony baloney jobs, gentlemen! "  ala Mel Brooks 1974 "Blazing Saddles"  and start to try and do ANYTHING to make it look like they are doing SOMETHING.  Usually, it turns out to be a bad thing, a wrong thing, or a very stupid thing.  

Here, the  mistakes started early.  Over confidence on high tech toys to deliver in a low tech, urban battle zone, which led to low-balling numbers of needed troops on the ground to hold that ground once the battle was over.  Insistence on keeping numbers of deployed troops low, to appease Congress and the Public.  Continuing failed policies long after they became clear they were ineffective, due to an institutional inability to admit to being wrong.  Ever.  About anything.

Also not looking at the evidence.

We were to believe that highly secular Iraqi government was cooperating with religiously fanatical Al Queda and Taliban?  Al Queda has made attacks in Saudi Arabia, which is not religiously strict enough to suit them..... Iraq?  Nonsense, but that was part of the justification.   1 terrorist camp in the whole country, that I knew of, in the NE along Iran border to train Iranian dissidents just so Saddam could tweek the nose of his age old enemies by sending trouble makers over.  

We chased the Taliban and Al Queda out of Afghanistan.  They fled to Indonesia, to the Philippines, to Pakistan, to Iran, to the lower 'Stans.... and we pursued them to .... Iraq.   Someone forget to buy a map or globe?

Historians are gonna have a BALL with this one years down the road.

[Mini D]

Originally posted by Kieran
Yes, I do think Bush has largely ignored his generals. Bush isolated himself with a very small ring of his trusted advisors. His demeanor didn't change until the Dems won control of Congress.

You're not really saying he didn't... are you?

I'd tend to think he listened to both. But then, I wasn't there. I guess I'm just kinda amazed at how many people seemingly were.

Sure, I think Bush wants to win. I don't believe he's capable of it.

But just so I know what we're debating, are you arguing the point I can't definitively state Bush ignores winning tactics, or are you arguing Bush is on a winning path?

I mean, if it's the former, whatever, you understand the point. If it's the latter, what are the other options? Seems pretty simple to me.

The former. You can't say it. You have nothing to base it on. You're only real go-to is "we haven't won yet, so he must."

There is no winning tactics in a tribal nation. Any general that says otherwise is trying to sell a book.

[Mini D]

BTW,

Right now I think the Dems would do anything in their power to stretch this war out at least two more years. Nobody really cares about the war, they only care that there is one and as long as that is the case, they will have political ammunition. What a wonderful distraction.

The republicans aren't much better here. They'll continue try to push through spending bills that will effectively force the dems to vote no. Of course a no vote says the dems aren't really willing to support the troops.

Right now, both parties are trying to gain as much momentum with innaction and finger pointing as possible.

But back in Iraq, we have a military presence. Believe it or not, this is run by generals, not GWB. Most of the problems can be layed right on the shoulders of poor tactics. I'm not saying I could come up with better ones... but I am saying that field tactics are not based on president bush's scrutiny unless somethign actually becomes an issue (meaning that the tactics got out of hand way before he got involved).

The war went pretty much like I thought it would. The peace is going pretty much like I thought it would too. Eventually we'll pull out and things will go to crap until there's a bloody massacre and a dictator rises to squash everyone else. Meanwhile, 6 other countries look at the ruin that is Iraq and have to wonder if it could happen to them.

I know this war was OK'd by everyone with the same information Bill Clinton had introduced a few years earlier. I just get the feeling that everyone saw it as some kind of opportunity (little of it having to do with terrorism).

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by tedrbr
Historians are gonna have a BALL with this one years down the road.

My bet if the current situation of politcal disengagement continues and wins in congress is the historians are going to say that America threw away another chance to stop global terrorism.

Sadly, most supposedly educated people do not realise it.  They are so blinded by a biased media and hate for Bush that they will see anything but the path to the victory being provided.  

But, hey, we have done it before when the liberals whined and moaned.  Sadly we are going to do it again.

Maybe the next attack on this country that kills 100's of thousands may finally get the point across...  Sorry to be pessimistic, but I think that is gonna be lost on liberal America as well.  

[Kieran]

Revisionist history is already occuring.

There were LARGE portions of the American public that were against this war from the beginning. I was not one of them, but I saw it with my own eyes.

There were many Democrats who were very cautious about the idea of the war, but didn't have the guts to stand against Bush politically. Now they are paying the price, as are we.

I'd agree about winning the "war" per se, but I distinctly remember many folks speaking about the coming "peace", and how many, MANY more troops on the ground were needed to keep it. They also discussed how the American soldiers were fighters, not policemen. Oh yes, I remember it well.

I remember Bush ignoring that point. I didn't have to be in the room, I watched it on the news every night. I still am.

It came down to "If we take THIS rebel stronghold city, we'll have 'em on the ropes!" Sound familiar? Like the current push? More of the same. It  didn't work then, and it won't work now.

Sooner or later we're going to realize we're gonna have to walk out of the place, either by saying "Long enough, take care of yourselves" or after we have ethnically cleansed an untidy faction of people. We might have been able to establish a peace, *might* have early on after the war, but we didn't (for whatever reason), and now the tide has turned.

[oboe]

Originally posted by Mini D
The war went pretty much like I thought it would. The peace is going pretty much like I thought it would too. Eventually we'll pull out and things will go to crap until there's a bloody massacre and a dictator rises to squash everyone else. Meanwhile, 6 other countries look at the ruin that is Iraq and have to wonder if it could happen to them.
 

Originally posted by Mini D There is no winning tactics in a tribal nation. Any general that says otherwise is trying to sell a book.

 

Just to be clear, MiniD, are you saying Iraq is unwinnable?

Given things went like you thought they would, and there's a very good chance you're correct about how they will play out in the future, what's your opinion on the war's cost and effectiveness in achieving our foreign policy goals?  ($500+ billion estimated).

Do you think somewhere there could be 6 dictators-in-waiting hoping for a U.S. attack to destabilize their country so they can eventually win out and take control?

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by tapakeg
There is only one person in this dilemma that does not have the benefit of of hindsight.  Bush made the decision that he thought was the best for the country and is sticking to it.  Changes?  yes adapt to the situations that arise, Rumsfeld is gone, Petreus is in, mission is the same WIN.

It makes me sick the people who VOTED for action in the war and are now threatening to take away funds. SICK ....Treasonous.  

You all know if we would have done nothing in Iraq, they would be all over him for not taking care of Sadam Hussein.  
 

 Standing applause. Give the man a ceeeeeegar.

[Mini D]

Originally posted by oboe
Just to be clear, MiniD, are you saying Iraq is unwinnable?

I'm saying we already won when we wiped out their military, drove through their country unabated and removed saddam from power.

The new victory, where we help Iraq form some kind of governement where everyone is happy and all of the tribes sing lullabies together as the sway back and forth is not possible. Any tribal nation with a history of waring will always be unstable.

[oboe]

Then it sounds to me like you are saying that the attempt to install an America-friendly, western-style democracy in Iraq was a fool's errand.

In other words, there was never a chance the U.S. could succeed in its ultimate goal for Iraq (related goals notwithstanding, like the removal of Hussein and the finding/incapacitation of WMDs)?