• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Blame the Dems for Iraq

hgc

Penultimate Amazing
hgc
Joined
Jun 14, 2002
Messages
15,892
Noon, January 3, 2007, the Democrats will take control of Congress. When will the blame for the failure of Iraq be laid at their feet?
 
hgc said:
Noon, January 3, 2007, the Democrats will take control of Congress. When will the blame for the failure of Iraq be laid at their feet?
Click to expand...
The only Dems one can blame were the Senators and Reps who voted for the "authorization of force" without the rigorous examination of the Executive's case in the Intelligence and Armed Services sub committees. Beyond that, the past 3.5 years have been very much led by the Republican side, even with the various arguments and disagreements that folks like Ron Paul, or John McCain have raised regarding the actions of the Executive Branch.

The Dems have a rare opportunity to make a positive change in the Iraq policy, but it is fraught with risk, as is every initiative in Iraq: it is a turd that is very hard to polish.

One of the better stories for the layman I've seen in a while was last week's piece in Newsweek, written by Fareed Zakaria, with good illustrations that were simple to understand. He agrees with me that "civil war" is going on, though he terms it "low grade civil war."

Also, Maj General Batiste (Ret) wrote a detailed "Alternative strategy for war in Iraq" piece that was picked up by my local paper. The only thing wrong with his article is that it is what needed to be done in June of 2004.

Iraq is a failed state created by the United States. Our senior leadership did this to Iraq, to ourselves and to our allies. America is losing a battalion's worth of dead and wounded Americans (as many as 800 men and women) every month and spending up to $2 billion a week on a failed strategy. We are hemorrhaging our national treasure in blood and dollars without anything of relevance to show for it.

The Bush administration continues to get the strategy wrong and to understate the magnitude of the task in Iraq. Most congressional Democrats do not recognize the gravity of the threat, and their Republican counterparts long ago abrogated their constitutional responsibility to oversee the executive branch. Congress has allowed the administration to fight what has essentially been a secret war and to deceive all of us about its supposed causes, progress and cost.
Click to expand...

If you check the link, one of the things he suggests is reinstituting the draft. I violently disagree with that. Some of his other suggestions, rationing, etc, the decision to fully mobilize the nation
behind the War on Terror, and the Battle of Iraq, is almost three years late. The presumption of a "short and cleanly ended war" that was sold in 2003 was the political baseline: America was not ready to provide a mandate for a war that mobilized the entire nation. Maj General Batiste's belief that the will in America to so mobilize, on a national level, amazes me.

Still a good article, I recommend it.

DR
 
Last edited:
And who says Iraq is a failure? Are you calling it, hgc?

Maybe that's the problem. Calling the game before its over.

No wonder "cut and run" sounds so appealing to some people. They already think we have failed.
 
Luke T. said:
And who says Iraq is a failure? Are you calling it, hgc?

Maybe that's the problem. Calling the game before its over.

No wonder "cut and run" sounds so appealing to some people. They already think we have failed.
Click to expand...

I can't even remember what we're trying to accomplish!

Let's see . . .

. . . find WMD, no that's over with,

. . . oust Hussein, nope done that,

. . . liberate the Iraqi people, nope they're liberated,

. . . wait until the Iraqi people hold elections, nope there are purple fingers scattered all over Iraq,

. . . wait until Iraq can draft a new constitution, nope they're constituted,

. . . capture Saddam, check,

. . . wait until the next round of elections, scratch that,

. . . spread Democracy, nope they're free to choose who to shoot,

. . . wait until Hussein's trial is over, nope,

. . . get the oil flowing, not going to happen,

. . . stop the civil war, what civil war?
 
Luke T. said:
And who says Iraq is a failure? Are you calling it, hgc?

Maybe that's the problem. Calling the game before its over.

No wonder "cut and run" sounds so appealing to some people. They already think we have failed.
Click to expand...
Well, that is a my working assumption -- that it's a failure. If you don't agree on that, then we'll have something else to talk about first (and for which I don't have time right now). To that end, I was listening to John McCain on Meet the Press yesterday with amazement at the insanity the American public is willing to swallow (which will be the subject of another thread when I can get around to writing a long post). In short, he said a) this is a critical time to make or break and b) we need to increase troop strength in Iraq to be successful.
a) We've heard this is a critical time so often in regards to Iraq over the last few years, that it's starting to sound like the ramblings heard in a padded cell.
b) Yes, increase troop strength. With what troops? The same national guard and reserve troops who've been rotated back into Iraq over and over again? Where are they coming from? Korea?
 
hgc said:
Well, that is a my working assumption -- that it's a failure. If you don't agree on that, then we'll have something else to talk about first (and for which I don't have time right now). To that end, I was listening to John McCain on Meet the Press yesterday with amazement at the insanity the American public is willing to swallow (which will be the subject of another thread when I can get around to writing a long post). In short, he said a) this is a critical time to make or break and b) we need to increase troop strength in Iraq to be successful.
a) We've heard this is a critical time so often in regards to Iraq over the last few years, that it's starting to sound like the ramblings heard in a padded cell.
b) Yes, increase troop strength. With what troops? The same national guard and reserve troops who've been rotated back into Iraq over and over again? Where are they coming from? Korea?
Click to expand...

See, this is exactly the kind of stuff I have been thinking about for the last couple weeks.

The election was all about Iraq. Basically, the people said, "We need a change in Iraq policy NOW!"

But in what direction? That is not clear. Are we supposed to "cut and run" or are we supposed to start fighting to win?

The public is waiting for the answer to that question. That is what will be dominating the news for the next few months. This group and that group say we should get out, this group and that group say we should stay and fight to win. And this group is waffling and can't make up its mind. And Congress will go with the wafflers until the polls come in. They have 2008 to think about, after all.

To fight to win, we clearly need to increase troop strength and quit pussyfooting around.

Yeah. Where are the troops going to come from? Good question. Guess those big cuts in troop strength all through the 90s were a bad idea...

Hey, I blame every last Congressperson and Senator in the 90s for that. Not just Clinton. So don't even. :)

Recruitment goals have risen all during this conflict. That's part of the dirty little secret behind "not meeting recruitment goals" glee that the anti-war crowd has not been telling you about.

The size of our force has been growing as a result of that increase in recruitment. So some of the numbers will come from there.

But I don't think the Dems are going to have the balls to increase troop strength. That is too big a political gamble. So they will go with timetable withdrawal, but they will call it "benchmarks to show Iraq is capable of handling things on their own".

But Iraq won't be capable of handling things on their own for another three or four years. Unfortunately, that is pastt 2008, so we aren't going to wait that long.

Anyone with half a brain in their head could see Iraq would take an eight to ten year committment. I wish I could find the post I made to that effect in early 2003, but it appears to have been lost in the purge.

If they go with the "timetable/benchmark/cut-and-run" policy, then Iraq will go in the books as a "failure".

Who will get the blame for that?

Bush. He has such a huge Suck Factor we are in danger of all life being wiped out by a passing asteroid. So he can't get away from full blame for Iraq.

The Dems have a blank check. A free ride. They call the tunes. They can do no wrong. In the catbird seat.

Pick your cliche.

The worst they can do is shrink any further gains they make in 2008. And that will take some doing. Like maybe Ted Kennedy getting caught with a dead pregant girl at the bottom of a river, and Nancy Pelosi caught selling nuclear weapons to Iran, at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
. . . If you check the link, one of the things he suggests is reinstituting the draft. I violently disagree with that. . . .
DR
Click to expand...

A long time ago, I can't recall where, I heard a very elaborate argument that the interests of the US are best served by having soldiers that absolutely hate being in the Army - thus a draft is a good idea. Can't recall the details either.
 
fishbob said:
A long time ago, I can't recall where, I heard a very elaborate argument that the interests of the US are best served by having soldiers that absolutely hate being in the Army - thus a draft is a good idea. Can't recall the details either.
Click to expand...
That situation is not conducive to good order and discipline, nor to healthy morale, nor to efficiency. How much time did you spend in uniform, fishbob? How much did the wag who wrote that idea?

I'd love to see the essay, if you can find a link. :)

DR
 
From that last link:

Should End Strength Be Increased, and by How Much? Many voices in Congress and the military community publicly support an increase, and few argue against it unconditionally.14 Proposals now range in magnitude from 10,000 permanent Army positions to the Administration’s 30,000 temporary positions to 83,700 for five years (introduced and supported by Democratic Members).15
Click to expand...

Footnote 15:
15 H.R. 3696 would have increaseed the Army from 482,400 to 522,400; the Air Force from 359,300 to 388,000; the Marine Corps from 175,000 to 190,000; and, left the Navy at 373,800.
Click to expand...
 
Luke T. said:
To fight to win, we clearly need to increase troop strength and quit pussyfooting around.
Click to expand...
"To fight to win" is just as ambiguous as "new direction". What constitutes a "win"?

By my very limited understanding of it, the main obstacle to a stable Iraqi government at this point is not so much external terrorists as it is competing internal forces. I don't understand how increased US troop strength in the area is going to convince people to set aside their ethnic conflict and work with one another.
 
Upchurch said:
"To fight to win" is just as ambiguous as "new direction". What constitutes a "win"?

By my very limited understanding of it, the main obstacle to a stable Iraqi government at this point is not so much external terrorists as it is competing internal forces. I don't understand how increased US troop strength in the area is going to convince people to set aside their ethnic conflict and work with one another.
Click to expand...

As long as insurgents have a free hand to resort to violence, there will not be any talks.
 
Luke T. said:
As long as insurgents have a free hand to resort to violence, there will not be any talks.
Click to expand...
As long as the sun rises, it'll rise in the east. Who's gonna take away that free hand?
 
Upchurch said:
"To fight to win" is just as ambiguous as "new direction". What constitutes a "win"?
Click to expand...
I agree this is a problem.

Upchurch said:
By my very limited understanding of it, the main obstacle to a stable Iraqi government at this point is not so much external terrorists as it is competing internal forces.
Click to expand...
An internal threat is nothing new to insurgencies. The number of competing forces complicates matters, but it doesn't make it a "new type of war."

Upchurch said:
I don't understand how increased US troop strength in the area is going to convince people to set aside their ethnic conflict and work with one another.
Click to expand...
Maybe it won't, but it's one of many steps if we're going to try. Regardless the number of internal competing groups, the majority of people simply want stability and security. Provide them the latter and the former follows.

History demonstrates that more troops, embedded in key regions, are the key to establishing long-term security.

What will not work is another Fallujah in which we did the right thing (the second time) by physically/militarily retaking the city but did not station troops there to hold it and to interact with the populace on a daily, down-at-the-street-level, basis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom