I agree. It has been a brillant effort. That some people are just beginning to see that and others will never see that makes it no less true. Our war with Iraq ended three years ago. They have some internal stresses that we have helped train them to fight. That it sucked the international terrorists in should be seen as a wonderful bonusa for us, hardly a failure. Three years after we sumarily whipped a corrupt and incredibily vicous old dictator, Iraq is standing tall. It has the second best army in the area and the best arabic army anywhere, ever. Will graft, revenge, sectarian violence and intertribal strife continue there? Of course, but they are showing that they have the will and are developing the means to deal with their problems. Iran and Syria should be so lucky as to be crushed by the infidel.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon at March 19, 2006 10:50 AM
Mark, it is one thing to support the war itself, but to make the comment "nothing has gone wrong in the fundamentals" is a bit much isn't it?
I've read enough of your posts to understand Bush can do no wrong in your eyes, but to say all-in-all this was a success? Tell that to the 2000+ that have died for this.
By the way, have you read this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4821618.stm
Iraq in civil war, says former PM
"It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more.
"If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."
Mr Allawi added that a national unity government may not be "an immediate solution" to the country's problems.
Iraq is moving towards the "point of no return", he said, when the country would fragment.
"It will not only fall apart but sectarianism will spread throughout the region, and even Europe and the US will not be spared the violence that results...," he said.
That was from an interview with Iraq's former interim prime minister Iyad Allawi.
Again, you are just going to say I am a leftie who "hopes we lose". You couldn't be further from the truth. I, and every person in America hopes we win this war. I just hope it ends VERY SOON. I also would not call this success yet and I wouldn't say the overall war has not seen SERIOUS flaws in planning.
Posted by: Sick of Lies at March 19, 2006 11:34 AM
Sick of Lies - If you only listen to one side of the story you do get a tainted view. Maybe looking at the other side a little would help...
The terrorists know they lack the military strength to challenge Iraqi and Coalition forces directly - so their only hope is to try and provoke a civil war. Immediately after the attack on the Golden Mosque of Samarra, the Iraqi people looked into the abyss and did not like what they saw. Iraqis have shown the world they want a future of freedom and peace - and they will oppose a violent minority that seeks to take that future away from them by tearing their country apart.
"Civil War" & Where's Zarqawi?While the focus is on the sectarian strife in the major population centers, a real civil war is occurring inside Iraq - between al-Qaeda and their erstwhile Sunni allies. A representative from the newly created "Anbar Revenge Brigade" claims to have killed "20 foreign fighters and 33 Iraqi sympathizers," including "a number of the Arabs including Saudis, Egyptians, Syrians, Kuwaitis and Jordanians." Unlike prior inflated claims, these numbers should be considered reasonable. Strategy Page reports numerous sensitive al-Qaeda documents have been found, including a "death list" and "many of the names on the list are of Sunni tribal and religious leaders who have been less than enthusiastic in their support for al Qaeda. Sadly, a number of those on the list have already been slain." It is these tactics which have spurred the creation of the Anbar Revenge Brigade.
In the atmosphere of open warfare between al-Qaeda and the Sunnis, questions are beginning to arise about the whereabouts of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. SITE Institute's Rita Katz notes that since the Mujahideen Shura Council was formed in Iraq last month, Zarqawi has been virtually silent; "A few days after the council was established, Al Qaeda in Iraq ceased to post communiqués. Abu Maysarah temporarily signed the new council's communiqués, but then he, too, stopped. The baffled jihadi community initially believed that Zarqawi headed the new council. But on Jan. 20, the council posted a communiqué crowning its emir: Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi." It appears the Sheikh of Slaughters is no longer a welcome face in Iraq.
Different views, different possibilities, different outcomes. The American mainstream media beats up on Bush, and wants him to fail in "HIS WAR", but in reality, there is a war going on, and the people most involved, that live there want it to stop. They make their decisions based upon what is actually happening around them. I wish them well, and hope they can end this war soon.
Posted by: dl at March 19, 2006 12:20 PM
It looks like Turbin Durbin has stepped in do-do again. He's now refusing to rule out impeaching Bush on the NSA Wiretap. This will now be the second week in a row that Demos will be on the defensive on this issue. According to the polls, 70% don't want centure or impeachment.
Posted by: Tina at March 19, 2006 12:34 PM
Your two references there are a blogger and whitehouse.gov....Just wanted to point that out.
Posted by: steve at March 19, 2006 02:37 PM
If we ever get out of this thing in Iraq it will largely be on the shoulders of General Petraeus and Ambassador Khalilzad. More than anyone, Petraeus provided the military "tipping point". I feel the same about Ambassador Khalilzad on the political front. Then there's Condi who, according to insiders, has replaced Rummy and Cheney as having the inside ear to President Bush. I think that's a worth-while development as well. Finally, I think, Bush has the personnel in place that could potentially win this thing in Iraq (however you want to spin the term "win"). I just hope it's not too late.
Those on the extreme left seem to think that Iraq is a lost cause, forgetting that war is not an exact science. Those on the extreme right seem to think that everything is going according to plan, forgetting that they expected an easy victory. But as far as I can tell, the Iraq adventure is still up in the air. It is neither won nor lost. The real question is... was it worth it?
Posted by: Ricorun at March 19, 2006 03:05 PM
SOL,
The fundamentals of our going into Iraq were to remove Saddam and create a viable government of a united Iraq able to defend itself - in this, nothing has gone wrong. It isn't complete yet, but nothing has gone wrong.
Many people, for instance, say that it has been taking us too long to train up Iraqi troops - but even training American troops to be really ready for combat takes at least a year, and often two depending on the specialty. We are long past the days when a few weeks of basic plus the ability to fire a rifle is sufficient to go into battle - our troops, and those we train like them, are extraordinarily capable military professionals, the like of which the world has never seen...and it take time to get them up to scratch.
As it is, I'll stack the Iraqi army up against any other Arab military force - they are already better than anyone else in the area other than the Israelis, and they'd make mincemeat of the Iranian or Syrian military if pushed to it. They still, however, aren't as good as our boys - and that is why we don't rate them as 100% combat ready...not because they can't fight, but because they aren't as good as American troops, the very best in the world.
What you are unfortunately concentrating on is the media-driven picture of the war - which is entirely inaccurate. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but each one of them is a lie. What you see is not what you get.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at March 19, 2006 03:18 PM
Ricorun,
To fight a war on terrorism, liberating Iraq was and is necessary - so it is defintely worth it.
I don't recall anyone on the right ever predicting that the liberation of Iraq would be easy...many people, including myself, did predict that the Saddamite army would crumple up pretty easily, but no one said that this would be quick and easy.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at March 19, 2006 03:20 PM
Steve "Peace",
I might point out that I did have links to share that offered a different view from yours - especially since you have no view and no links to share.
Sounds like you are empty handed this time. I win & you lose... "Peace"
Posted by: dl at March 19, 2006 03:29 PM
I'm constantly surprised at the naivete of the Left. It's like they live in some super-simplistic black/white all-or-nothing land. Everyone who has studied war at any level has immeidately come to realize that war is, by definition, chaotic and messy and unpredictable---yet they rant and rave when the war in Iraq is disorderly and non-linear. The old cliche of "no battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy" is a complete surprise to these people.
This is why it takes vision and the ability to see the big picture to be a good wartime leader, whether in Waahington or in the field. With narrow tunnel vision, no one can maintain the determination to forge ahead.
The Left would have taken one look at the bodies piling up at Normandy and said "Well, THIS isn't what we wanted!! We're outa here!!"
I've taught a lot of people to drive, and to ski. The hardest thing to teach is to keep the head up and the eyes on the horizon, and to keep a 'soft eye' to let the peripheral vision kick in. When you stare intently at the road directly in front of your car, you have a tight eye and don't pick up on anything coming in from the sides, and you are constantly making micro-corrections. You are tight and tense and a nervous wreck, as are all who are riding with you, and you make very slow and painful progress, driving inch by inceh. No progress is made till you learn to soften your gaze and look way out in front of you. That's when the ride smoothes out and you gain control.
The preoccupation of the Left with the immediate future, the road just days in front of them, has them blinded to the big picture, and obsessed with micro-corections, so no wonder their view of the war is herky-jerky and scary.
A little life experience, a little knowledge of history, a little awareness of the realities of war and how this one compares to others, and a soft eye and a heads-up gaze at the big picture would help them calm down and see the real progress made in this war.
If you choose a political orientation that is totally dependent on emotion, I guess it's logical that you will view everything through the filter of how it FEELS, but it is so frustrating to have to endure the short-sightedness and general ignorance of the naysayers.
Posted by: Almiranta at March 19, 2006 05:18 PM
Mark: "I don't recall anyone on the right ever predicting that the liberation of Iraq would be easy...many people, including myself, did predict that the Saddamite army would crumple up pretty easily, but no one said that this would be quick and easy."
You're kidding, right? No one predicted that the liberation of Iraq would be easy? No one said this would be quick and easy? Do you really believe that? Are you saying that people like Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle, et. al, didn't really say what they actually said?
Posted by: Ricorun at March 19, 2006 05:23 PM
I don't recall anyone on the right ever predicting that the liberation of Iraq would be easy
Do we really have to post and link to all the old quotes which you either won't read or will forget one minute later? Mark, you know this is a lie. We were told we would be greeted as liberators, that the war would cost less than two billion dollars, that it would be hard to imagine the war lasting 6 months, etc. You are lying and you know it Mark. Tell us once again how the US has NEVER tortured anyone, ever. Tell us some more lies. You think Sheehan is a prop; you are a prop that barely gets paid.
You can't have it both ways; you cannot say the insurgency is a ragtag bunch of bad news bears and that the iraqi army is now the best in the region. If that were the case we would not be necessary there. One or both of those has to be wrong.
The problems there are only going to get worse because no oneninvolved in planning is willing to admit what has gone wrong and what is going wrong. If you do not admit something is wrong, you will not look for a way to fix the problem and hence things will slowly deteriorate like they have been over the last three years.
Yes, there have been advances in the government there but the violence has increasingly gotten worse and everytime we were told we had "turned the corner" things would get worse. The government is struggling at best and has a long way to go before it can truly function on its own.
All I know is that until someone in this administration is willing to admit there are problems in Iraq, and therefore hopefully try to find a way to fix them, it will only get worse.
Posted by: Brokeback at March 19, 2006 05:31 PM
One thing that helped me understand the new kind of war we are waging was running across a televised lecture given by Dr. Barnett to a Pentagon group. I've bought his book, haven'thad time to read it yet but I doubt it will be as clear and fascinating as was his lecture.
He explained that the old definition of war was pretty simple. You knew who your enemy was, you knew what country they represented, and you had a pretty ggod idea of how strong they were, their strengths and weaknesses, and even when and how they were likely to attack. You were probably even fairly well matched. And you knew who won, when it was over. One side attacked the other for specific reasons---military advantage, natural resources, whatever. And when they won, they took over and gained what they were trying to gain.
In this war, none of that is true. We don't know who is attacking us, we don't know what country they represent, we don't know when or how they will attack, and most of all we don't know what they WANT. Because they are not trying to gain land, or wealth, or any of the things that have motivated attackers since the dawn of man.
He describes this as a "war of preturbation". They are not trying to conquer us, or take us over. They just wnat to 'preturb' us. Which they did, pretty effectively, on 9/11. The thing is, with an enemy like this, the old styles of attack and counter-attack simply don't work. All that really works is "counter-preturbation"---and he pointed out that we preturbed the daylights ot of them when we invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq.
So we will not lose by having to give up a territory or accepting a new government. We will not win by taking over anyone's natural resources. All we can hope to do is be better at preturbing them than they are at preturbing us---and to make the cost of their preturbations of us too high to continue indefinitely.
He's got an interesting way of looking at things, and he is helping our military minds adapt to the new warfare that we are facing.
BTW,he also gave George W. Bush very high marks for being smart enough, and flexible enough, to both understand this and to trust his military to do it right. The dinosaurs who are complaining about how this war is not being "run right" are trying to fight last century's wars in 2006, and they will always fail---unfortunately, taking thousands or millions of lives with them.
Posted by: Almiranta at March 19, 2006 05:32 PM
Brokeback, Mark is probably remembering the same concise and specific speeches I remember hearing, when the President cautioned us that this would be a long and difficult conflict, one that could last for "generations".
It's the straw man technique again---Create a false argument so you can shoot it down.
But no one in the administration ever told us this would be a fast or easy war. The exact opposite is true.
Just as no one claimed Sadaam was involved in 9/11. I still hear hyperventilating lefties going on about how BUSH LIED because Iraq was not behind 9/11. A local radio talkie tried that and when his co-host pointed out that Bush had repeatedly declared that Sadaam was not part of the attack on 9/11, the lefty's response was---and I kid you not---"Well, he DID mention that CASUALLY a couple of times---but he was REALLY TRYING to convince us of the opposite".
The left believes what it wants to believe, what it has to believe, because it has staked out a position based not only on emotion but on negative and destructive emotion, and allowing a little reason or truth to slip in would be very very threatening. They believe what they believe because that kind of hysterical hatred and loathing and rage meets some inner need in each of them, not because it has any relationship to the truth.
Posted by: Almiranta at March 19, 2006 05:40 PM
Donald Rumsfeld: “The Iraq war might last five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.” What was that again Mark?
Posted by: Barneyg2000 at March 19, 2006 10:17 PM
Just a few nuggets from Think Progress http://www.thinkprogress.org/iraq-timeline
MARCH 30, 2003: Donald Rumsfeld: We know where the WMD are We know where [the weapons of mass destruction] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. [ABC This Week, 3/30/03]
MAY 1, 2003: Mission Accomplished
[M]y fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. [Bush, 5/1/03]
MAY 9, 2003: Paul Wolfowitz: We agreed on WMD rationale for bureaucratic reasons
The truth is that, for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason [to go to war]. [Wolfowitz, 5/9/03]
MAY 29, 2003: Bush: We found the WMD
We found the weapons of mass destruction. [Bush, 5/29/03]
Just incase you forgot.
Posted by: Barneyg2000 at March 19, 2006 10:22 PM
It's the straw man technique again---Create a false argument so you can shoot it down.
Almiranta, congratulations! You admit to your own fallacy within the same post you commit it in.
Another person who is willing to blatently lie to stick up for their team. Here is a little sample of what America was told:
"That's correct. 1.7 billion is the limit on reconstruction for Iraq." - http://www.fas.org/sgp/temp/natsios042303.html
We all remember Dick Cheney saying in an interview that there was a tie between Al Qaeda and Saddam.
Before we invaded Iraq, polls showed that a majority of Americans believed Saddam was tied to 9/11. I wonder where they got that idea from?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0923-08.htm
The american public was sold a quick, cheap war against an enemy that could launch a wmd within 45 minutes.
Rumsfeld told us that he could not imagine the war lasting 6 months.
But, why am I wasting my time? Mark and the others have seen these quotes a thousand times and still come in here and tell us no one ever told us the war would be quick or easy. Just like Mark tells us the US has never tortured anyone.
Until some integrity is shown by this administration the Iraq situation will only get worse. Until supporters of Bush quit saying not one thing has gone wrong during the war, the Iraq situation will get worse.
The truth of the situation is that support for this war continues to drop and as it drops further and further you will see Mark and the others lie more and more to support their position. They will begin to sound more and more like the Iraqi Information Minister.
Posted by: Brokeback at March 19, 2006 10:25 PM
Barney & Brokeback, What have you done to try to help with anything. You come back with the same broken arguments every time. Do either of you have original thoughts? Your constant hate Bush is such a boring message. You contribute nothing to help the situation, only some old worn out arguments that are 2-4 years old.
Do you know what happened today? Are you trying to get a leader for your cause? Did you even bother to vote? Do you enjoy always being a loser?
Use some originality, make up some stuff, accuse Bush of causing the democrats to lose good leaders, or something. Something different than you have been, otherwise you are stuck in a rut and may never be able to get out of it.
Posted by: dl at March 19, 2006 10:52 PM
(start of made up story)
Today, on televison Kerry, Clinton, Gore, Dean, Peloski, Reid & Feingold were all sitting behind microphones.
All blame Bush for all the problems, but when asked what they would do to solve them, there was complete silence.
(/end of made up story)
This is an example for Barney & Brokeback - see how original I was. Now you try it.
Posted by: dl at March 19, 2006 10:59 PM
"there was complete silence."
Durbin said what is the truth, there are NO good options.
They didn't start this war.
George W. Bush did. And Rumsfeld, Cheney et al...they broke it,
they need to pay the price.
Posted by: jan van flac at March 19, 2006 11:12 PM
"You come back with the same broken arguments every time. "
and yet, somehow, the right keeps conveniently forgetting them.
you're right though, the left needs to get with program: start making up stories like we do damnit!
i don't think your story is all that original though dl. i mean, it's pretty much the mirror image of the story republicans give for the setbacks in iraq: "It's those damn liberals spouting their dissenting reality-based views! If only they'd shut up and blindly follow their 'elected' monarch"
Posted by: merzbau at March 20, 2006 12:02 AM
Brokeback,
What you've got there is a quote from USAID - who figured that the cost to the American taxpayer for infrastructure reconstruction in Iraq would be $1.7 billion - you are trying to imply with your tiny quote that someone said the whole liberation process would cost $1.7 billion. A half-truth is just a lie, don't you know?
Additionally, that was on April 23, 2003...only about a month into the liberation; things do change, don't they?
We did not, at that time, realise just how badly Saddam had run down Iraq's infrastructure - sacrificing the water and electricity of his people in order that he may have more and larger palaces to live in.
Additionally, you're story of a poll allegedly stating that a majority of Americans believed Saddam had a hand in 9/11 is bogus - in the three years since I first heard of the poll, I've yet to see it...no one who cites it has ever been able to provide me a link to such a poll or, indeed, even cite the source of the poll.
That, of course, was the lynchpin in the post-liberation "Bush Lied!!!!" meme of the left - it was the hook upon which all leftwing theories hung...and like all hooks supporting leftwing theories, it was a lie. There was no such poll - meaning, of course, that the American people were not hookwinked into liberating Iraq and this means, in turn, that President Bush didn't deceive anyone...
Posted by: Mark Noonan at March 20, 2006 03:14 AM
Barney,
And just in case you forgot - you shouldn't bring cherry-picked quotes from leftwing fever swamp sites...'cause we can look up the actual thing and see for ourselves what was being said...as for the Rumsfeld quote on WMD...here's the part your lefty buddies didn't want you to know:
I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.
The whole story, Barney - its usually better than just the part of it that makes Bush look bad.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at March 20, 2006 03:22 AM
dl, I am merely pointing out how Mark lied. I am not really interested in having the same argument again, but when Mark blatently lies I will point it out. If he wants to quit lying then we can get off this "old" topic.
Additionally, you're story of a poll allegedly stating that a majority of Americans believed Saddam had a hand in 9/11 is bogus - in the three years since I first heard of the poll, I've yet to see it...no one who cites it has ever been able to provide me a link to such a poll or, indeed, even cite the source of the poll.
Mark, Mark, Mark...I gave you a link to the poll in my last post. Let's review what I said earlier in this thread:
Do we really have to post and link to all the old quotes which you either won't read or will forget one minute later?
Wow, you didn't read something I linked to that makes you look stupid, suprising. So, once again here is the link:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0923-08.htm
And again here it is:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0923-08.htm
If you read the full text you will see references to other polls regarding the same issue.
So, now I imagine you will take back your last paragraph of complete crap, which was as follows:
That, of course, was the lynchpin in the post-liberation "Bush Lied!!!!" meme of the left - it was the hook upon which all leftwing theories hung...and like all hooks supporting leftwing theories, it was a lie. There was no such poll - meaning, of course, that the American people were not hookwinked into liberating Iraq and this means, in turn, that President Bush didn't deceive anyone...
You sir, have been nailed.
Posted by: Brokeback at March 20, 2006 08:59 AM
How about this:
"He has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq," said Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army major general who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004.
"Mr. Rumsfeld must step down," he wrote in an opinion piece published Sunday in the New York Times.
-----------
Mark, this Major General was THERE. Is he Main Steam Media?
If everything was so peachy there, would this comment have been made?
Also, you said:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but each one of them is a lie.
What does that mean? Does that mean the picture itself was doctored up? It is a fake? Someone in photoshop put these pictures together????
Posted by: Sick of Lies at March 20, 2006 12:43 PM
hey barneyg, don't try to call them out on things they said, even if they have video, they won't admit it, building their own reality and then trying to sell it best they can. I actually got into an arguement with Mark after he claimed Bush and Co. never asserted Iraq was an immediate threat. I guess all that 48hrs, inspections are taking too long, was imagined by a crazy left wing think tank, we invaded after years of failed diplomacy aparently.
Posted by: steve at March 20, 2006 10:14 PM
I agree. It has been a brillant effort. That some people are just beginning to see that and others will never see that makes it no less true. Our war with Iraq ended three years ago. They have some internal stresses that we have helped train them to fight. That it sucked the international terrorists in should be seen as a wonderful bonusa for us, hardly a failure. Three years after we sumarily whipped a corrupt and incredibily vicous old dictator, Iraq is standing tall. It has the second best army in the area and the best arabic army anywhere, ever. Will graft, revenge, sectarian violence and intertribal strife continue there? Of course, but they are showing that they have the will and are developing the means to deal with their problems. Iran and Syria should be so lucky as to be crushed by the infidel.
Mark, it is one thing to support the war itself, but to make the comment "nothing has gone wrong in the fundamentals" is a bit much isn't it?
I've read enough of your posts to understand Bush can do no wrong in your eyes, but to say all-in-all this was a success? Tell that to the 2000+ that have died for this.
By the way, have you read this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4821618.stm
Iraq in civil war, says former PM
"It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more.
"If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."
Mr Allawi added that a national unity government may not be "an immediate solution" to the country's problems.
Iraq is moving towards the "point of no return", he said, when the country would fragment.
"It will not only fall apart but sectarianism will spread throughout the region, and even Europe and the US will not be spared the violence that results...," he said.
That was from an interview with Iraq's former interim prime minister Iyad Allawi.
Again, you are just going to say I am a leftie who "hopes we lose". You couldn't be further from the truth. I, and every person in America hopes we win this war. I just hope it ends VERY SOON. I also would not call this success yet and I wouldn't say the overall war has not seen SERIOUS flaws in planning.
Sick of Lies - If you only listen to one side of the story you do get a tainted view. Maybe looking at the other side a little would help...
"Civil War" & Where's Zarqawi?Different views, different possibilities, different outcomes. The American mainstream media beats up on Bush, and wants him to fail in "HIS WAR", but in reality, there is a war going on, and the people most involved, that live there want it to stop. They make their decisions based upon what is actually happening around them. I wish them well, and hope they can end this war soon.
It looks like Turbin Durbin has stepped in do-do again. He's now refusing to rule out impeaching Bush on the NSA Wiretap. This will now be the second week in a row that Demos will be on the defensive on this issue. According to the polls, 70% don't want centure or impeachment.
Your two references there are a blogger and whitehouse.gov....Just wanted to point that out.
If we ever get out of this thing in Iraq it will largely be on the shoulders of General Petraeus and Ambassador Khalilzad. More than anyone, Petraeus provided the military "tipping point". I feel the same about Ambassador Khalilzad on the political front. Then there's Condi who, according to insiders, has replaced Rummy and Cheney as having the inside ear to President Bush. I think that's a worth-while development as well. Finally, I think, Bush has the personnel in place that could potentially win this thing in Iraq (however you want to spin the term "win"). I just hope it's not too late.
Those on the extreme left seem to think that Iraq is a lost cause, forgetting that war is not an exact science. Those on the extreme right seem to think that everything is going according to plan, forgetting that they expected an easy victory. But as far as I can tell, the Iraq adventure is still up in the air. It is neither won nor lost. The real question is... was it worth it?
SOL,
The fundamentals of our going into Iraq were to remove Saddam and create a viable government of a united Iraq able to defend itself - in this, nothing has gone wrong. It isn't complete yet, but nothing has gone wrong.
Many people, for instance, say that it has been taking us too long to train up Iraqi troops - but even training American troops to be really ready for combat takes at least a year, and often two depending on the specialty. We are long past the days when a few weeks of basic plus the ability to fire a rifle is sufficient to go into battle - our troops, and those we train like them, are extraordinarily capable military professionals, the like of which the world has never seen...and it take time to get them up to scratch.
As it is, I'll stack the Iraqi army up against any other Arab military force - they are already better than anyone else in the area other than the Israelis, and they'd make mincemeat of the Iranian or Syrian military if pushed to it. They still, however, aren't as good as our boys - and that is why we don't rate them as 100% combat ready...not because they can't fight, but because they aren't as good as American troops, the very best in the world.
What you are unfortunately concentrating on is the media-driven picture of the war - which is entirely inaccurate. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but each one of them is a lie. What you see is not what you get.
Ricorun,
To fight a war on terrorism, liberating Iraq was and is necessary - so it is defintely worth it.
I don't recall anyone on the right ever predicting that the liberation of Iraq would be easy...many people, including myself, did predict that the Saddamite army would crumple up pretty easily, but no one said that this would be quick and easy.
Steve "Peace",
I might point out that I did have links to share that offered a different view from yours - especially since you have no view and no links to share.
Sounds like you are empty handed this time. I win & you lose... "Peace"
I'm constantly surprised at the naivete of the Left. It's like they live in some super-simplistic black/white all-or-nothing land. Everyone who has studied war at any level has immeidately come to realize that war is, by definition, chaotic and messy and unpredictable---yet they rant and rave when the war in Iraq is disorderly and non-linear. The old cliche of "no battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy" is a complete surprise to these people.
This is why it takes vision and the ability to see the big picture to be a good wartime leader, whether in Waahington or in the field. With narrow tunnel vision, no one can maintain the determination to forge ahead.
The Left would have taken one look at the bodies piling up at Normandy and said "Well, THIS isn't what we wanted!! We're outa here!!"
I've taught a lot of people to drive, and to ski. The hardest thing to teach is to keep the head up and the eyes on the horizon, and to keep a 'soft eye' to let the peripheral vision kick in. When you stare intently at the road directly in front of your car, you have a tight eye and don't pick up on anything coming in from the sides, and you are constantly making micro-corrections. You are tight and tense and a nervous wreck, as are all who are riding with you, and you make very slow and painful progress, driving inch by inceh. No progress is made till you learn to soften your gaze and look way out in front of you. That's when the ride smoothes out and you gain control.
The preoccupation of the Left with the immediate future, the road just days in front of them, has them blinded to the big picture, and obsessed with micro-corections, so no wonder their view of the war is herky-jerky and scary.
A little life experience, a little knowledge of history, a little awareness of the realities of war and how this one compares to others, and a soft eye and a heads-up gaze at the big picture would help them calm down and see the real progress made in this war.
If you choose a political orientation that is totally dependent on emotion, I guess it's logical that you will view everything through the filter of how it FEELS, but it is so frustrating to have to endure the short-sightedness and general ignorance of the naysayers.
Mark: "I don't recall anyone on the right ever predicting that the liberation of Iraq would be easy...many people, including myself, did predict that the Saddamite army would crumple up pretty easily, but no one said that this would be quick and easy."
You're kidding, right? No one predicted that the liberation of Iraq would be easy? No one said this would be quick and easy? Do you really believe that? Are you saying that people like Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle, et. al, didn't really say what they actually said?
I don't recall anyone on the right ever predicting that the liberation of Iraq would be easy
Do we really have to post and link to all the old quotes which you either won't read or will forget one minute later? Mark, you know this is a lie. We were told we would be greeted as liberators, that the war would cost less than two billion dollars, that it would be hard to imagine the war lasting 6 months, etc. You are lying and you know it Mark. Tell us once again how the US has NEVER tortured anyone, ever. Tell us some more lies. You think Sheehan is a prop; you are a prop that barely gets paid.
You can't have it both ways; you cannot say the insurgency is a ragtag bunch of bad news bears and that the iraqi army is now the best in the region. If that were the case we would not be necessary there. One or both of those has to be wrong.
The problems there are only going to get worse because no oneninvolved in planning is willing to admit what has gone wrong and what is going wrong. If you do not admit something is wrong, you will not look for a way to fix the problem and hence things will slowly deteriorate like they have been over the last three years.
Yes, there have been advances in the government there but the violence has increasingly gotten worse and everytime we were told we had "turned the corner" things would get worse. The government is struggling at best and has a long way to go before it can truly function on its own.
All I know is that until someone in this administration is willing to admit there are problems in Iraq, and therefore hopefully try to find a way to fix them, it will only get worse.
One thing that helped me understand the new kind of war we are waging was running across a televised lecture given by Dr. Barnett to a Pentagon group. I've bought his book, haven'thad time to read it yet but I doubt it will be as clear and fascinating as was his lecture.
He explained that the old definition of war was pretty simple. You knew who your enemy was, you knew what country they represented, and you had a pretty ggod idea of how strong they were, their strengths and weaknesses, and even when and how they were likely to attack. You were probably even fairly well matched. And you knew who won, when it was over. One side attacked the other for specific reasons---military advantage, natural resources, whatever. And when they won, they took over and gained what they were trying to gain.
In this war, none of that is true. We don't know who is attacking us, we don't know what country they represent, we don't know when or how they will attack, and most of all we don't know what they WANT. Because they are not trying to gain land, or wealth, or any of the things that have motivated attackers since the dawn of man.
He describes this as a "war of preturbation". They are not trying to conquer us, or take us over. They just wnat to 'preturb' us. Which they did, pretty effectively, on 9/11. The thing is, with an enemy like this, the old styles of attack and counter-attack simply don't work. All that really works is "counter-preturbation"---and he pointed out that we preturbed the daylights ot of them when we invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq.
So we will not lose by having to give up a territory or accepting a new government. We will not win by taking over anyone's natural resources. All we can hope to do is be better at preturbing them than they are at preturbing us---and to make the cost of their preturbations of us too high to continue indefinitely.
He's got an interesting way of looking at things, and he is helping our military minds adapt to the new warfare that we are facing.
BTW,he also gave George W. Bush very high marks for being smart enough, and flexible enough, to both understand this and to trust his military to do it right. The dinosaurs who are complaining about how this war is not being "run right" are trying to fight last century's wars in 2006, and they will always fail---unfortunately, taking thousands or millions of lives with them.
Brokeback, Mark is probably remembering the same concise and specific speeches I remember hearing, when the President cautioned us that this would be a long and difficult conflict, one that could last for "generations".
It's the straw man technique again---Create a false argument so you can shoot it down.
But no one in the administration ever told us this would be a fast or easy war. The exact opposite is true.
Just as no one claimed Sadaam was involved in 9/11. I still hear hyperventilating lefties going on about how BUSH LIED because Iraq was not behind 9/11. A local radio talkie tried that and when his co-host pointed out that Bush had repeatedly declared that Sadaam was not part of the attack on 9/11, the lefty's response was---and I kid you not---"Well, he DID mention that CASUALLY a couple of times---but he was REALLY TRYING to convince us of the opposite".
The left believes what it wants to believe, what it has to believe, because it has staked out a position based not only on emotion but on negative and destructive emotion, and allowing a little reason or truth to slip in would be very very threatening. They believe what they believe because that kind of hysterical hatred and loathing and rage meets some inner need in each of them, not because it has any relationship to the truth.
Donald Rumsfeld: “The Iraq war might last five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.” What was that again Mark?
Just a few nuggets from Think Progress http://www.thinkprogress.org/iraq-timeline
MARCH 30, 2003: Donald Rumsfeld: We know where the WMD are We know where [the weapons of mass destruction] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. [ABC This Week, 3/30/03]
MAY 1, 2003: Mission Accomplished
[M]y fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. [Bush, 5/1/03]
MAY 9, 2003: Paul Wolfowitz: We agreed on WMD rationale for bureaucratic reasons
The truth is that, for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason [to go to war]. [Wolfowitz, 5/9/03]
MAY 29, 2003: Bush: We found the WMD
We found the weapons of mass destruction. [Bush, 5/29/03]
Just incase you forgot.
It's the straw man technique again---Create a false argument so you can shoot it down.
Almiranta, congratulations! You admit to your own fallacy within the same post you commit it in.
Another person who is willing to blatently lie to stick up for their team. Here is a little sample of what America was told:
"That's correct. 1.7 billion is the limit on reconstruction for Iraq." - http://www.fas.org/sgp/temp/natsios042303.html
We all remember Dick Cheney saying in an interview that there was a tie between Al Qaeda and Saddam.
Before we invaded Iraq, polls showed that a majority of Americans believed Saddam was tied to 9/11. I wonder where they got that idea from?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0923-08.htm
The american public was sold a quick, cheap war against an enemy that could launch a wmd within 45 minutes.
Rumsfeld told us that he could not imagine the war lasting 6 months.
But, why am I wasting my time? Mark and the others have seen these quotes a thousand times and still come in here and tell us no one ever told us the war would be quick or easy. Just like Mark tells us the US has never tortured anyone.
Until some integrity is shown by this administration the Iraq situation will only get worse. Until supporters of Bush quit saying not one thing has gone wrong during the war, the Iraq situation will get worse.
The truth of the situation is that support for this war continues to drop and as it drops further and further you will see Mark and the others lie more and more to support their position. They will begin to sound more and more like the Iraqi Information Minister.
Barney & Brokeback, What have you done to try to help with anything. You come back with the same broken arguments every time. Do either of you have original thoughts? Your constant hate Bush is such a boring message. You contribute nothing to help the situation, only some old worn out arguments that are 2-4 years old.
Do you know what happened today? Are you trying to get a leader for your cause? Did you even bother to vote? Do you enjoy always being a loser?
Use some originality, make up some stuff, accuse Bush of causing the democrats to lose good leaders, or something. Something different than you have been, otherwise you are stuck in a rut and may never be able to get out of it.
(start of made up story)
Today, on televison Kerry, Clinton, Gore, Dean, Peloski, Reid & Feingold were all sitting behind microphones.
All blame Bush for all the problems, but when asked what they would do to solve them, there was complete silence.
(/end of made up story)
This is an example for Barney & Brokeback - see how original I was. Now you try it.
"there was complete silence."
Durbin said what is the truth, there are NO good options.
They didn't start this war.
George W. Bush did. And Rumsfeld, Cheney et al...they broke it,
they need to pay the price.
"You come back with the same broken arguments every time. "
and yet, somehow, the right keeps conveniently forgetting them.
you're right though, the left needs to get with program: start making up stories like we do damnit!
i don't think your story is all that original though dl. i mean, it's pretty much the mirror image of the story republicans give for the setbacks in iraq: "It's those damn liberals spouting their dissenting reality-based views! If only they'd shut up and blindly follow their 'elected' monarch"
Brokeback,
What you've got there is a quote from USAID - who figured that the cost to the American taxpayer for infrastructure reconstruction in Iraq would be $1.7 billion - you are trying to imply with your tiny quote that someone said the whole liberation process would cost $1.7 billion. A half-truth is just a lie, don't you know?
Additionally, that was on April 23, 2003...only about a month into the liberation; things do change, don't they?
We did not, at that time, realise just how badly Saddam had run down Iraq's infrastructure - sacrificing the water and electricity of his people in order that he may have more and larger palaces to live in.
Additionally, you're story of a poll allegedly stating that a majority of Americans believed Saddam had a hand in 9/11 is bogus - in the three years since I first heard of the poll, I've yet to see it...no one who cites it has ever been able to provide me a link to such a poll or, indeed, even cite the source of the poll.
That, of course, was the lynchpin in the post-liberation "Bush Lied!!!!" meme of the left - it was the hook upon which all leftwing theories hung...and like all hooks supporting leftwing theories, it was a lie. There was no such poll - meaning, of course, that the American people were not hookwinked into liberating Iraq and this means, in turn, that President Bush didn't deceive anyone...
Barney,
And just in case you forgot - you shouldn't bring cherry-picked quotes from leftwing fever swamp sites...'cause we can look up the actual thing and see for ourselves what was being said...as for the Rumsfeld quote on WMD...here's the part your lefty buddies didn't want you to know:
dl, I am merely pointing out how Mark lied. I am not really interested in having the same argument again, but when Mark blatently lies I will point it out. If he wants to quit lying then we can get off this "old" topic.
Additionally, you're story of a poll allegedly stating that a majority of Americans believed Saddam had a hand in 9/11 is bogus - in the three years since I first heard of the poll, I've yet to see it...no one who cites it has ever been able to provide me a link to such a poll or, indeed, even cite the source of the poll.
Mark, Mark, Mark...I gave you a link to the poll in my last post. Let's review what I said earlier in this thread:
Do we really have to post and link to all the old quotes which you either won't read or will forget one minute later?
Wow, you didn't read something I linked to that makes you look stupid, suprising. So, once again here is the link:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0923-08.htm
And again here it is:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0923-08.htm
If you read the full text you will see references to other polls regarding the same issue.
So, now I imagine you will take back your last paragraph of complete crap, which was as follows:
That, of course, was the lynchpin in the post-liberation "Bush Lied!!!!" meme of the left - it was the hook upon which all leftwing theories hung...and like all hooks supporting leftwing theories, it was a lie. There was no such poll - meaning, of course, that the American people were not hookwinked into liberating Iraq and this means, in turn, that President Bush didn't deceive anyone...
You sir, have been nailed.
How about this:
"He has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq," said Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army major general who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004.
"Mr. Rumsfeld must step down," he wrote in an opinion piece published Sunday in the New York Times.
-----------
Mark, this Major General was THERE. Is he Main Steam Media?
If everything was so peachy there, would this comment have been made?
Also, you said:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but each one of them is a lie.
What does that mean? Does that mean the picture itself was doctored up? It is a fake? Someone in photoshop put these pictures together????
hey barneyg, don't try to call them out on things they said, even if they have video, they won't admit it, building their own reality and then trying to sell it best they can. I actually got into an arguement with Mark after he claimed Bush and Co. never asserted Iraq was an immediate threat. I guess all that 48hrs, inspections are taking too long, was imagined by a crazy left wing think tank, we invaded after years of failed diplomacy aparently.