We wouldn't miss it, princella!

Unfortunately our "friends" on the other side of the aisle have been working overtime to badmouth the plan before the details even came out.

It's really too bad that we can't be united for a common purpose; especially when that purpose is a matter of the security of our nation; not only now, but for our progeny.

Leo,

The Dems have been threatening to have oversight meetings over the war every day but I don't hear them wanting to cut-off funds. In fact, there hasn't been a peep out of them except for the Swimmer, who thinks this is his GW's Viet Nam...puke, I'm sick of the cliches!

What goes Dems...afraid of what the American voter will think if you cut-n-run...hmmm?

This is purely an exersize in futility to try to appeal to their base and that they're in control.

Conversely, they have no control and thank God!! If they did, we most likely would not have killed the terrorists in Somalia and the other 5-10k or more that we've killed in Iraq. We wouldn't have taken down the Taliban and the terrorist population would explode.

I said it in another post, they're cowards that are backed into a corner with no way out other than to cut-n-run.

Try listening tonite for once!

Or, go ahead and cut the Military off at the knees and see how far that gets you with the American voter.

Pop quiz:

The President is expected to announce a "surge" of 20,000 troops tonight. Can any of you tell me the specific rationale behind this surge? Why 20k? What is their specific mission? Anybody?

Btw, Leo, the "common purpose" you speak of has already been determined: Americans want to get out of this war. Given your desire for unity, will you now join the vast, vast majority of Americans and support withdrawing our troops from Iraq now?

Leo, believe me, I'm all about security for my progeny. And that is precisely why I think it is important for this nation to concentrate on actual threats, actual enemies and actual terrorists instead of stumbling blindly into costly, bone-headed, unnecessary and ultimately fruitless overseas debacles.

I don't know anyone, on the left or the right, who were opposed to the invasion of Afghanistan (though I know some exist) because that's where the bad guys were. You know, the ones who were responsible for blowing up the towers. Iraq was never a part of that. And Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq at the time. (Though, thanks to us, they do now.)

But we went into Iraq anyway, due to an imminent threat against our nation that did not exist. And here, four years, hundreds of billions of dollars and over 3,000 American lives (not to mention the horribly wounded and the countless scores of Iraqi civilian casualties) later and what do we have to show for it? We are currently presiding over the biggest civil war in the Middle East in generations.

Now we have this "New Way Forward" (which sounds oddly like something Mao would propose). And what is the plan? To finally put the boots on the ground that should have been there when we began this cockamamie enterprise almost four years ago.

Too little, too late. But, if George gets his way, it will be months, and many many lives lost, before this lesson is finally learned.

This Administration has been dead wrong on every single issue dealing with the Iraq conflict since the beginning. From the invasion to the occupation, every projection, every estimate, every time they proclaimed the insurgency defeated or in it's "last throes," they've been wrong.

What, I ask you, has this president done to once again deserve our trust?

"Too little, too late. But, if George gets his way, it will be months, and many many lives lost, before this lesson is finally learned."

Cyber
Don't you mean "I hope it's too little too late so our party can take over the WH?"

By reading all your other posts, this is your clear signal. You can try to write as though your concerned about our troops and the civilized world, but who do you think you're fooling?

If you haven't heard, this is a world wide war on terrorism and our successes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan and the Phillipines are proof positive that we're not backing down..no matter how much your weak-kneed party wants us to.

And yes, GW will get his way and we will prevail in this war...unfortunately not in your's or my lifetime.

As a matter of fact, I recall a certain President over the past few years and prior to our invading Afghanistan that said " This is going to be a long war". Not, "We'll be done with it tomorrow"

Steve GA

"Btw, Leo, the "common purpose" you speak of has already been determined: Americans want to get out of this war"

Show us a poll that says that American's want to get out of this war now. Every poll I've seen indicates that Americans are not happy with the war but by an overwhelming percentage, favor winning the war.

So, please show us a poll, and not one from the Daily Show or The Daily Hogs because those kooks are NOT the mainstream.

Princella,
Now, that's certainly a unusual use of the word "valiant." But then I guess it must take certain amount of "valor" (I can think of more appropriate words) to send others to kill and maim and be killed and maimed for a phony cause that is already lost.
As for people commenting on the policy before the pitch -- the White House has been running every aspect of their "plan" up the flag pole to see if anybody salutes it for the past few weeks -- it shouldn't be too surprising that many people have already rejected this latest escalation.
Can't wait to hear it though -- this may be the last relevant thing this president does before lapsing into the dust bin of lame-duck history.
But hey, take heart neocons, it could also be that "Checkers" moment you've all been praying for!
Oh, by the way, unless you are in the military -- he's not your (and definately not my) "Commander-in-Chief."

Cyber, I think your biggest problem is that your thinking with regard to our efforts in the ME is, like so many on your side of the aisle, entirely one dimensional. You argue your case with a great deal of passion and often back up your assertions with outside sources, sometimes valid, sometimes wildly biased. Sometimes you just make blanket statements that have little or no basis in reality. For example:

This Administration has been dead wrong on every single issue dealing with the Iraq conflict since the beginning. From the invasion to the occupation, every projection, every estimate, every time they proclaimed the insurgency defeated or in it's "last throes," they've been wrong.

The only part of that statement that's accurate is the part I bolded. The people who were wrong about the invasion, projections and milestones (transfer of sovereignty, elections, constitution, etc.) were those who share your view.

You seem to think that we got side-tracked from the WOT with the "mess" in Iraq instead of seeing it as simply a major battle in a long war, a battle, BTW, with historically minor casualties. You don't seem to be able to see past that -- as I said, one dimensional. I think the failure of Liberals to see the big picture, whether it's the WOT, global warming or stem cell research, is what I dislike most about Liberals (along with the fact that most Liberals are incredibly impatient). You see only the things that further the advancement of the liberal agenda, and everything else is just lost in the fog.

What, I ask you, has this president done to once again deserve our trust?

For starters, he's never lost my trust, but three major things that immediately come to mind are:

(1) He cut taxes for everyone who pays taxes, resulting not only in mollifying both the duration and severity of a recession but also paving the way for a steadily expanding economy.

(2) He has prevented another 9/11 type attack for 5-1/2 years, in spite of Democrats undermining his efforts at every turn. In fact, when you consider the Democrats' obstruction, this, IMO, is one of the most significant accomplishments by any President in my lifetime, on a par with Reagan's winning the cold war without firing a shot.

(3) He's nominated a number of conservative, originalist judges to various federal court positions, again with rabid opposition from Democrats.

I would ask you the same question. What have Democrats said or done lately to gain your trust?

Hey Navy, you ever think of getting a degree in psychoanalysis? Because, I'll tell ya, your "reading between the lines" talents leave much to be desired. For example, you ask:

"Don't you mean "I hope it's too little too late so our party can take over the WH?""

Who mentioned the White House? Not me. In fact, I'm pretty well convinced that we're looking at a President McCain down the pipeline. I'm not happy about it, but I don't see anyone who can beat him. So any analysis that pre-supposes that I anticipate a Dem take over of the White House is...well, just plain dumb.

"By reading all your other posts, this is your clear signal. You can try to write as though your concerned about our troops and the civilized world, but who do you think you're fooling?"

I'm not trying to fool anybody. And I'm certainly not alone. My opposition to this war, from the beginning, was based on the simple fact that Iraq presented no significant threat to American interests, had nothing to do with 9/11 and would be a costly, stupid mistake. Nothing I've seen in the past four years has shown me to be wrong. Wish I could say the same about George and his crew...

"If you haven't heard, this is a world wide war on terrorism and our successes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan and the Phillipines are proof positive that we're not backing down..no matter how much your weak-kneed party wants us to."

Again, nobody is proposing that we disengage from attacking the terrorists. You folks like to SAY that the "weak kneed" left wants to fold up the tent and give in to the terrorists, but nothing could be further from the truth. That's why we supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Fight the real terrorists and stop the neo-con idiocy that has only led to strengthening of our enemy, the proliferation of even more terrorists and made a bad situation in the Middle East even worse.

"And yes, GW will get his way and we will prevail in this war...unfortunately not in your's or my lifetime. "As a matter of fact, I recall a certain President over the past few years and prior to our invading Afghanistan that said " This is going to be a long war". Not, "We'll be done with it tomorrow"

But....I thought the Mission was Accomplished! What happened? To quote from Dear Leader himself on May 1, 2003: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country....In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world....Because of you, our nation is more secure. Because of you, the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free."

Um, not quite.

Oh, and here's your poll, Navy:

"With President Bush set to announce a plan for Iraq that will likely include an escalation of the conflict, a new USA Today/Gallup poll finds that a large majority of Americans oppose a "surge" in troops. When asked whether they would "favor or oppose" a "temporary but significant" increase, 61 percent oppose it, while 36 percent are in favor. And support dropped precipitiously for a "surge" when respondents were asked to choose between four options -- withdraw immediately, withdraw within a year, withdraw taking as many years as needed and increase troop strength. When the question was posed that way, escalation had the support of an astonishingly low 12 percent."

Find me a poll that shows a majority of Americans support the President, the "surge" or the war in general, Navy. Go ahead. I dare you.

While I, naturally, find all the reasons you list to trust the President to be precisely the reasons why I do not, I won't dwell on a tit-for-tat rebuttal and will instead deal with the question at hand:

"What have Democrats said or done lately to gain your trust?"

Well, first of all, they did exactly what they said they would do this week. They enacted real ethics reform in the House, which was way overdue, and with huge bipartisan support, I might add. They are pushing for a minimum wage hike, also way overdue, have promised to address universal healthcare (ditto) and just in the past 24 hours passed the 9/11 commission recommendations, again with a hugely bipartisan vote. In addition, this week, they plan to cut the interest rate on student loans in half, allow the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients and broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds.

Now, whether or not you agree with these plans (and I'll bet you don't agree with a great many of them), is beside the point. The question was: What have the Dems done to gain my trust?

The answer? They lived up to their campaign promises and continue to do so. That's really all it takes.

Leo –

Take a look, it isn’t only Democrats who are opposed to the aspects of the plan which have been leaked by White House sources already. It is a number of Republican lawmakers and someone else….oh yeah, the very top military commanders Bush once promised he listened to.

Bush has recently ousted General John Abizaid, CENTCOM and General George Casey, Commander of all US/Allied forces after they disagreed with the idea of adding more troops and instead advocated a decrease in American presence in the region.

Even soldiers and Marines in country think that more US forces is a bad idea.

Prime Minister al-Maliki, when meeting with Bush in Jordan last month, expressed the desire to lower the profile of American forces in Iraq in order to put a greater Iraqi face on the security operations.

And even today, Republican congressmen kept their distance from Bush, not offering any statement beyond “we don’t know yet”, with regards to backing Bush’s escalation proposal.

And navy –

We all know polls can be deceiving. How about we look at something called a democratic election? The Iraq war had been the right’s go-to issue up until 2006 with regards to getting a pulse on the American will. Why, now that American’s have shown their frustration and disappointment with how the war has been handled, are you so quick to dismiss the results of an election?

And no matter how much you chant it, Iraq was not part of a vast terrorist network prior to our invasion. Saddam sought to get rid of al-Qaeda and bin Laden, you know – the people who attacked us on 9/11. Only now has the destruction of Iraq facilitated a terrorist training ground. The White House was adamant in selling the idea that our military involvement in Iraq would be swift, decisive, and self-funding; none of which turned out to be the truth.

If this administration truly gave a rat’s about the well-being of our nation, they would have listened to the experts who insisted that the rebuilding of Iraq would involve sectarian violence, ethnic cleansing, a vast drain on our resources, and 500k soldiers.

Instead, we got ideas from people like Bill Kristol saying Sunni/Shiite divisions were “pop psychology”, Cheney saying that the insurgency is in its “last throes”, and the gem of them all by our top military commander that “Bringing them on” was acceptable.

As long as that is the mentality of the administration, this desire for victory is empty rhetoric, not responsible leadership.

Simply my point Cyber!

Where in the poll does it say that Americans want out of Iraq..now? The poll once again is worded in a way that is not fair when it comes to the question of "leaving". The only answers that can given are ones to be used as ammunition against the effort now don't they?

It simply says they do not want an escaltation, or are you the mind reader now?

All the polls I've read indicate the American public is confused as to the definition of "victory" so which is it? Do we procrastinate further or take action...which is it?

No matter how much you want to, we're not pulling out, so get over it.

Additionally, I too have never lost my faith in GW and I'll continue to support him and his efforts to protect our freedoms.

You sir, are much like the wind, and depending on the temperature and direction, choose only what is popular.

I haven't been posting to this blog long, but I think the posts I've made have been non-partisan. I hope the following will be taken in that non-partisan light.

There are some facts that all sides can agree upon regarding Iraq. I know that a statement like that is often followed with "fact: Bush is Hitler" or "fact: Bill Clinton flew one of the 9/11 planes" but I'm going to go with agreed-upon facts here.

1. Regardless of the specifics that led us here, it is clear our mission in Iraq is on the wrong track. It may be failing, it may be too late and already failed, it may just be experiencing setbacks, but clearly it isn't going well in its current form.

2. Again, regardless of how we got here, once we leave Iraq, chaos, bloodshed, ethnic cleansing and a multitude of bad-for-us geopolitical jockeying will occur by Iran, Syria, et al.

It seems clear that --- whether it is our fault or not --- failure to stabilize Iraq will be devastating for the region and horrific for the U.S.

Some would argue the mission is failed, that anything done now would only delay the impossible. This may be true but no one knows for fact that it IS true. Hopeless wars have been turned around before. When Hitler invaded Russia it looked like the nation would fall quickly, as had Poland, but the Russians mobilized, dug in (with great suffering), and we all know how that came out.

Because the stakes are so high, it seems appropriate to give the military a last chance, a Hail Mary pass to save the Superbowl, as it were.

This doesn't mean a buildup for no reason. I want to hear a specific plan of action for the new troops before I can get behind it.

But whether you are for the war or against the war, we owe too much to the future and too much to the Iraqis and Americans who have suffered, to not take one last shot at stabilizing Iraq.

Keynesian economics is a slippery slope and once we start down that path, socialism will be right around the corner...remember Hugo?

Smegma (what a...charming name!):

I applaud your level-headed post, even if I disagree with it. But rather than re-articulate the reasons why I don't (I've done that plenty, wouldn't you agree?), let me ask you (since you seem to be staking out some reasonable ground here) the question I've been asking the others to no avail:

Suppose Bush's escalation happens. It is likely to, so let's say it does: How do we define whether or not it has been a success and, second, what to we do if we determine that it is NOT a success? In other words: if the so-called "surge" does not result in a significant change in Iraq (in, say, six months or even a year)....what then?

See if you, among all the other posters on this board who have dodged this question, can actually answer it. Perhaps you're the only one who can.

Major,
The Russians dug in at great cost because they had the German army over running their country and murdering millions of their citizens -- not to mention that not digging in was just as dangerous as digging in.
Despite the claims from people who either do, or should, know better -- the failure of the Iraqi government (which is our fault) will have little, if any, impact on average Americans -- the oil companies will no doubt be disappointed since they just got the Iraqis to agree to letting them cop 75 percent of their oil revenues -- but the rest of us are already used to getting their costs shoved, er, down our throats (heck with them, buy a Japanese hybrid).

Cyber

You're asking for speculation! No one in their right mind would give you an answer that you yourself knows cannot be answered until the outcome is known.

"Suppose Bush's escalation happens. It is likely to, so let's say it does: How do we define whether or not it has been a success and, second, what to we do if we determine that it is NOT a success? In other words: if the so-called "surge" does not result in a significant change in Iraq (in, say, six months or even a year)....what then?"

steveGA: "The President is expected to announce a "surge" of 20,000 troops tonight. Can any of you tell me the specific rationale behind this surge?"

to piss off Kennedy. LOL

seriously just to spite congress.

Just remember kiddos, payback is a beaooootch. and i sincerly can't wait to see what recourse the Dems will take to show W that checks and balances exist to protect Americans and NOT meant to be overlooked for the past 6 years.

"You're asking for speculation! No one in their right mind would give you an answer that you yourself knows cannot be answered until the outcome is known."

Yeah, yeah, Navy, I'm well aware of your inability to answer the question. I'm trying to ask someone with the ability to think beyond the next two days. Stick around.

If none of you, or the President, can answer the question about what happens if we CANNOT quell the violence in Iraq, then the double-down of the escalation is pointless.

Smegma, I agree with Cyber that your post is fairly on point. I have a legitimate concern though: you ask, "But whether you are for the war or against the war, we owe too much to the future and too much to the Iraqis and Americans who have suffered, to not take one last shot at stabilizing Iraq."

I think the problem is this. And i say this understanding the this and thats of "what if". But i think my perspective is that things are going downhill. All the time whil Bush lied about the war from day 1, then contiuned the denial of the reality of the war and it's state for roughly 3+ years up until December 2006!

My concern is that if things are going south, have been going south, and are expected to continue to go south, then why, really WHY risk any more US soldiers lives?

you pose the question of why not try. Well- American Blood is reason enough. If the expected outcome looks bleak, why endanger our kids?

navydad,

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003523154

CNN poll in mid-December shows 11% supporting an increase in troops. 31% of America supports the continuation of the war. I'm not so good with numbers, but that looks like 69% are opposed to the war.

So, again, in the spirit of national unity, will you join the vast majority of the country and call for getting out of this war?

Cyber

At this point, the only form of success to be found in Iraq is a stable country. Safety in the streets, domestic government in control, electricity and water, etc.

I think six months is a reasonable time frame, not so much for success as for significant improvement. Most agree it will take about three months to get the forces there and acclimated. Give another three months to prosecute the campaign. If we find the situation unimproved, or with only modest improvement (I know, a vague definition, modest), then the Hail Mary has failed.

As far as what to do facing failure, a significantly modified version of the Biden plan sounds prudent to me.

Bill

I agree that blood is a horrible cost of war. And I also know it sounds flip to blithely suggest an action that will result in that blood to be "worth a shot."

But the fact remains that we in the military recognize that our duty may entail loss of blood, limb and life. I'm not going to drop some "booyah" macho crap about it being an honor to die in battle, but I will say that it is an honor to protect our nation, even if that means salvaging a situation our nation brought about.

I'm not saying "Give Bush a last shot." I am saying, "Give our military a last shot." There are different military people in charge now. There is a President who is clearly seeing his last opportunity to make things right. There are soldiers on the ground that do not want to see the suffering of their fellow soldiers, their families and themselves go in vain.

Yes, this may be end up being a sad last gasp of a failed policy. Or it may be the turn-around we desperately need.

That's how it goes with Hail Mary passes. Ask Doug Flutie.

Salvenius

True, the Russians truly had their backs against the wall, but that is when desperate moves become heroic efforts. Obviously, we are not in as desperate a situation as the Russians, but that doesn't mean our moves can't become a heroic turn-around.

Since you didn't like the Russian example, how's about George Washington crossing the Delaware? He could have huddled in the snow until the British attacked. He could have attempted an escape, though it didn't look promising. Instead, he made a bold, borderline insane maneuver, which went horribly wrong in many ways, and he routed the British holdings in New Jersey.

Major,
Try again -- Washington crossed the Deleware to prempt an attack that, had it materialized, might well have destroyed his Continental Army in detail (if desertions didn't do it first).
If the Hessians would have been raising hell in Mesopotamia -- do you think he would have attacked them there?

Salvenius

I don't want to get too far off-topic with examples of military turnarounds, but you aren't seeing the Delaware Crossing correctly.

Of course it is true Washington was under great threat. All desperate military (or otherwise) maneuvers are done under serious threat.

But to think that Washington was simply doing an attack to avoid being attacked doesn't at all encompass the courage and insanity of Washington's action.

Washington would have been attacked as soon as the Bristish could safely cross the Delaware to get at him. Everyone there knew it was impossible to have an army, horses, cannons, etc. cross the Delaware. But that is exactly what was done, the impossible.

Saying, "Well, Washington just did the obvious choice and the crossing wasn't a desperate turnaround" is like saying Moses planned on parting the Red Sea to escape Pharaoh.

Again, I'm not saying the desperation of Washington, or the Russians or anyone else, is similar to our own desperate need to stabilize Iraq.

The point was that turnarounds do occur in war, failure to stabilize Iraq will be devastating. therefore we should back a last desperate try for stability even if the odds aren't in favor of success.

That's the point.