PeterDavid.net

Did he just admit that this is his fault?
GHERU

Just let me know when he gets to the words "I resign".

I don't give a rat's ass about anything else he has to say.

It seems to me that he is speaking for the Iraqi government quite a bit.

Um, which blog entry should we post on Peter?

So far, this is the speech he should have given about a year ago.

"So far, this is the speech he should have given about a year ago."

Yea, but there is one big difference..now he has to convince Congress to go along

GHERU

Did he just refernce Leiberman as some one in the other party?

That's funny

Well, that was short. (Thank God.)

I think this is a good example of factiness.
*snort*
Nice.

Why another bipartisan working group? He completely blew off the last one!

I Don't think that will be a problem--, at least not as much as some may think. How many members of congress will be willing to stick their necks out and potentially take the blame if everything falls apart?

On the other hand, if they (reluctantly, oh so reluctantly) give him what he wants and it doesn't work--and that's quite possible--they have their 2008 issue nicely lined up. As one pundit at national review said Want a little tough truth with your morning coffee? McCain can do this, and Rudy can do that, and Romney can do the other thing. But if tonight's speech doesn't herald the beginning of a serious turnaround in Iraq that is plain to see by spring of next year, the Risen Christ could be the Republican nominee in 2008 and He wouldn't be able to win against Al Sharpton.

An overstatement to be sure, but there's truth there. McCain in particular has stick his neck out pretty far on this.

Peter do you give credence to the reports back in September that bin Laden is dead, or did you just use the word "ghost" metaphorically?

I was speaking metaphorically.

PAD

As usual, I just couldn't bring myself to watch the buffoon that is "Dubya."

At least by watching Mythbusters instead, I'm watching people who admit from the outset that failure is an option, and that they sometimes go over the proverbial top.

Now...if only they'll do an episode busting "Dubya"'s myths.

So, he's going to just shop around until he finds a study group that will tell him what he wants to hear.

Just like he does with Generals.

I think Bush is sticking to the same plan he's had for awhile now: Do anything to stay in Iraq until he's out of office.

That way, when we pull out from Iraq after he leaves office and the government we set up crumbles, he can say that he was right to not pull out and that the administration should have given it more time.

Sometimes I really wish the Presidant (and any other politicians of any party), immediately after a speech, had to talk with an interviewer who's job it was to call bullshit and actually answer their questions. No giving some other answer. No restating the question. Sit there and you are not allowed to leave and you have to actually answer the question asked.

And I'd ask Bush, "You said in your speech that you took input from many sources including the Iraq commission report. That report's main two directives were to have a "surge" in diplomacy, getting all of the nations in the region involved, and a withdrawal of troops. You make no mention of engaging other countries and your increase in troops is exactly the opposite of what they suggested. Just where in your plan is anything they suggested?"

Ah, more truthiness.

Has anyone read Sun Tzu's THE ART OF WAR? (It's pretty clear that Bush hasn't.) Applying the Iraq situation to THE ART OF WAR shows how poorly we thought this out, from unifying the people (It's weapons of mass destruction! No, wait...) to consistently applying rewards and punishments (wrong about the intelligence -- get a medal; caught committing torture -- no leaders lose their jobs; general opposed to troop increases -- lose their jobs) to the idea that a military action must be done quickly.

As for Bush, it was same old, same old. He takes responsibility for any mistakes -- without taking any consequences for them. He says we'll be seeking a political solution, while increasing the American troops and ruling out any diplomacy with two of the most influential countries in the region. (I certainly don't like Iran, but we can do better than pretending that they don't exist, except to threaten them.) He talks about bipartisan committes, while ignoring the recommendations of the bipartisan panel that said a military victory was impossible. And he continues to stress the absolute necessity of the war in Iraq, without suggesting any sacrifice on our part (taxes, convervation) to help win this war.

And Bush can't say "civil war" because he's trying to frame the debate as a situation where we should be. A "civil war" sounds like a situation where it needs to be handled internally; an "insurgency" sounds like a situation where we can/should help the government. (Lisewise, any talk of withdrawl lacks any suggestion of "fewer American casualties" or "reducing American casualties" because those sound good. It supports Bush's plan more to say "cut and run," which sounds cowardly and doesn't mention saving American lives.)

Of course he doesn't "get it".

Bush Minor's entire experience of military service is something to be avoided by means of political influence or simple desertion (with the penalty avoided because of political influence).

The phrase from the Late Unpleasantness Between the States (technically, the War of 1861 - 65 isnj't a "civil war") was "seen the elephant" (as opposed to Union General Sedgwick's last words which were "Nonsense, they couldn't hit an elephant at this...")

Bush Minor not only hasn't seen the elephant, he's not real sure about peanuts.

His philosophy of management, all of hislife, has been "Do what I want to, ignore anything that sounds like I might be wrong, and someone will bail me out."

Was kinda hard on the people employed by the oil companies he (mis) managed, and it's even harder on soldiers.

I sympathise with Kath about the people she knows who have had losses - i don't know any one in particular who has, but i feel for all of them.

I was just so glad a few months back when son-in-law Steve got home and got to meet his three-month-old daughter (whose first birthday is Saturday, BTW) for the first time; from what i hear of his experiences, it was a close thing indeed...

More fear to justify the killings... that's sad. remembers me of the Megadeth song "Blackmail the universe":

Blackmail the Universe with the greatest of calamities
Awaken those sleeping giants in the dust of the ground
With their skin destroyed, unjust to innocence
Lawful possessor of the world's last 24 hours

Nuclear battlefields energized
Cold wars are heating up again
The tensions mounting
People lift up your fists in revenge
Peace at any price
With a gun to your head, bang, bang

The stage is set
Who will be the first to blink?
We can't go to war
Remember that “Vietnam thing”

"Appeasement only makes the aggressor more aggressive, he understands only one language – action!
And he respects only one word – force!
No sign of them stopping, no time for back channel communiqués, we need all the help we can get, air strikes and invasions!
Retaliate, I say!"

The same blasted song and dance routine he's been giving all along. I'm not surprised.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, SOMEONE SLAP THIS MAN ALREADY!

I thought it was a good speech. Ultimately the proof is in the pudding. I know soldiers and Marines who've served, and ultimately, they want to win there. I think the consequences of failure are acknowledged by most as pretty high and therefore we have no choice. Personally, I'd like to see a lot more troops added than what is being added, however, I understand the plan-most of the casualties are coming from certain areas. Frankly, I thinkl the greatest failures in fighting this have been made in an attempt to have few casualties which in turn has led to more. Better to strike harder and faster early on-sure you'll avoid the chance that it may work out quick and easy, but in the long run, assuming quick and easy don't work, you'll actually have less casuatlies. More casualties in the short run, less in the long run.

I don't see the speech as changing many minds-many people's minds were made up pre-2001 about Bush, those people he'd never reach, and the bulk of fair minded people have grown tired of war. Ultimately, I feel very strongly the commander in chief, as set forth in the constitution, whoever that is, is the once to direct the war once war is chosen, not congress, or anyone else. If someone in congress wanted to do it, they should have run in 2004. and can run in 2008.

Like i said, the proof is in the pudding. The problem is the enemeny knows all they have to do is hold on, and we eventually will leave. Which makes it difficult. They also know, the more they kill, the more dramatic the attacks, the worse it looks to americans-which means the more uneasy Americans get, the more killings will be done.

At any rate, victory or defeat at this point will be determined by the Iraqis. Do they want a burgeoning, growing imperfect democracy, or death, chaos, and a failed state, and all out civil war.

BTW, the comparisons to the last days of Nam do not hold suit. Rather than pouring more troops in, Nixon actually was pulling troops out. Which was why he could end the draft. (and thus lessen the protests). Less US troops, more air support and the like-that was Vietnimization. Plus, negotiating directly with China and Russia to put the squeeze on the North Vietnamese. Would it have worked? perhaps. Some argue that had Nixon not been weakened by Watergate, and ultimately replaced, he would have had the politcial capital to give air support and equipment support to outh Vietnam when the North made that last attack, without needing to put in any US troops, which would have saved S. Vietnam. On the other hand, the S. Vietnamese government, after Kennedy allowed Diem to be assassinated (undemocratic as he was), never again really was all that strong,and it may have been a losing proposition no matter what.

I'm a bit slow here, but when Bush says he's taking responsibility, what does it really mean?

Ultimately the proof is in the pudding....

Like i said, the proof is in the pudding.

The pudding was "Mission Accomplished" 2 months into the invasion, yet has outlasted the US's participation in WWII. The gray-green pudding is obviously proof against everything you say.

>I'm a bit slow here, but when Bush says he's taking responsibility, what does it really mean?

I missed the pseech. Did he actually take responsibility or did he say, as Rice said today on NBC, that the responsibility falls at his feet. The first is ownership which, to the best of my recollection, he has never done. The latter is a statement of responsibility that is passively acknowledged as being present. I know it's semantics, butthis administration has worked this angle of deceit and dodging throughout its post-911 administration.

At some point, we have to ask ourselves this: Do we have any reason to believe that Bubble Boy will experience a sudden surge in competence over the next two years? After four years of bungling this war, why should we have reason to believe that he won't just continue to screw things up?

So, he's responsible for mistakes? That's nice to know. What would have been nicer was for him to say what those mistakes were, and that he is responsible for them. Maybe, as President, he needs to appear faultless, or at least not admit to any mistakes. But claiming responsibility for something he won't admit to is an empty statement.

From things I've heard over the past few weeks, the plan will switch to "Take and Hold." Vietnam era generals claim that such a strategy had just been implemented in Vietnam before Congress pulled the funding plug, and that it was working.

Gee, sending troops in to a populated area, in major force, walking the streets armed, that quells resistance? You're kidding. I'm shocked. I wonder what happens when the troops leave...

So now this is to be the strategy in Iraq...take and hold. I guess they don't see the major flaw...it requires you to HOLD the territory. That suggests a long-term occupation. Like the US and the Phillipines. We had a major military presence there for a good long time. Rarely did stories of unrest come from that nation. We pull out...and now they've got active militant terrorist cells operating in the open. I guess Take and Hold didn't "take" there too well.

Our already overtaxed troops will become moreso. Rotations home will be shorter, while active duty assignments will be longer. Duty will involve less time on-base, and more time afield.

And what if we manage to take and hold Bagdad? That's not going to change the mindset of the resistance...they'll just move away, lie low, and wait for us to leave.

The only good thing I heard last night was a plan to improve the economy. This is the only way, long term, that we can achieve victory in Iraq. Only when the people have a stake in peace will you remove the pool of new recruits the terrorist and resistance have. Give the people jobs and security and they'll fight to keep it. More, the won't fight if it means losing it.

Whenever Bush (reluctantly) accepts responsibility, he always becomes incredulous that anyone believes that implies he should be held accountable. Silly us for believing one flows from the other.

I don't feel he is entitled to claim any military service at all: Regardless of the paper trail on his long-ago excuse from his duties in the Texas Air National Guard, I challenge anyone to explain how working on an Alabama GOP campaign furthers the safety of Texas skies. Wait, wait, maybe it was a good idea to keep GWB out of the cockpit of an F-4, after all.

Bush has taken responsibility before, but it's always been phrased vaguely. When he clarifies at all, it basically comes down to him being responsible because he was the Commander in Chief when these things happened. In other words, he takes responsibility in the same way that a manager takes responsibility for anything that the employees under him do, even if they were the ones who were actually at fault.

So Bush has said that he's responsible, but I don't believe he's ever said that he's made mistakes or would do anything differently if he had it to do over.

I'm still trying to figure out what constitues "winning", what constitutes "victory". There were no WMD and Saddam was given the boot. What's left? A democracy in Iraq? That's up to them, isn't it? We're spending, what 2 billion a week on this mess? Can't we just send the money to New Orleans or something? No insurgents down there to keep blowing up stuff. I think Bush is simply buying time until he gets out of office - let the next guy try and get our leg out of the bear trap...

I still say the only way Bush can truly show he's responsible is to say two little word:

I resign.

I didn't watch the speech, but I've read articles about what he said.

Nothing new in there whatsoever to show that Bush is learning from his mistakes. What a fucking crock.

My brother finishes up his post-Basic Training stuff in June, and then he says he knows he's off to Iraq. He says he won't be front line, but nowhere is safe in that country.

Bush is getting closer to joining my List of People Who Need to Drop Dead Tomorrow.

I still stand by what I've said in other threads about how sending more troops in could have been a good thing. Well, I've just watched last night's speech on the DVR and Bush is a greater fool then I have ever given him credit for before.

What he wants to do is put a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. The troop levels he wants to add to Iraq will do NOTHING but add to the final American death count and put off admission of "defeat" until after he leaves office. And there is no doubt about that. If he continues to mismanage Iraq until January of 2009, then any and all chances of claiming anything like a victory will have been well and completely flushed.

Not that there's much left to claim as a victory. Their constitution clearly spells out the facts of life in Iraq will fall under fundamentalist Islamic law, the numbers of Iraq's people who hate us are about the same as those who like us and our biggest ally, Maliki, has a twenty plus year history with the Dawa party (they were suspected of being involved in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. embassy in Kuwait) and has ties to Iran, Syria and Hezbollah in his closet from when he ran Dawa's Jihad Office.

And our leader is a moron who seems determined to stall just long enough to dump defeat onto someone else's legacy. Screw it. Get out.

I didn't watch the Prez's speech because it had already been released so I knew what he was going to say.

Ironically, I also knew what the reactions (PAD's included) would be as well, without the benefit of a leak.

1So now this is to be the strategy in Iraq...take and hold. I guess they don't see the major flaw...it requires you to HOLD the territory
****
Not really. You imply indefinitely It requires you to hold it only so long as the government there gets strong enough, which it cannot do now, to hold it itself. That may or may not ever happen, but is not the same thing as saying we have to hold it forever.

In other words, he takes responsibility in the same way that a manager takes responsibility for anything that the employees under him do, even if they were the ones who were actually at fault.
***
That's what Harry Truman's the buck stops here means. whoever blew it, it is me that's responsible.

The pudding was "Mission Accomplished" 2 months into the invasion, yet has outlasted the US's participation in WWII. The gray-green pudding is obviously proof against everything you say.

*****
Well if our goal was to annhilate everything in Iraq like in WWII, and defeat the people totally, I am sure we could have ended it in two seconds by dropping a few atomic bombs like Truman did. (which i've actually heard a couple of WWII vets advocate, knowing nothing but total war). Otherwise, I don't see what the relevance is to the length of the war vis a vi WWII. Two different wars, times, goals. Modern warfare is more difficult, both in goals, and in tactics allowed, even as technology and training improves.

"That's what Harry Truman's the buck stops here means. whoever blew it, it is me that's responsible."

Which is all well and good, but fault is important too. It's great that Bush accepts the responsibility, since that's the *minimum* he is expected to do from the moment he takes the oath of office. What he needs to do is admit the personal fault, which he hasn't done yet.

1What he needs to do is admit the personal fault, which he hasn't done yet.
****
I would imagine that there is not one specific thing he can point to that he feels he did wrong. he obviously believes he was justified in going to war, and obviously thinks the consequences of pulling out our disastrous. So I am sure he sees things have gone wrong, but can't really see things he could have done differently-he was advised to go in, and he agrees with that, he was advised to use the strategy and troop levels he did, and he was advised adn believes he has to stay. So what can he say he did wrong specifically that he also believes was wrong (not what you believe he did wrong) and his specific responsibility?

The pudding was "Mission Accomplished" 2 months into the invasion, yet has outlasted the US's participation in WWII. The gray-green pudding is obviously proof against everything you say.

Well if our goal was to annhilate everything in Iraq like in WWII, and defeat the people totally, I am sure we could have ended it in two seconds by dropping a few atomic bombs like Truman did. (which i've actually heard a couple of WWII vets advocate, knowing nothing but total war). Otherwise, I don't see what the relevance is to the length of the war vis a vi WWII. Two different wars, times, goals. Modern warfare is more difficult, both in goals, and in tactics allowed, even as technology and training improves.

If you weren't 3-years-old, you might remember the White House (not the navy) floated a "Mission Accomplished" banner behind Bush when he made a speech 01 May 2003, less than 2 months into the invasion.

Time is relevent because Bush made it relevent.

Sean Martin stated:
"I'd ask Bush, 'You said in your speech that you took input from many sources including the Iraq commission report. That report's main two directives were to have a "surge" in diplomacy, getting all of the nations in the region involved, and a withdrawal of troops. You make no mention of engaging other countries and your increase in troops is exactly the opposite of what they suggested. Just where in your plan is anything they suggested?'"

Weird thing is, as liberal as I am I would probably SUPPORT a troop surge if it was coupled with a full court diplomatic press. It could be used to stabalize the country until a regional solution is found through diplomatic talks. We might even be able to get some military support from the participants.

A statement on Senator Richard Lugar's (R)IN website looks encouraging:

"I was encouraged by the President’s emphasis on a regional element in his Iraq strategy. Whenever we begin to see Iraq as a set piece – an isolated problem that can be solved outside the context of our broader interests -- we should reexamine our frame of reference. Our efforts to stabilize Iraq and sustain a pluralist government there have an important humanitarian purpose. But remaking Iraq, in and of itself, does not constitute a strategic objective...

...For this reason, I have advocated broader diplomacy in the region that is directed at both improving stability in Iraq and expanding our options in the region. Inevitably, when anyone suggests such a diplomatic course, this is interpreted as advocating negotiations with Syria and Iran -- nations that have overtly and covertly worked against our interests and violated international norms. But the purpose of the talks is not to change our posture toward those countries. A necessary regional dialogue should not be sacrificed because of fear of what might happen if we include unfriendly regimes. Moreover, we already have numerous contacts with the Iranians and Syrians through intermediaries and other means. The regional dialogue I am suggesting does not have to occur in a formal conference setting, but it needs to occur and it needs to be sustained. "

Now, granted, Senator Lugar has a habit of never saying a bad word about anybody and gushing over fellow Republicans in particular. But what if Congress forced Bush's hand to initiate a Regional Summit including Iran and Syria in exchange for his troop surge?

--Captain Naraht

P.S. Sorry for the lengthy post.

So what can he say he did wrong specifically that he also believes was wrong (not what you believe he did wrong) and his specific responsibility?

How about instead of taking advice from the chickenhawk contingent, talking to people who have actual combat experience for his advice? How about instead of firing people who gave him realistic advice and promoting the suckups, he took the realistic advice? How about not being a freakin' moron?

Nah.

Helpful Den, real helpful. and totally contrary to what I posted-something he thinks he was wrong on-not what you think he was wrong on. So, actually, not helpful at all

But namecalling always helps. It's a great way to build bridges and make people think you are a reasonable person they can find common ground with.
Or...does it simply make people even more defensive.

Hmmmm..

As to combat experience-there are literally millions of Americans with some form of combat experience, who have literally thousands at least of different ideas of what to do. My grandfather in law has combat experience. His idea is to nuke the country until not a single Iraqi lives, treat them as harshly as we fought Japan. But he's got combat experience, so he must be right.

[i]At least he said "nuclear" correctly.[/i]

He did? Not the part that I watched. It was "nucular" as usual.

/ola

Helpful Den, real helpful. and totally contrary to what I posted-something he thinks he was wrong on

Really? I thought he was extremely specific.

That was definitely NOT namecalling. Taking the advice on military matters from people who haven't been in combat, stovepiping the intelligence and banning people from making contingency plans (not making BAD contingency plans but not making them at all) would be things we all agree are mistakes Bush has made.

That seems to be a petty one. We all have regional and accental ways of pronouncing words. My Uncle calls my sister Dawn, Don, i saw coffee different than a southerner. etc. Seems like with Bush, and in general, this particular word seems to be a pet peeve, and I don't know why. A significant portion of people say it that way, abnd heck, the dictionary even has two ways

nu·cle·ar noo-klee-er or nyoo-kyuh-ler

Although it notes the second one is not favored or technically correct, it also notes that the nonfavored pronunciation is the more common sound in other words. and it notes "although it occurs with some frequency among highly educated speakers, including scientists, professors, and government officials, it is disapproved of by many."

Helpful Den, real helpful. and totally contrary to what I posted-something he thinks he was wrong on-not what you think he was wrong on.

You asked for specifics as to what we thought he was personally responsible for doing wrong. The fact that you may not agree with them doesn't make it contrary to what you asked for.

As for the military experience thing, if I were going to build a house, I'd talk to a carpenter, an electrician, a plumber, etc. People with experience in that area. It was going looking for legal advice, I'd talk to a lawyer. If I was looking to start a war, I'd talk to people who have actually fought in one. The fact that he systematically cut out the advice of people with combat experience (because they wouldn't tell me what he wanted to hear) in favor of those (including Rummy, who was in the military but never saw combat) without any such experience is just ludicrous.

Bush is famous to listening to those who tell him what he wants to hear and ignoring all else. That's a great trait for the commander-in-chief of the world's only superpower. Right.

1If you weren't 3-years-old, you might remember the White House (not the navy) floated a "Mission Accomplished" banner behind Bush when he made a speech 01 May 2003, less than 2 months into the invasion.

Time is relevent because Bush made it relevent.

****
Nice insult, but no Bush did not make time relevant. He (or his people) were responsible for mission accomplished banner, but that was not relevant to time or WWII. Now if it had said "Mission Accomplished, in your face Roosevelt, I got it done quicker than you" yeah, than time would have been relevant. But the words mission accomplished have nothing to do with time. other than the fact that everything occurs at a certain time. I really don't even have a clue what you mean, frankly.

Den: You asked for specifics as to what we thought he was personally responsible for doing wrong. The fact that you may not agree with them doesn't make it contrary to what you asked for.
******

Den, no I didn't ask that at all. First, my question was more rhetorical. Second I specifically said what he would feel he did wrong, not what "you" feel he did wrong-and then cited he obviously believes continuing is correct and that starting it was correct.

As a reminder:

"So what can he say he did wrong specifically that he also believes was wrong (not what you believe he did wrong) and his specific responsibility? "

floated a "Mission Accomplished" banner behind Bush when he made a speech 01 May 2003, less than 2 months into the invasion.

Time is relevent because Bush made it relevent.
****

I am still amazed at the silliness of this post.
Mission accomplisged makes whether the mission was accomplished at issue, not time. But given that he has said the mission is not accomplished, and given that, except for that moment, he has almost always said it would be a long, tough fight, its obvious he doesn't feel mission was accomplished. so even that isn't relevant. If he was still saying it, yeah then it would be.

Either way, the comparison is absurd. "Ha. you didn't get your war done faster than WWII." "Yeah but I could if I used WWII tactics. and hey I still got the war for independence beat."

Hatred clouds your thoughts, my friends. You are unable to judge things impartially.

As for the military experience thing, if I were going to build a house, I'd talk to a carpenter, an electrician, a plumber, etc. People with experience in that area. It was going looking for legal advice, I'd talk to a lawyer. If I was looking to start a war, I'd talk to people who have actually fought in one. The fact that he systematically cut out the advice of people with combat experience (because they wouldn't tell me what he wanted to hear) in favor of those (including Rummy, who was in the military but never saw combat) without any such experience is just ludicrous.

****

Tyere are plenty of people with combat experience who he had advice from , and plenty of people he didn't. There are also myriad opinions amongst them about everything. Follow the newspapers, and you'll see throughout this war, they've disagreed on everything. There are literally millions with combat experience I suspect, so yeah, there are a ton of opinions. There are also a ton of opinions among those who continued their careers after getting combat experience. There's also such a thing as people with combat experience fighting the last war, which is something you also look to. not to mention ideals like civilian control of the military.

...the words mission accomplished have nothing to do with time....

Mission accomplisged makes whether the mission was accomplished at issue, not time. But given that he has said the mission is not accomplished, and given that, except for that moment, he has almost always said it would be a long, tough fight, its obvious he doesn't feel mission was accomplished. so even that isn't relevant. If he was still saying it, yeah then it would be.

He established an expectation of the mission being accomplished that was established arbitrarily. As measured by time.

We track time by numbers. Time is therefore measurable. As he established the expectation of the mission being accomplished, by standing in front of gigantic words saying "Mission Accomplished," the actual time of the war exceeding the accomplishment of an Allied victory in WWII gives us a scale of how wrong he was.

You repeated the proof is in the pudding, the proof is in the pudding. You aren't interested in proofs of any kind.

Been busy. Haven't had time to read most of the posts in this thread, and I'm not gonna post any opinions about the topic until I have.

But Captain Naraht, please don't apologize for writing lengthy posts. Yours are always thoughtful, well-reasoned and worth the time it takes to read them.

Spiderbob, you are clearly smart enough to deflect arguments against the war when they are built in the form of slogans, which unfortunatly they often do. But behind the slogans there are real issues thtat need to be discussed seriously.

Bush led a war in Iraq with a certain set of justifications and political-strategic assumptions. Even if we leave aside the justifications for the war -- since it's already too late to discuss them -- it seems clear that Bush's strategic assumptions about how the war should be conducted were wrong, and that it took several years before even that was admitted, and as a result the situation deterioted even more. Now Bush comes and asks to continue this war based on a supposedly new set of strategic assumptions. Considering past performance it is quite reasonable to ask:
1) Are this really a new strategy, or is it more of the same strategy that has not worked so far?
2) Does this supposedly new stratey have any chance to succeed? Wishful thinking is certainly not enough.
3) Why should anybody trust Bush to do a better job with this new strategy he's proposing considering his previous peformance? Doesn't he owe it to the American public something more before he can ask him to put even faith in him as a war leader?

It may be true that yje proof is in the pudding, but I think most people will be very hesitant to try another dish cooked in Bush's kitchen without better assurances.

Dear God Bill, hurry up and post. If I have to listen to spiderrob and Den squable over minutia.....

ARRG!! Squirrels!!

--Captain

Don't worry, I'm not going to argue minutiae because Spiderrob is wrong. Sure, there were lots of people with military experience who gave Numbnuts advice.

And they were all ignored.

Finaly point: There's a difference between heading the advice of people who are experts in their field and ceding civilian control over to them. We've now seen the results of what happens when Numbnuts decided to do the latter w/o doing the former.

Posted by spiderrob8

Well if our goal was to annhilate everything in Iraq like in WWII, and defeat the people totally, I am sure we could have ended it in two seconds by dropping a few atomic bombs like Truman did. (which i've actually heard a couple of WWII vets advocate, knowing nothing but total war). Otherwise, I don't see what the relevance is to the length of the war vis a vi WWII. Two different wars, times, goals. Modern warfare is more difficult, both in goals, and in tactics allowed, even as technology and training improves

Having just demonstrated that you apparently know nothing of World War 2, history in general and warfare, total or otherwise, would you please explain to me why anything you say should be any more credible on those subjects than anything the Shrub - who exhibits the same symptoms - says?

Word War 2 was hardly "total" war - within twenty years of its end, the biggest losers were well on their way to becoming world-dominating economic and industrial powers. After a "total" war, they'd have been lucky if the grass was beginning to grow everywhere in that amount of time.

The dropping of two nuclear bombs obviated the need for an invasion of the Japanese Home Islands (which would have been "total war" and resulted, quite possibly, in as many US casualties as the rest of the Pacific War taken together - or perhaps even more; and what would have happned to Japan doesn't bear contemplating.)

I doubt that any sane WW2 vet is advocating nukes in Iraq - there's nothing to target.

Go away, play somewhere what you say might actually mean something.

Mike Weber, with respect,and without getting into Spiderbob's other arguments, the term 'total war' was used to describe WWII at the time of the war. The term 'total war' has a history from which it derives its meaning.

That said, no person that uses the term 'nuke 'em' in a serious onversation should not be taken seriously.

I didn't watch the speech and I hardly think he said something new. The idea of increasing the number of soldiers over there is a way to avoid saying, "We're getting hammered from sides there, we don't know who is our enemy; there's no front lines; etc."

In my humble opinion, sending more men to Iraq is away to establish some kind of perimeter in Baghad. A place where one can say, "See? We stopped the terrorist. Look how peaceful this city looks!". The battle, of course, would still happen in the rest of the country and the number of casualities would grow.

It's quite obvious that Bush is losing control of his military advisors and he doesn't have the courage to stand to them and say "enough is enough". He doesn't look a man that can say anything without checking with someone else.

Again, the situation for the US is a lose-lose deal. Send more men and take the risk of not accomplishing anything and just lose more young men and women or leave Iraq to Iran and their fanatics, giving them a chance to create a real terrorist state with a lot of oil to use?

There's the choice I see. Doesn't look good.

Oh, by the way, sorry for any grammar mistakes.

"In my humble opinion, sending more men to Iraq is away to establish some kind of perimeter in Baghad. A place where one can say, "See? We stopped the terrorist. Look how peaceful this city looks!". The battle, of course, would still happen in the rest of the country and the number of casualities would grow."

This sounds right. This seems to be the plan. It even makes some sense from a military standpoint if:
a) Bush has 21,000 extra troops.
b) He has the support necessary to send them.
c) They actually succeed in securing and rebuilding Bagdad,
d) He can maintain political support while this is being done.
e) He is able to leverage this supposed success in order to get and hold control of the rest of Iraq.

That's sounds nice, but there are a lot of if's. Considering Bush's past performance and the state of American and global public opinon, it is hard to believe that Bush can get support for such an iffy plan, even if it has some theoretical military merit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerilla_warfare#Counter-guerrilla_warfare

Counter-guerrilla warfare -- Classic guidelines
7. Methodical clear and hold. An "ink spot" clear and hold strategy must be used by the counter-insurgent regime, dividing the conflict area into sectors, and assigning priorities between them. Control must expand outward like an ink spot on paper, systematically neutralizing and eliminating the insurgents in one sector of the grid, before proceeding to the next. It may be necessary to pursue holding or defensive actions elsewhere, while priority areas are cleared and held.

"That's sounds nice, but there are a lot of if's. Considering Bush's past performance and the state of American and global public opinon, it is hard to believe that Bush can get support for such an iffy plan, even if it has some theoretical military merit."

Micha, it's obvious that such plan won't get any support anywhere. Bush has proved incapable to show leadership and some shred of control over the situation in Iraq. It's a plan that, in theory, would work, but, we would be talking about creating checkpoints and stopping anyone, civil or otherwise to go further. As you said, creating sectors and eliminating the threats, sector by sector, demands a great deal of soldiers.

What's not said, of course, is the rate of casualities of such operation and how difficult would be to avoid civil casualities. It's difficult already, when there's an internal conflict happening at the same time a - I'm sorry about using the term, but that's what I think - an invasion force tries to establish a frontline.

Quite a challenge for any military strategist, don't you think?

I could swear Bush talked about the forces of "Freedom in moderation" at one point--though the official text reads "freedom and moderation."

But I heard it as "in" and thought: well that's not a very pithy bumpersticker: Operation Qualified Iraqi Freedom.

The US has two options:

1) To decide that it does not want to lose more soldiers' lives and money in Iraq and leave.

or

2) Try to find a way to change the situation in Iraq before leaving.

In order to do the second, they wil have to use diplomacy in order to get the Baathists and other Sunis to share power with the Shia.

But in order to have to clout necessary to do anything diplomatic (which in itself is uncertain to succeed), the US has to have military successes in Iraq, or else they will have no credibility with both their allies and enemies. The enemies wil prefer to hold out for the victory of seeing the US run away rather than negotiate with it.

Acheiving a military success requires a new strategy, and even then will be difficult, but I wuld like to think that it is not completely impossible. But then, I am not a military strategist, so I can't really say. Any military attempt will probably involve something like securing Bagdad according to the inkblot clear and hold approach outlined in the quote above. I don't know how many soldiers are required to accomplish that task, but as I understand it, its merit is that it requires less soldiers than trying to control the whole country at the same time. The only things I can say for certain about this option is that there will be more American casualties, more Iraqi civilian casualties, and (I'm pretty certain) checkpoints.

So we're back to square one: are you willing to risk tthe lives of more American soldiers, or do you prefer the risks involved in leaving Iraq in the current state.

From the point of view of purely American interests, leaving probably will be the lesser risk, since the US will recuperate from any diplomatic harm caused by the withdrawl, and the military risk to the US itself (from armies or terrorism) will not increase immediatly and so dramtically. The US will remain a super power, even with its feathers ruffled.
From the point of view of the Middle East, I think the US leaving is the greater risk. Although I cannot be 100% certain about that. But this is my unlearned assessment.

>Posted by Micha

Mike Weber, with respect,and without getting into Spiderbob's other arguments, the term 'total war' was used to describe WWII at the time of the war. The term 'total war' has a history from which it derives its meaning.

Abe Lincoln:

Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog?

A: Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.

They called it "total war", msybe, but it wasn't.

What they were referring toi was a level of commitment, not the level of acton.

As David Drake says, in his incredible novel, Rolling Hot, as the viewpoint character, a civilian reporter who had made a two-day cross-country dash with Hammer's Slammers to relieve a provincial capital, stands behind his gun in the back of an armored car as they roll into the capital, and hee sees some broken windows and bullet holes is building fronts "...it obviously hadn't been too bad here. By now, he knew what things looked after someone had been really serious..."

"Total war", no matter what they called WW2 is "shoot-the-women-and-kids, burn-the-buildings, sew-the-fields-with-salt stuff.

We haven't seen actual "total war" since the dawn of modern military tech.

I'm not going to get into semantics. Total war is the term used historically and by historians to describe wars like WWII. If you want to write a book saying: you know what, it could have been worse, that's fine. You can also try to come up with another term to describe a worse kind of war. But at present historical discourse as well as primary sources, the term total war refers to WWII and conflicts conducted in similar ways. Saying that they were using the term erroniously will render it meaningless, and will make reading hitorical primary and secondary sources difficult.

(There are historians who challenges the use of the term feudalism. But that's not the same, since feudalism was a construct of later history, and their challenge was that previous historians were misinterpreting the sources There was also a historian that showed that there was no actual evidence for the existence of a cathedral school people were writing about since the late 19 century. But here too the mistake was not in the definition but in the interpretation of evidence.)

"Total war", no matter what they called WW2 is "shoot-the-women-and-kids, burn-the-buildings, sew-the-fields-with-salt stuff.

Mike, I believe that "total war" has to do more with the dgree of social and political commitment to the achieving victory than it does to the actual tactics used.

When Goebbels invoked total war after the defeat at Stalingrad it was to inform the Germans that it was all or nothing, victory or utter defeat and every person had to be a part of the war effort. Any factory or service not directly involved in the war was superfluous.

(Considering how Speer was able to increase German armament production late in the war, despite the Allied bombings, you have to wonder if the Nazis would have been stoppable had they adopted a total war policy early on).

It's almost impossible to imagine the USA or any other nuclar power engaging in a total war, since the economic and political costs would be higher than simply ending said conflict with a nuke or two.

Well if our goal was to annhilate everything in Iraq like in WWII, and defeat the people totally, I am sure we could have ended it in two seconds by dropping a few atomic bombs like Truman did. (which i've actually heard a couple of WWII vets advocate, knowing nothing but total war).

What they were referring toi was a level of commitment, not the level of acton.

I'm not going to get into semantics. [Micha goes into semantics anyway.]

...I believe that "total war" has to do more with the dgree of social and political commitment to the achieving victory than it does to the actual tactics used.

I'm not sure what y'all are disagreeing about. All I know is after Bush set expectations for immediate relief -- by giving a speech in front of a air-craft-carrier-sized "Mission Accomplished" banner -- it's been a length of time longer than US involvement in WWII. If someone has a clearer Proof of Pudding™ why don't they simply share it with us?

"Considering how Speer was able to increase German armament production late in the war, despite the Allied bombings, you have to wonder if the Nazis would have been stoppable had they adopted a total war policy early on)."

It is hard to imagine an alternative scenario in which germany could have won against a country the size of the USSR and a country with the industrial power and geographical location like the US.

There was a little movie based on a book -- Fatherland I think it was called -- that depicted a future in Which Germany won. The scenario was that D-day failed and then the US stepped out of the war, and the Germans were stil caught in a war of attrition with the Russians. I wonder what would have happened if the Russians had to start fighting on their own against the Germans. Would it have turned the tide for the germans, or would the Russians simply have continued marching into France?

In any case, the US is not fighting a total war in Iraq, not according to WWII standards or Mike Weber's Roman standards. a nuclear war is not really an option even if the US was willing to contemplate braking the taboo on the use of nuclear weapons.

I just read an interesting article on Iraq in Newsweek. It is from a few months ago. I don't think I agree with his conclusions, but it is quite illuminating nevertheless.

The guy who wrote the article is Fareed Zakaria.

Posted by Iñaki at January 11, 2007 04:36 AM
More fear to justify the killings... that's sad. remembers me of the Megadeth song "Blackmail the universe"

How about "Symphony of Destruction"

You take a mortal man
You put him in control
Watch him become a god
Watch peoples heads a-roll

Just like a Pied Piper
Lead rats through the streets
Dance like a marionette
Swaying to the symphony
of destruction

I don't think Shrub quite got the message. And he still seems to believe that he still has a House full of rubber stampers and rim ticklers who will OK any idea he drops on them.

Posted by Micha

I'm not going to get into semantics. Total war is the term used historically and by historians to describe wars like WWII. If you want to write a book saying: you know what, it could have been worse, that's fine. You can also try to come up with another term to describe a worse kind of war.

I stand by Abe Lincoln - words have meanings, and Humpty Dumpty ogic doesn't change that meaning.

But at present historical discourse as well as primary sources, the term total war refers to WWII and conflicts conducted in similar ways. Saying that they were using the term erroniously will render it meaningless, and will make reading historical primary and secondary sources difficult.

As if termoinology used by "historians" wasn't already usually erroenous.

Posted by Bill Mulligan

Mike, I believe that "total war" has to do more with the dgree of social and political commitment to the achieving victory than it does to the actual tactics used.

Not the way spiderrob8 used it.

When Goebbels invoked total war after the defeat at Stalingrad it was to inform the Germans that it was all or nothing, victory or utter defeat and every person had to be a part of the war effort. Any factory or service not directly involved in the war was superfluous.

Using Goebbels to define the discourse sounds rather akin to using Mengele to define medical ethics...

Something interesting about both this war and the first Gulf War. According to all those social studies classes that I was the only one awake through, the best way to win a war is to have the entire country on a war footing. Hence the rationing and war bonds circa WWII. I've long wondered why it didn't happen for either of these wars. I think part of it, part of the reason Bush didn't say "Listen, this is what worked before, this is what we're going to do NOW," is because too many of his supporters would've looked at him the way the REST of us seem to look at him, as though he hadn't even dusted himself off after he fell off the turnip truck. There are a lot of people that consider it a HUGE emergency if the local supermarket doesn't have the right size lobster or the proper merlot to go with it. Can you imagine rationing now? Only ONE cup of Starbucks per week?? What do you MEAN, I can't fill up my Lexus's gas tank, you...you government person?

That might be what's needed, for this entire country to be on a war footing. Have you seen Rosie the Riveter lately? Guess that's why the Hummers didn't have the right armor. Seriously, since this war started, what's really changed homefront wise? Not much that I can see. From everything my parents told me, people felt like they had a personal stake in WWII. I can still go over to Wawa, get Brian's chocolate milk, go home and have the lights on all night. Maybe that's something that needs to change. Or is it that the people in Washington know that they couldn't do something like that now and still get elected again? A shame people in DC are more interested in keeping their jobs than doing them.

"I stand by Abe Lincoln - words have meanings, and Humpty Dumpty ogic doesn't change that meaning."

I wish it was that simple. Philosophy of language is mind boggling :)

"As if termoinology used by "historians" wasn't already usually erroenous."

That's an overstatement and oversimplification of what historians do. Historians make mistakes in the interpretation of the material, not in the terminology.

But that's really not the issue, is it? Nobody is disputing that wars can be more brutal than WWII, or that Iraq is neither like WWII or the hypothetical more brutal war. The question is not semantics but how to handle Iraq with relation to the military tools available?

Why do political discussions shift so many times into semantics?

Sean, the United States is so rich and powerful that it expects itself to be capable of fighting wars without the degree of energy that was used in WWII.

I'm not exactly sure how much energy was required to do a better job in Iraq -- I don't know how many soldiers the US has and how many were required -- but I doubt it would have required the level of energy used in WWII. It seems that the failure in Iraq is more a result of mismanagement of the power the US had at its disposal without going on a war footing.

In the case of the war of terror, your success is measured in your abiility to maintain normal life as much as possible.

The question is not semantics but how to handle Iraq with relation to the military tools available?

Why do political discussions shift so many times into semantics?

Spiderrob tried to make the point that Bush could have met "Mission Accomplished" immediately if we used nukes, Mike Weber pointed out that nukes wouldn't have worked because what would you nuke, and you've been trying to get Mike to rephrase his point with more formal semantic consistency.

If your point in arguing is to minimize semantics, you could simply stop arguing semantic issues. There, I've solved your problem. Is there anything else I can help you with?

It is hard to imagine an alternative scenario in which germany could have won against a country the size of the USSR and a country with the industrial power and geographical location like the US.

Well, there's the very possible scenario of the Germans developing nuclear power. With their already having rockets and jets that would have been Game Over, for the European theater at least.

Once the Americans also developed the bomb would we have settled for the stalemate of a cold war or used it against a nuclear Germany?

Fortunately the Nazis chased out some of their best scientists into the welcoming arms of teh American military which, along with the bombing of a Norway heavy water plant and the fact that the Gernmans did not commit enough resources to research into nukes because they didn't think the war would go on that long, made history work out the way it did. Thank God.

Bill, did you see the play Copenhagen?

I saw it in London. It's a play about a half-imaginary meeting between Niels Bohr and Wener Heisenberg during the war concerning the development of nuclear weapons.

"Well, there's the very possible scenario of the Germans developing nuclear power. With their already having rockets and jets that would have been Game Over, for the European theater at least.

Once the Americans also developed the bomb would we have settled for the stalemate of a cold war or used it against a nuclear Germany?"

Good point and interesting question. A good starting point to some alternative history sci-fi books.

I think it would have been something like:
Britain surrenders (similar to Japan).
The US stops the war in Europe and shortly afterwards Japan.
Russia, I don't know
Cold War with Germany and Japan, but probably more brutal for Europeans and Asians.
Interesting questions: what would have happened in India, Afrika, and the Middle East. What would have happened to decolonization.

wow, this is much more fun than thinking of Iraq. But escapism is not going to solve the problems there. I don't know what will. Most of the plans I hear have a hope for the best kind of feel to them.

There's an ancient Jewish expression: a stone that one fool threw into a well, ten sages can't take out. (sounds better in the original).

In all truth, I really don't quite get what failure would amount to there . . . considering we were successful in our alliance with Saddam a few decades back. Shiite by any other name still smells the same, imho.

Bill, did you see the play Copenhagen?

Haven't seen it but it's a very intriguing premise.

I think it would have been something like:
Britain surrenders (similar to Japan).
The US stops the war in Europe and shortly afterwards Japan.
Russia, I don't know
Cold War with Germany and Japan, but probably more brutal for Europeans and Asians.
Interesting questions: what would have happened in India, Afrika, and the Middle East. What would have happened to decolonization.

A lot depends on when this imaginary scenario takes place--before or after Normandy, for example.

Realistically, the Germans would have had teh bomb relatively late in the war and they would have been hard pressed to manufacture them in large numbers.

So...the likliest scenario in my opinion is that he would have used them on Russia, take out Stalin and Moscow and hope that the resulting power struggle (and threat of further bombings) would take Russia out of the equation--basically go back to the old bordwers despite Germany having gottebn the worse of it, pre-bomb.

I don't think he would have needed or wanted to destroy much of Europe with nukes. No fun in ruling a radioactive wasteland. The French would go back to vassal status without much trouble. The English would have to agree to a cessation of hostilities; Churchill and the Royal Family woul probably end up in America as leaders in exile.

If Hitler allowed the Americans to evacuate Europe it's possible we would end up with a kind of cold war. But why would he after Dunkirk? If large numbers of US troops were killed or captured I don't see how the country would have accepted any kind of peace.

And within a short time we would have had bombs, lots of them, with the advantage that it would only take one to decapitate the Reich.

So I think the eventual end would have been close to what we got, albeit with far more casualties. The question marks are in that time between Hitler having the bomb and us getting it.

"Bill, did you see the play Copenhagen?

Haven't seen it but it's a very intriguing premise."

I highly recommend this play, but I don't want to mislead anybody. It is not a what if play as much as a metaphorical play.

It takes an actual historical event: a meeting between Niels Bohr and Wener Heisenberg, and then starts to build a Rashomon kind of story in which, in some later time, Bohr, his wife and Heisenberg discuss what happened in this meeting. The discussion has four levels: a scientific discussion about quantum physics; a discussion about what happened in the meeting; a historical discussion about related historical events; and a moral discussion about the development of nuclear weapons. All this using Heisenberg principle of uncertainty as a metaphor.

Very artsy, which ordinarily I wouldn't like, but which I really liked this time.

About WWII, I suppose we could speculate for hours how things could have happened differently. It is a recurring theme in sci-fi.

I heard on the radio yesterday evening that Bush would admit that his mistakes have led to the mess we and Iraq are during an interview on 60 Minutes, but CBS is running a football game right now.

If D-Day had failed we would have simply coerced Germany to surrender with nukes. Germany stopped funding nuclear weapons research long before D-Day, and Heisenberg was telling the Germans a nuclear bomb would need fissionable materials not in kilograms, but in the tons.

If the Nazis had developed the bomb earlier, they could have destroyed the Soviets easily and, with the V2, they could have wiped out Britain as well, assuming they were able to build enough bombs. With them out of the way, they could have concentrated on the US then and the result would have most likely have be them nuking Washington and NYC while we nuked Berlin and Dresden.

The driving out of their best scientists was probably the luckiest break humanity had ever had. The only significant one that stayed was Heisenberg and whether he collaborated with them or dragged his heels is still a matter of historical debate.

I think he might have spared the British, at least early in the war. The threat alone would have been enough to force a change in political regimes and he would have needed as much of Europe whole as possible for the rebuilding and rearming of germany.

The V2 was still a long way from being an intercontinental missle but there's no way we would have been sure of that and this would have played a role in any decisions that Roosevelt had to make.

Any serious what if scenario would also have to consider that if the nazis were actually getting close to the bomb we might have found out about it and doubled and tripled our own efforts. I don't think the gap between german aquisition and American aquisition of nuclear power would have been long.

More interesting to me is wondering how, assuming a German victory in Europe, they would have been able to maintain order. True, they would have had no problem ruthlessly suppressing any rebellions but with an enemy across the seas with a virtually untouched industrial complex and a depleted army stretched from the Atlantic to Asia how well could even Nazi efficiancy have coped?

(One happy thought is that I suspect Hitler would have been taken out by ambitious underlings, leading to a nice intracine bloodbath among the Nazi "eliet". Though...that might have resulted in more competant German leadership, not an altogether good thing. has there ever been an alternative story where someone does the old "Go abck in time and kill Hitler" fantasy only to have it result in a new leader taking over, one smart enough to, for example, not strap bombs onto newly invented fighter jets, thus eliminating their speed advantage?)

No, the V2 could not have been used to hit the US, but I meant only that it could have been devastating to the British. To hit us, he would have had to have used a more conventional bomber or perhaps figure out how to launch a V2 from a sub.

As for killing Hitler, I'm in the camp that a major conflict in Europe during the 30s and 40s was inevitable. Had Hitler not have been there, some other leader would have risen to power. Maybe the war would have taken on a completely different character in which this leader avoided some of Hitler's major mistakes, but probably making many of his own instead.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at January 14, 2007 08:11 PM

I heard on the radio yesterday evening that Bush would admit that his mistakes have led to the mess we and Iraq are during an interview on 60 Minutes, but CBS is running a football game right now.

And a damn good football game it was. Quite exciting, to the very end. Unfortunately, I missed Bush's interview on 60 Minutes. It was inadvertant, I assure you!

Anyway, I read about the interview this morning. No surprises, really. Bush and Cheney say they're going ahead with their plan regardless of its lack of popularity.

I wonder how this will play out. On the one hand, history has shown that a president cannot win a war without the support of the American people, and right now Bush lacks that support.

On the other hand, I wonder if the Democrats can really get away with cutting funding for the war as some have threatened. Even if they could muster up the votes needed to make it happen, it leaves them open to the charge of being "anti-troop." Public sentiment may be against the war, but the public can be fickle. If people perceive that the Democrats are cutting are troops off at the knees -- whether that perception is fair or not -- Bush could use that as a political weapon.

P.S. Den, I blew it with my NFL predictions. San Diego's not going to the 'Bowl after all. I may also have cursed Chicago by predicting their success. Although I don't care about that -- I root for the AFC.

P.P.S. Don't give up on Philly, Den. In the era of NFL parity, it's only a matter of time.

For Philly fans, there's always next year.

And BTW, I don't consider my response to Spiderrob to be a "mistake". Some things just need to be said.