A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
so Iraq didn't divert anything from Afghanistan.

Even under rules of non-Euclidean logic, that's a non-sequitur.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
What if the Baker report concludes that Iraq is winnable but only if we commit a lot more troops? Like say double. What if the Generals back them up and say we can win this baby if we get more troops?

How will the Democrats react? Will they have a united position? I just can't see them ever agreeing to more troops. I think this would put them in a quite a pickle.

How pathetic is it that the Departments of Defense and State and the NSA (not to mention the staff of the Vice President's office) are so completely incapable of making policy that they had to outsource it to James Baker and Lee Hamilton.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I think he is. You should be asking him why, as your attorney, he's not exhibiting complete loyalty.

Well played, Playa!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Even under rules of non-Euclidean logic, that's a non-sequitur.

just as Bill Clinton was a more effective spokesperson for the radical left than Nancy Pelosi will be, Blue Triangle posited the agenda better as leader here than you do.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How pathetic is it that the Departments of Defense and State and the NSA (not to mention the staff of the Vice President's office) are so completely incapable of making policy that they had to outsource it to James Baker and Lee Hamilton.

You totally dodged my question.

These are the same people that were able to defeat the Taliban in a matter of weeks. The Soviet Union sent umpteen division and spent nine years and could not get their proxies in control of the country, and yet our proxies took over the country in a couple of weeks and now run the country.

These same people also conquered Iraq in just a few weeks. They have occupied this massive country for three years, with an ongoing insurgency, and they have only lost 3,000 soliders.

They are not outsourcing policy. This James Baker commission is purely a political animal aimed at gaining political support for their next move. But unfortunately, as I said, now that the Democrats control congress, moving more soldiers into Iraq has been taken of the table.

And limiting an army's strategic and tactical options is never a good thing.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I find this surprising - who levies an income tax only on residents, while letting nonresidents earn the same amount in the same place without paying taxes?

It happens in the one jurisdiction which cannot set its own tax laws, and which is overseen by committees containing representatives of neighboring jurisdictions.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by backbencher
it is great to see the dunderhaeds of America's leftist movement gloating and guffawing over there victory. to the rest of us, average Americans, WAKE UP!!!! AMERICA LOST LAST WEEK!!!

you wouldnt discern that from the mainstream media though. Democrat celebrations remind me of Neville Chamberlain and how the left applauded his defeatism and coddle of Hitler.

you left want us to think that Bush made the world hate America. sorry, 9-11 didn't make the world love us, it made the cowards fear us, again. but the Dems ruined it. they showed our enemies that dems would give them aid, comfort and support. that they all hated America ideals the same. if America was unified maybe Iraq would be over now.

one thing is true. after the next attack on our soil, sad but true, the blood of the dead will be on the hands of the left. they sold us out. for nothing but a hate of america.

Macaca.

S_A_M

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How pathetic is it that the Departments of Defense and State and the NSA (not to mention the staff of the Vice President's office) are so completely incapable of making policy that they had to outsource it to James Baker and Lee Hamilton.

I won't be fool enough to suggest any govt agencies would be competent (I assume you'd agree a Dem Dept of Defense and NSA probably wouldn't fare much better, bureaucrats being bureaucrats). But in defense of these hapless govt drones, I would offer that the British fared no better in Iraq.

There should be a rule that any occupation Churchill described as impossible should be automatically barred from falling into the hands of any bureaucratic organization. It's like handing a live grenade to a challenged child.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
You totally dodged my question.

These are the same people that were able to defeat the Taliban in a matter of weeks. The Soviet Union sent umpteen division and spent nine years and could not get their proxies in control of the country, and yet our proxies took over the country in a couple of weeks and now run the country.

These same people also conquered Iraq in just a few weeks. They have occupied this massive country for three years, with an ongoing insurgency, and they have only lost 3,000 soliders.

They are not outsourcing policy. This James Baker commission is purely a political animal aimed at gaining political support for their next move. But unfortunately, as I said, now that the Democrats control congress, moving more soldiers into Iraq has been taken of the table.

And limiting an army's strategic and tactical options is never a good thing.

Wow. Still hoping the old wish-think will pull it out for you.

Afghanistan was a great example of how to do something right, but it's principal architect was still Colin Powell and company, with the classic heavy bombardment from the air, limited and focused engagement in-country, and unremitting focus on achievable concrete targets and statable goals rather than grand strategy. The tacticians kept control. We have not provided as much police level support as the government needs in the aftermath, and that may well come back to haunt us.

But victory there had much to do with eliminating all support for the Taliban, including, particularly, Pakistan, through international diplomacy, and also much to do with having a developed force capable of both prevailing on the ground and of governing and maintaining order after prevailing. The Taliban were not eliminated - most of them melted away and went back to their homes.

Iraq was the opposite, and it is the mess. Anything the Bush administration does to get rid of the cobwebs on their collective administrative brains, whether through replacing people, bringing in advisors, or consulting foreign leaders, is a good thing, and should be applauded. I'm not going to beat them up for consulting others, and none of the Dems should either.

It would be nice to hear the Bushies at some point admit that they screwed up and botched the invasion, but I'm not sure its productive to focus on that too much, and we'll likely not see it until they are out of office (as with McNamara).

We broke Iraq, we own it. And that's what we have to deal with now. If that means more troops, so be it. But staying the course is the one thing that is not an option, and it seems that Bush has, finally, seen that. Lucky for the Dems he didn't see it six months earlier, because now his domestic agenda has to change course as well. But, Spanks old boy, you may want to at least recognize that we're dealing with a mess.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How pathetic is it that the Departments of Defense and State and the NSA (not to mention the staff of the Vice President's office) are so completely incapable of making policy that they had to outsource it to James Baker and Lee Hamilton.

They should be applauded for recognizing their limitations.

Let's hope they recognize all of them, and that Baker and Hamilton release a good report.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How pathetic is it that the Departments of Defense and State and the NSA (not to mention the staff of the Vice President's office) are so completely incapable of making policy that they had to outsource it to James Baker and Lee Hamilton.

And even then, some (like Mike Kinsley) have low expectations for the entire enterprise.

• Part of the idea, certainly, was to get the politicians over the hump of the election and give them something to say in the meantime. ("We desperately need new ideas and fresh thinking about Iraq and, indeed, the entire Middle East. I look forward to the recommendations of the Baker commission and urge them to interpret their mandate widely and boldly.") And part of the idea is to legitimize some impalatable solution. But the Baker commission may be nearly unique in that there is no obvious solution waiting to be imposed. People actually hope that it will come up with something that no one has thought of.
  
  Good luck. The chance that this group of aging white men, plus Vernon Jordan and Sandra Day O'Connor, will come up with something original is not enormous. It's a nutty and not very attractive idea to turn an urgent issue of war and peace over to a commission. Commissions have usually been trotted out for long-run social problems: immigration, debt, health care. Going to war is something that ought to be decided by the people we elect. Congress, in recent decades, has virtually abandoned its duty under the Constitution to make the decisions about when American soldiers are sent to kill and die.
  
  Presidents have foolishly claimed that authority. And now, inevitably, we have a president who is stuck with a war that he insisted on and a citizenry that has no interest in it.
  
  If we had wanted our country to be run by James Baker, we had our chance. He was interested in running for president in 1996 but discovered that his interest in a James Baker presidency was not widely shared. Although he has held a variety of government posts, from undersecretary of commerce under Gerald Ford to secretary of state under Bush the Elder, and has all the trappings of enormous consequence and wisdom, such as a Presidential Medal of Freedom and his own James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, Baker is essentially a political operative. His place in history is Florida 2000, where he secured the presidency for George W. Bush. Reporters were awed by his brilliance and ruthlessness. History may be less admiring of his willingness to make inconsistent arguments and to lie with a straight face.

Beyond its valid points about the limitations of super-duper Washington bipartisan commissions, today I find myself enjoying Kinsley's mocking derision (found elsewhere in the article) of welcoming a bunch of Washington Wise Men and Women into the club. So much so, I think I will adopt this tone for the day.

Welcome, Penske.

Gattigap

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Gattigap
But the Baker commission may be nearly unique in that there is no obvious solution waiting to be imposed.

But, you see, the commentary is fraught with false presumptions.

There are many solutions waiting, proposed and sitting in memos in DOD, State or some foreign policy journal.

A few possibilities (I'm not endorsing these, and particuarly disagree with some, but am just illustrating that other options are there):

(a) Partition -- I'd bet the Shi'ite private armies would be easier to dissolve into a state army if there were a Shi'ite state; ditto for the Sunni private armies and the Kurds. It is also possible that partial partition (e.g., just split off Kurdistan or just split off a Shi'ite state).

(b) Reconfiguration -- does the Iraqi federal state need to be reconsidered? Wasn't using Lebanon as a constitutional model a recipe for, well, another Lebanon? There are many models for reconfiguration, ranging from a move to a stronger central government (what the current government is trying hard to do) to a move to a purely federal state.

(c) Civil War -- maybe we should let the various factions loose, perhaps this is a war that needs to be settled? Maybe, like Vietnam, there can be no peace until there is an outcome to the conflict.

(d) Internationalization -- it sounds like this is working its way into the report in some way, and the question is going to be what is the cost? After telling many countries to piss off, and being wholly unsupportive of many of those who took the risk to ally themselves to us, internationalization likely means turning over control (including all those Halliburton contracts).

(e) Allignment -- why not just admit that we're on the sides of the Shi'ites and Kurds, make them our dearest friends and allies, and let them do to the Sunnis (within some limits) what the Sunnis had done to them? Then we'll have real in-country proxies to do our bidding, and while the ultimate state may not be as pluralistic, it can still be cloaked in a veneer of democracy.

These are a few much discussed big ones. There are others out there as well, in various combinations and with various levels of viability. Baker and Hamilton may have a bigger problem with having too many options.

[Gattigap]

Huh. Apparently there are rumors that Jeff Sessions wants to move into a position of leadership in the GOP Senate.

Please, please, GOP -- make this happen. With wonderful targets like Santorum, Harris and Allen gone, I'm really not sure where to direct my vast pools of derision reserved for the GOP Establishment. Placing a stone-cold idiot like Sessions into a position of authority would be a Godsend, really. It'll give us several more years of comedy, minimum.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,
Gattigap

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Baker and Hamilton may have a bigger problem with having too many options.

Yes, but only because none of them are good.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
You totally dodged my question.

These are the same people that were able to defeat the Taliban in a matter of weeks. The Soviet Union sent umpteen division and spent nine years and could not get their proxies in control of the country, and yet our proxies took over the country in a couple of weeks and now run the country.

These same people also conquered Iraq in just a few weeks. They have occupied this massive country for three years, with an ongoing insurgency, and they have only lost 3,000 soliders.

They are not outsourcing policy. This James Baker commission is purely a political animal aimed at gaining political support for their next move. But unfortunately, as I said, now that the Democrats control congress, moving more soldiers into Iraq has been taken of the table.

And limiting an army's strategic and tactical options is never a good thing.

This is your funniest post ever. Well done!