Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The administration can effect broad level policies in Iraq. Stay or leave type of issues. But if we stay, and we are going to stay, regardless of who is elected, it is really a military operation and I don't see the civilians having much of an effect.

Club,

It is a military operation in country, and the military officers work out the _tactics_ (at varying levels depending on the size of the operation).

That said, and no offense, you clearly don't have much of a grasp on the war-planning process, strategy, etc -- and the role of the President and (especially) the Secretary of Defense in the oversight and approval of that process.

One of the major complaints the military has about Rumsfeld is that he and his civilian staff have involved themselves very deeply in not only overall strategy but in what had been seen as lower-level details, and have often rejected advice and sometimes fired the advisors.

Rumsfeld also strongly shapes what the President hears.

This is not unique or new -- remember how SecDef Les Aspin was fired after the Somalia incident, because he had disapproved, or signed off on the disapproval, of requests from the local commanders for tanks?

Nonetheless, all of this shows that the civilian hierarchy has one hell of an effect on the direction and conduct of these operations -- as is their constitutional right. But, as a result, they also get their share of the blame.

S_A_M



For example, the recenrt push to Baghdad

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Club,

It is a military operation in country, and the military officers work out the _tactics_ (at varying levels depending on the size of the operation).

That said, and no offense, you clearly don't have much of a grasp on the war-planning process, strategy, etc -- and the role of the President and (especially) the Secretary of Defense in the oversight and approval of that process.

One of the major complaints the military has about Rumsfeld is that he and his civilian staff have involved themselves very deeply in not only overall strategy but in what had been seen as lower-level details, and have often rejected advice and sometimes fired the advisors.

Rumsfeld also strongly shapes what the President hears.

This is not unique or new -- remember how SecDef Les Aspin was fired after the Somalia incident, because he had disapproved, or signed off on the disapproval, of requests from the local commanders for tanks?

Nonetheless, all of this shows that the civilian hierarchy has one hell of an effect on the direction and conduct of these operations -- as is their constitutional right. But, as a result, they also get their share of the blame.

S_A_M



For example, the recenrt push to Baghdad

Interesting insight into that process here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...aq/interviews/

(Interviews with Bremer, Garner, and others. Lots of finger-pointing)

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Looks like the GOP doesn't want to run on its record:

• Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, who holds a seat deemed safe for the GOP, said in a campaign debate Thursday she would have voted against the war had she known ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061021/..._pr_wh/us_iraq

Thank you for spelling her name correctly. Even if it was a cut and paste.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Thank you for spelling her name correctly. Even if it was a cut and paste.

condescension is not a family value.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Club,

It is a military operation in country, and the military officers work out the _tactics_ (at varying levels depending on the size of the operation).

That said, and no offense, you clearly don't have much of a grasp on the war-planning process, strategy, etc -- and the role of the President and (especially) the Secretary of Defense in the oversight and approval of that process.

One of the major complaints the military has about Rumsfeld is that he and his civilian staff have involved themselves very deeply in not only overall strategy but in what had been seen as lower-level details, and have often rejected advice and sometimes fired the advisors.

Rumsfeld also strongly shapes what the President hears.

This is not unique or new -- remember how SecDef Les Aspin was fired after the Somalia incident, because he had disapproved, or signed off on the disapproval, of requests from the local commanders for tanks?

Nonetheless, all of this shows that the civilian hierarchy has one hell of an effect on the direction and conduct of these operations -- as is their constitutional right. But, as a result, they also get their share of the blame.

S_A_M



For example, the recenrt push to Baghdad

Please tell me - short of leaving or drawing down, what could WE be doing differently (and I don't mean in 2003, I mean now)?

I know there is talk about the "strong man" approach, which seems like a really bad idea to me.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
because I truly belive the Democrats will have us learning the Koran.

Seriously? That isn't just rhetoric?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Seriously? That isn't just rhetoric?

I am with slave, I honestly believe that if Gore had won we would be under the oppresive yoke of islam by now. although I am equally sure I would have gone down fightin by now. whether its the shari'a law enforcement agents or the jackboot of seattle's demo-commie stormtroopers, I am a second amendment guy all the way. Bang!

eta: ps: how you gonna come, when they kick in your front door, with your hands on your head or on the trigger of a gun......

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Please tell me - short of leaving or drawing down, what could WE be doing differently (and I don't mean in 2003, I mean now)?

I know there is talk about the "strong man" approach, which seems like a really bad idea to me.

Club -

I don't pretend to really know, and its not my job to know, the best answer to that question. I also can't fully comment on "different" because it is neither clear nor public knowledge exactly what the administration is trying to do and how they are trying to do it.

I'm certainly not in favor of a quick withdrawal, and I'm not ready to support an announced "phased withdrawal" at this point. My one qualm about a Democratic House is that they might/will try to force this through the power of the purse.

But we need to have in place policies to:

(a) build an effective Iraqi Army and police force so that they _can_ take over (we are working at that, but I don't think we have enough resources pointed there); and

(b) figure out what the fuck we can do to help end the civil war between the Shia and Sunnis in Iraq -- (not doing well there at all); and

(c) encourage and assist the Iraqi government to confront and disarm or otherwise neutralize the major militias (essential to (b) above.) Mailiki's govt. is starting to try to do that, witness the recent battles with Al Sadr's people. I have no idea how they can succeed in achieving anything other than _perhaps_ a negotiated standdown, which is of limited value. (kind of like letting the IRA keep its guns)

(d) Plus, there is still an enormous amount of social and economic reconstruction remaining to be done -- a good bit of which we had promised to do -- lots of unfinished projects in part because of security needs shutting things down and/or siphoning off money. Are we going to do that, or not?

(e) Plus, we need to continue to contain the insurgeny and fight "al Qaeda in Iraq" -- pending the successful completion of (a) above. This is going pretty well, although our goals now (holding on until the Iraqis take over) are much more modest than they once were.

The Army now will tell you: (1) that they can't defeat/end the insurgency (especially in the West); but that (2) this is not their mission anyway. Problem for the administration is that it is hard to rally public support behind a strategy of bleeding to "contain" a foreign insurgency.

In my view -- we're doing best at (a) and (e) above -- no accident that those are the tasks most heavily military on the military/civilian policy axis. However, (a) and (e) won't matter a damn if we don't get the rest right.

We are in the position now of desparately trying to fix a very complicated and dangerous mess that, in many respects, we made and/or made worse.

S_A_M

[Gattigap]

For the enjoyment of those of us who gleefully participate in the cult of personality for the show that mocks cults of personality, today's LAT has an profile on The Colbert Report and the should-I-or-shouldn't-I decision that politicians grapple with in deciding to participate on his 434-part series, Better Know a District.

It covers, among others, Westmoreland's (R-GA) inability to name the Ten Commandments that were the subject of legislation he sponsored, and Colbert persuading John Hall (D-NY) to read a random "smear card" smearing his incumbent opponent because the inbumbent wouldn't agree to appear on the show.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, my favorite to date has been Rep. Sherman (D-CA).

• Sherman participated in a PG-rated spoof of a pornographic movie involving Colbert and a pizza deliveryman, a nod to his district being in the San Fernando Valley, home to the nation's adult film industry. But Sherman said he turned down several requests from Colbert to do potentially embarrassing things in the spoof, titled "Fresh Hot Slice."
  
  In the end, Sherman was shown simply watching Colbert and the deliveryman indulge in some sexually suggestive pizza eating.
  
  "I ate no pizza," Sherman said. "That's not because Colbert didn't want me to eat some pizza."

Gattigap

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Club -

I don't pretend to really know, and its not my job to know, the best answer to that question. I also can't fully comment on "different" because it is neither clear nor public knowledge exactly what the administration is trying to do and how they are trying to do it.

I'm certainly not in favor of a quick withdrawal, and I'm not ready to support an announced "phased withdrawal" at this point. My one qualm about a Democratic House is that they might/will try to force this through the power of the purse.

But we need to have in place policies to:

(a) build an effective Iraqi Army and police force so that they _can_ take over (we are working at that, but I don't think we have enough resources pointed there); and

(b) figure out what the fuck we can do to help end the civil war between the Shia and Sunnis in Iraq -- (not doing well there at all); and

(c) encourage and assist the Iraqi government to confront and disarm or otherwise neutralize the major militias (essential to (b) above.) Mailiki's govt. is starting to try to do that, witness the recent battles with Al Sadr's people. I have no idea how they can succeed in achieving anything other than _perhaps_ a negotiated standdown, which is of limited value. (kind of like letting the IRA keep its guns)

(d) Plus, there is still an enormous amount of social and economic reconstruction remaining to be done -- a good bit of which we had promised to do -- lots of unfinished projects in part because of security needs shutting things down and/or siphoning off money. Are we going to do that, or not?

(e) Plus, we need to continue to contain the insurgeny and fight "al Qaeda in Iraq" -- pending the successful completion of (a) above. This is going pretty well, although our goals now (holding on until the Iraqis take over) are much more modest than they once were.

The Army now will tell you: (1) that they can't defeat/end the insurgency (especially in the West); but that (2) this is not their mission anyway. Problem for the administration is that it is hard to rally public support behind a strategy of bleeding to "contain" a foreign insurgency.

In my view -- we're doing best at (a) and (e) above -- no accident that those are the tasks most heavily military on the military/civilian policy axis. However, (a) and (e) won't matter a damn if we don't get the rest right.

We are in the position now of desparately trying to fix a very complicated and dangerous mess that, in many respects, we made and/or made worse.

S_A_M

I have a slightly different view. The biggest problem I see underlying our Iraq policy is that the administration is simple-minded about it's goals: our goal is victory was Bush's most recent statement.

There are currently multiple insurgencies going on in Iraq. For the most part, these power struggles are differing groups positioning themselves, fully aware that there is a power vacuum that is currently only being filled because American forces are present. It is questionable as to whether we are putting in place an Iraqi government with adequate support to maintain itself.

Most of the insurgents have little to do with al-Qaeda; some do. Some are very clearly linked to Iran, which certainly has used and encouraged terrorism but is a different creature than al-Qaeda.

If our real enemy is terrorism, we should be limiting our goals accordingly and devoting our resources to the battles that are focused on combatting terrorism. We should put more emphasis on Afghanistan and on the Caucasian countries, and we should find a way to stabilize the parts of Iraq that are more easily stabilized - for example, an independent Kurdistan may be easier to manager than Kurdistan as football in Iraqi politics.

Most importantly, we should recognize that the Lebanese style consititution hasn't garnered enough legitimacy to survive. It will need to be revisited and an Iraqi solution developed - or, the country needs to be permitted to break apart.

The current administration is completely ill-equipped to let both the army and the career state department types have enough leeway to deal with the situation in all its complexity.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Club -

I don't pretend to really know, and its not my job to know, the best answer to that question. I also can't fully comment on "different" because it is neither clear nor public knowledge exactly what the administration is trying to do and how they are trying to do it.

I'm certainly not in favor of a quick withdrawal, and I'm not ready to support an announced "phased withdrawal" at this point. My one qualm about a Democratic House is that they might/will try to force this through the power of the purse.

But we need to have in place policies to:

(a) build an effective Iraqi Army and police force so that they _can_ take over (we are working at that, but I don't think we have enough resources pointed there); and

(b) figure out what the fuck we can do to help end the civil war between the Shia and Sunnis in Iraq -- (not doing well there at all); and

(c) encourage and assist the Iraqi government to confront and disarm or otherwise neutralize the major militias (essential to (b) above.) Mailiki's govt. is starting to try to do that, witness the recent battles with Al Sadr's people. I have no idea how they can succeed in achieving anything other than _perhaps_ a negotiated standdown, which is of limited value. (kind of like letting the IRA keep its guns)

(d) Plus, there is still an enormous amount of social and economic reconstruction remaining to be done -- a good bit of which we had promised to do -- lots of unfinished projects in part because of security needs shutting things down and/or siphoning off money. Are we going to do that, or not?

(e) Plus, we need to continue to contain the insurgeny and fight "al Qaeda in Iraq" -- pending the successful completion of (a) above. This is going pretty well, although our goals now (holding on until the Iraqis take over) are much more modest than they once were.

The Army now will tell you: (1) that they can't defeat/end the insurgency (especially in the West); but that (2) this is not their mission anyway. Problem for the administration is that it is hard to rally public support behind a strategy of bleeding to "contain" a foreign insurgency.

In my view -- we're doing best at (a) and (e) above -- no accident that those are the tasks most heavily military on the military/civilian policy axis. However, (a) and (e) won't matter a damn if we don't get the rest right.

We are in the position now of desparately trying to fix a very complicated and dangerous mess that, in many respects, we made and/or made worse.

S_A_M

One thing is certain. With a Democrat takeover of the House all those things you have listed above will be harder to accomplish.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I have a slightly different view. The biggest problem I see underlying our Iraq policy is that the administration is simple-minded about it's goals: our goal is victory was Bush's most recent statement.

There are currently multiple insurgencies going on in Iraq. For the most part, these power struggles are differing groups positioning themselves, fully aware that there is a power vacuum that is currently only being filled because American forces are present. It is questionable as to whether we are putting in place an Iraqi government with adequate support to maintain itself.

Most of the insurgents have little to do with al-Qaeda; some do. Some are very clearly linked to Iran, which certainly has used and encouraged terrorism but is a different creature than al-Qaeda.

If our real enemy is terrorism, we should be limiting our goals accordingly and devoting our resources to the battles that are focused on combatting terrorism. We should put more emphasis on Afghanistan and on the Caucasian countries, and we should find a way to stabilize the parts of Iraq that are more easily stabilized - for example, an independent Kurdistan may be easier to manager than Kurdistan as football in Iraqi politics.

Most importantly, we should recognize that the Lebanese style consititution hasn't garnered enough legitimacy to survive. It will need to be revisited and an Iraqi solution developed - or, the country needs to be permitted to break apart.

The current administration is completely ill-equipped to let both the army and the career state department types have enough leeway to deal with the situation in all its complexity.

Again, if the Democrats win in November, none of the above stated goals will be possible. The Democrat win will embolden the insurgents and the cut in funding will simply make it harder for us to do anything.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Again, if the Democrats win in November, none of the above stated goals will be possible. The Democrat win will embolden the insurgents and the cut in funding will simply make it harder for us to do anything.

Ah, right, setting it up to blame the inevitable failure in Iraq on those who inherit the situation. W p, p!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Again, if the Democrats win in November, none of the above stated goals will be possible. The Democrat win will embolden the insurgents and the cut in funding will simply make it harder for us to do anything.

Assumptions all on your part.

Pressure on the White House to be accountable could work wonders.

Bottom line: The White House can't do it much worse than they're doing it now.

[Gattigap]

Oh, all right. But don't say I didn't warn you.

Bush's own economists say Bush policies lowered tax revenues

• ALAN D. VIARD, a former Bush White House economist currently at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, recently told the Washington Post: "Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that."
  
  He's right. There's no dispute among economists. Conservative, moderate or liberal, every credentialed economist agrees that the Bush tax cuts caused revenues to drop. There is, however, a dispute between economists and pseudo-economists. Supply-siders may be laughed at by real economists, but they still enjoy a strong following among politicians, including, alas, the president of the United States.

Oh, Alan. Why must you hate America? Must you join David Kuo as the new member(s) of the Axis of Evil?