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

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
It is only over when we decide it is over.

This is tantalizingly close to the movie quote. Would you consider a re-edit?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
It is only over when we decide it is over.

Oh, and if this is what inspires your views of foreign policy, you should know that it was a movie only loosely based on reality. E.g., it wasn't the Germans who bombed Pearl harbor.

(spree: sound)

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
Will he let us know when they give up? Seriously, did he give an indication of how much longer the seargents will stay committed?

It sounded like they just stopped re-upping after Vietnam. He said that when they start to leave the army in this effort, the war has become unwinnable.

I thought it was interesting that he pointed out that long wars have tended to be fought with volunteers and short wars have tended to be fought with draftees. This is a long war with a volunteer army. It sounded like the difference between a draft army and a volunteer army is that the country tends to be more vested in a war with a draft army (even though it's not nearly as professional as a volunteer army). There's sort of an assumption with a volunteer army that the people fighting the war are there because they want to be there, though he also said that the volunteer army you start with is generally the volunteer army that you finish with because it's hard to recruit during wartime.

Originally posted by Spanky
And what makes you so sure that if America had showed a united front on the war, that the insurgency wouldn't have been discouraged and not nearly as strong now as it could have been?

I am not sure I am parsing this correctly, but I have no idea how strong or weak the insurgency "could have been" if no one in a position of power in the United States objected to the invasion and subsequent occupation. As I recall, very few actually did object to the invasion initially and, as many are happy to point out, an overwhelming majority of Democrats voted to authorize the President to use military force in the first instance.

My points are (1)* free speech, including the right to criticize the government, is one of the basic tenets of democracy as I understand it, but you and many on the right seem to think that the exercise of that right at home is somehow antithetical to objective of establishing it elsewhere, which to me is incomprehensible, and (2) the noises coming out of Washington and television studios across the land have nothing to do with the success or failure of the mission in Iraq, which depended** on careful military planning, a realistic assessment of the risks involved with the invasion itself and subsequent occupation, and competent political leadership able to deal with the highly complex and volatile post-invasion landscape, all of which were lacking in this instance from Day One.

* I know you love numbers.

** Yes, past tense.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Oh, and if this is what inspires your views of foreign policy, you should know that it was a movie only loosely based on reality. E.g., it wasn't the Germans who bombed Pearl harbor.

(spree: sound)

"We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part. "

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I thought you made an interesting point, but then signalled with the gratuitous swipe at HRC that you weren't interested in talking further about it.

actually what I said was a pretty smart politician made a pretty dumb statement, and that I found that to signal even she was shocked by the result. but ok.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

That was quick. Democrats have already rejected (or so it seems) full implementation of the 9/11 recommendations. They don't want to reorganize Congress to conduct more effective oversight.

The more things change . . .

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
"War effort"? You were just saying that we won the war. How can there be a war effort?

You are right, I start repeating the same stupid language. The effort to supress the insurgency. There is no war.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop The insurgency could be a lot worse, if it involved genocide, or nuclear weapons, or the exportation of violence to places like Connecticut. As insurgencies go, it's a mess.

As opposed to the insurgency in Sri Lanka? Or the one in Kashmir? Or the former one in Peru? What insurgency makes this one look like a cake walkd.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I agree that much of Kurdistan is peaceful right now. But Americans are not safe walking around the rest of the country, and I think you know this.

Actually, I don't. Is it really not safe for Americans in the rest of the country?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You'd be well on your way to arguing that the cultural elites were undermining America if it weren't the case that the war is far more popular among the talking heads than it is with the rest of the country. Whatever the talking heads have been doing for the last several years, they haven't been driving public opinion, since most people in this country think we should get out of Iraq and most talking heads aren't willing to say that.

Aw - but the Democrat leadership has called for a pull out.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Setting the fringe left aside, the people who think we should get out of Iraq generally do so because they think that our presence there is making things worse -- in the sense that much of the insurgency is directed at getting us to leave -- and they don't see us making things better -- in that the Iraqi government isn't getting it done, isn't about to get it done, and has less incentive to get it done while we have more than 100,000 troops there protecting them.

Is the Head of the DNC the fringe left? I think for many people the argument above is just a political tool. I think many of the Democrats are just reveling in the fact that this is making the Presdient look bad and are piling on.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Count me as someone who would be willing to stay in Iraq if I thought there was a realistic chance of success. I haven't seen it.

What makes you show it is a hopeless cause?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Had John Kerry been elected President, I have little doubt that you and other Republicans would have had no qualms about undermining the country in a time of war by repeating this sort of crap, inter alia.

I have no doubt many Repubican would but I would not be one of them. I supported Clinton (even had letters published in the newspaper saying so) over Serbia and everything else. I also openly critisized the Republicans that critisized Clinton of undermining the war effort (including McCain).

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Once again, you have a strange focus on the sort of message a President sends, and a complete disinterest in his policies. Which has been Bush's problem with Iraq, in a nutshell.

More troops may have helped but I am not sure. I think his failures can mainly be attribted to smart moves by the enemy and things beyond his control.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop In the future, the question for historians will be whether our invasion of Iraq was doomed from the start or whether it was irredeemably screwed up by the President and his subordinates. (I posted this a couple of years ago the PB, and only wish I could find that post now, since I see this meme all over the place now.)

Again, you are assuming Iraq is going to turn into a mess.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop If only this were true, and a simple commitment of willpower on our part were all it took.

Again, I think you are calling the game too early.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop If it's all up to us as deciders, are we having so much trouble in Iraq because Bush et al. didn't have enough willpower?

The North Vietnamese have credited much of their success in the war to the antiwar effort in the United States. They have flat out said, but for the help from the antiwar effort in American, they may not have prevailed.

I think the opposition by many Americans to the war had been a huge morale boost to the enemy. I guess that is just the price you pay for being in a Democracy.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop No. I think this is unmitigated horseshit. I think insurgents there care very little about what Democratic leaders are thinking. I think they don't even watch Al Jazeera that much, because I suspect that much of the population lacks the requisite electricity and satellite dish. I also suspect that Al Jazeera doesn't devote a lot of time to the thoughts of Howard Dean et al., although since neither you nor I speak Arabic we're both just shooting in the dark when we speculate about Al Jazeera's programming. And you have to work pretty hard to imagine an Iraqi insurgent who is so well informed about American politics that he knows that Howard Dean is saying about Iraq but who is so ignorant that he thinks that what Howard Dean says will have anything to do with the way George Bush and the U.S. military prosecute the war.

Then why did most of the insurgent groups have comments on the election? I think many of them follow US politics more closely that most Americans. We will just have to disagree on this until someone comes up with a cite.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Obviously, bin Laden was wrong.

There are many Americans that are doing everything in their power to insure his prediction comes true.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We had an alternative strategy under Clinton. It was called containment. It looks much better than the fiasco of the last several years, notwithstanding that Hussein might still be in power.

I didn't see it as a strategy. It was just the status quo and because we had no other options.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Nor is that the only alternative strategy. For example, Peter Galbraith has proposed dividing Iraq into three states.
.

That could work with Kurdistan, although Turkey then would probably invade, but most Iraqis I have heard speak, so that it would be impossible to clearnly divide Iraq between Sunni and Shiite. It is also my understand that most Iraqi don't want that either.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop But you're not interested in discussing alternative strategies -- what you care about is willpower, and finding a way to blame the mess that George Bush has made on the Democratic Party. [/QUOTE]

No - I am interested in giving this thing the best shot we can. Like I said, a stable, democratic, properous Iraq would be worth ten times what we have put into it. I think we should pursue that goal with unwavering committment, and would like it if, if people don't have a responsible alternative to recommend, that they would just shut the hell up and stop encouragin the insurgents. But I know that will never happen.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Oh, and if this is what inspires your views of foreign policy, you should know that it was a movie only loosely based on reality. E.g., it wasn't the Germans who bombed Pearl harbor.

(spree: sound)

That movie has been a major inspiration to my life and it should be to yours. There were many good moral lessons gleaned from that movie that most of us should respect.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That was quick. Democrats have already rejected (or so it seems) full implementation of the 9/11 recommendations. They don't want to reorganize Congress to conduct more effective oversight.

The more things change . . .

Weird. Senator Rockefeller was talking last week about hopes for changes in the way intelligence briefings are conducted. It sounded like he was looking forward to revamping Congressional oversight of intelligence.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ironweed
I am not sure I am parsing this correctly, but I have no idea how strong or weak the insurgency "could have been" if no one in a position of power in the United States objected to the invasion and subsequent occupation. As I recall, very few actually did object to the invasion initially and, as many are happy to point out, an overwhelming majority of Democrats voted to authorize the President to use military force in the first instance.

There was a lot of complaining but in the end they voted that way because of public opinion. At least that is my take.

Originally posted by ironweed My points are (1)* free speech, including the right to criticize the government, is one of the basic tenets of democracy as I understand it, but you and many on the right seem to think that the exercise of that right at home is somehow antithetical to objective of establishing it elsewhere, which to me is incomprehensible,

No one has recommended curtailing free speech. We are just asking people to put the interest of the nation above their own partisan interests. They can choose to do that or not. I don't like the communists, and argue against them, and crtisize things they say, but that doesn't mean I want their rights taken away. Do you? We are just exercising our free speech when we label these people the jerks and ask them to shut the hell up.

Originally posted by ironweed and (2) the noises coming out of Washington and television studios across the land have nothing to do with the success or failure of the mission in Iraq, which depended** on careful military planning, a realistic assessment of the risks involved with the invasion itself and subsequent occupation, and competent political leadership able to deal with the highly complex and volatile post-invasion landscape, all of which were lacking in this instance from Day One.

Do we live on the same planet? You haven't heard accusation that the war is immoral? Wasn't it Kerry who said our troops are terrorizing the local population? People were declaring this war a quagmire and lost after we had only been in for a couple of months. Don't you think what is said here affects the morale of our troops? of the opposition?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Weird. Senator Rockefeller was talking last week about hopes for changes in the way intelligence briefings are conducted. It sounded like he was looking forward to revamping Congressional oversight of intelligence.

Well, I suspect the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee would have a different view, perhaps not in the majority, than the Chairman of all the other committees that currently also have oversight of some of the intelligence-related issues.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Somehow, the discussion about Iraqi history and what we might learn from it has morphed into why the Democrats shouldn't criticize the war effort.

Ah, well.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
There is no war.

So the mission was accomplished?

As opposed to the insurgency in Sri Lanka? Or the one in Kashmir? Or the former one in Peru? What insurgency makes this one look like a cake walkd.

Sri Lanka is more like a civil war, except that they're separatists. So it seems worse. But Iraq is definitely worse off than Peru ever was. The survival of the central government there was never in question.

Is it really not safe for Americans in the rest of the country?

No.

Aw - but the Democrat leadership has called for a pull out.

So your problem is not the talking heads, but Democratic politicians. Just so we're clear. And do you think Democratic politicians were leading public opinion, or following it? The antiwar folks think the latter.

Is the Head of the DNC the fringe left? I think for many people the argument above is just a political tool. I think many of the Democrats are just reveling in the fact that this is making the Presdient look bad and are piling on.

Many people have principled and heartfelt objections to the war, and you have dismissed their views as motivated only by craven self-interest. So I don't think your account of what Democrats are thinking is particularly persuasive, FWIW.

What makes you show it is a hopeless cause?

What gives you hope?

When I read something like this in the Washington Times (the crypto-conservative Moonie-owned paper, not the Post), I am concerned:

• "Rival Shi'ite and Sunni groups are massing their militias in expectation of major confrontations, Iraqis say, even as President Bush prepares to meet today with the nation's embattled prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. Mr. Bush's meeting in Jordan is part of a wider attempt to involve Iraq's neighbors in efforts to end Iraq's vicious sectarian violence before it spills over into a larger regional conflict. But Iraqis on both sides of their nation's sectarian divide report worrisome signs that the conflict will soon evolve into pitched battles between large armed groups."

I don't remember reading those stories about Peru.

I have no doubt many Repubican would but I would not be one of them.

Are you saying that many Republicans would happily undermine the country during wartime for political gain, or is it possible that dissent is patriotic? I take the latter view.

More troops may have helped but I am not sure. I think his failures can mainly be attribted to smart moves by the enemy and things beyond his control.

If so, then the invasion was misguided from the start.

It has been Democrats who have been complaining the Administration did not go in with enough troops, which undermines your theory about Democratic complaining undermining the President.

Again, you are assuming Iraq is going to turn into a mess.

I am observing that Iraq is a mess.

The North Vietnamese have credited much of their success in the war to the antiwar effort in the United States. They have flat out said, but for the help from the antiwar effort in American, they may not have prevailed.

I think the opposition by many Americans to the war had been a huge morale boost to the enemy. I guess that is just the price you pay for being in a Democracy.

This was your response to my question about whether our failures in Iraq reflect a lack of willpower by Bush et al. Suppose that the antiwar effort was critical in the way you describe. (I don't believe this for a second.) Wasn't it entirely predictable? When the war started, Bush had massive support. The antiwar movement was a fringe, not withstanding their few successes at s clogging traffic in San Francisco. If this tiny opposition crippled the war, wasn't it a bad idea to start with? Or did Bush fail as a leader by failing to persuade people to stick with him?

Then why did most of the insurgent groups have comments on the election? I think many of them follow US politics more closely that most Americans. We will just have to disagree on this until someone comes up with a cite.

Well, since you seem to think there are facts here and I think there are none, I'm not going to be able to get you a cite. Before the election, I saw a single news story on the web from a news service (I used that term loosely) I'd never heard of which purported to provide quotes from various terrorists (e.g., Hamas) about how they would take a Democratic victory as a good thing. I saw no such reporting from any reputable news service. I have never seen anyone within the American military pointing to insurgent awareness of the comments of Democratic politicians as something of any significance. Now, maybe these stories aren't being reported because it's too dangerous for American reporters to travel in Iraq. But, still, if you have some facts that you are relying on here, please share them.

There are many Americans that are doing everything in their power to insure his prediction comes true.

It has already been falsified. And I ask you to name one American who is doing everything in his power to ensure that bin Laden's prediction comes true. OK: Jose Padilla (allegedly). Name another.

I didn't see [containment] as a strategy.

This may have been part of the problem. The issue is not your subject understanding of our strategy. It was a strategy, it was the status quo, and it was an option. It was not perfect, but it looks better and better.

That could work with Kurdistan, although Turkey then would probably invade, but most Iraqis I have heard speak, so that it would be impossible to clearnly divide Iraq between Sunni and Shiite. It is also my understand that most Iraqi don't want that either.

OK, you may disagree with it as a strategy -- I'm not persuaded myself -- but at least you know at admit that Democrats are offering alternative strategies. So we've seen the last of that talking point, right?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
That movie has been a major inspiration to my life and it should be to yours.

I understand. When I refer to your "John Blutarsky foreign policy," you will understand what I am talking about and we will appreciate the source of your inspiration.