The newly released study on Iraq has claimed that, if matters continue as they are, “The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized.”
The report went on to observe that the Pope is Catholic and bears defecate in woodlands.
Geez, is it possible for Americans to become *more* polarized?
Much is also being made of Gates candidly stating that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq. However, I don’t think he actually said we’re *losing* it. It reminds me of Otto in “A Fish Called Wanda” declaring that we didn’t lose Vietnam, angrily claiming, “It was a tie.”
Personally, I’m thinking it’s only a matter of time before the Democratically elected head of Iraq is unDemocratically capped or subjected to a violent militia-driven overthrow. Maybe *that * will finally qualify as a civil war to Bush.
PAD
• 
Peter,
I think it’s unlikely that Iraq’s Prime Minister would be killed but more likely for two future scenarios five years from now:
1. The Malaky(sp) government becomes a Shite version of Saddam’s. Imposing its will on many factions to avoid civil war.
or
2. A Lebanon-style power-sharing government with fingers of influence from Middle Eastern states outside its borders.
–Captain Naraht
Mr. David,
You are correct regarding Gates’ comment about losing in Iraq. Sometime after his statement that we were not winning in Iraq, he was asked by another senator whether if he agreed that we weren’t losing in Iraq. He responded, “Yes, at this point.”
There’s a that mentions this specifically at slate.com, if you’re interested.
http://www.slate.com/id/2154941/nav/tap1/
Oh, good night. Please, please, please tell me we didn’t actually pay any money for that report…
Firstly: you can’t win if there is no plan,
you can’t win if there is no strategy,
you can’t win if there is no achievable goal,
you can’t win if you can never leave.
Secondly: The curent administration reminds me of a group of children playing Superheroes in a sandbox. Anytime the situation conflicts with thier adopted powers they just add new ones. i.e. “The monsters are made of metal ? Okay, then there is a blowtorch at the end of my finger.” It’s a civil war = it’s sectarian violence. There is more death per day = mission accomplished. Neither side wants us there,Iraq police and military are deserting = we’re working hand in hand with the people of Iraq to ensure a peaceful transition of power. Back end drafting = a dedicated, experienced military presence. An aproval rating in the 30’s and a crushing defeat in a national election for your party = We’re getting the job done and I am a uniter.
Don’t forget Bush’s win in 2004. A little more than half the people voted for you over some other guy = huge mandate.
Thanks. I also forgot, camel with indigestion = weapon of mass distruction.
The assasination of the democartically elected leader would obviously not be an indication of the situation being a civil war. Come on PAD!
During the Civil War in this country, was the democratically elected leader assisnated? Not until AFTER the Civil War. So *if* said leader is assainsted DURING the conflict, then it bears even less similarities to a civil war.
Bill Myers,
“Oh, good night. Please, please, please tell me we didn’t actually pay any money for that report…”
Patience. This is only the first day so they can only touch on the “headlines” of the Report.
I’d be interested to see peoples reaction to statements in the Report like “a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will allow the United States to move forces out responsibly; prompt action by the Iraqi government to achieve milestones, particularly reconciliation; and new diplomatic actions in Iraq and in the region”
or
“Iraq’s neighbors and key states in and outside the region should form a support group” to help Iraq achieve long-term security and political reconciliation — “neither of which it can sustain on its own,” (source CNN.com)
How redily will the Bush Administration heed these recommendations?
I’d also be interested in hearing your reaction to these statements, Bill. What do you think?
–Captain Naraht
What gets me is less that the report is stating the obvious that the President announced repeatedly he was eager to hear the input from the Iraq Study Group and that he would be carefully considering their recommendations.
Of course, I fear no one at all is going to call him on that one…either.
What gets me is less that the report is stating the obvious that the President announced repeatedly he was eager to hear the input from the Iraq Study Group and that he would be carefully considering their recommendations.
Of course, I fear no one at all is going to call him on that one…either.
Look Halliburton is having record profits. Isn’t that what’s really important? What’s 3000 US soldiers, I don’t know how many other “Coalition of the Willing” troops, and hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties among oil company buddies?
We also got rid of all that annoying surplus of ordinance, guided missles, helecopters and Humvees. Now let the feeding frenzy of bidding contractors begin. On another note, we are now well over the 300 mark of murders for the year in my city. Add that in with the other major cities and we have proven, once again, that Americans are still better at killing Americans that any other country. Yeah, we’re number 1. Oh…wait.
I like Andrew Olmsted’s writings. He’s somewhat conservative, but not dogmatic. And being military himself, he writes convincingly on military matters, particularly the logistical end, which almost all the politicians and all the pundits completely miss.
I would recommend that folks seek him out, either on his own blog, or on obsidianwings.blogs.com/ , where he occasionally writes. He brings up points that are interesting and nutritious for thought.
The report went on to observe that the Pope is Catholic and bears defecate in woodlands.
What makes me roll my eyes is the phrasing: the global standing of the United States “could be” diminished. Um, guys? It HAS diminished. Could it diminish more? Possibly…you want to try and avoid that.
I’m holding out hope that maybe, just maybe, Dubya will believe this stuff now that it’s coming out of the mouth of somebody he actually seems to respect (Baker) as opposed to somebody he doesn’t care about (most other members of the human race, including Cindy Sheehan, everybody in the Democratic Party and everybody working for any media outlet not owned by Rupert Murdoch).
Gates doesn’t think the U.S. is winning or losing in Iraq. I used a poker analogy in a post last month, comparing the current stubbornness to stay in Iraq “as long as it takes” to a guy who keeps on betting the maximum in a poker game, who refuses to fold when he doesn’t have good cards, and who will keep on throwing away more and more money and losing hand after hand because he thinks that if he keeps at it long enough he’ll finally get good cards and win a shitload of money. The fact that he might have to go into debt before that happens, or that the pot he finally does win might not make up for the huge sum of money he loses beforehand, are things he simply doesn’t think about.
Now it seems more to me like a drinking contest. We have two people both taking shot after shot, both of whom can really hold their booze and can probably go on a very long time. Well, here’s how it ends. By the end of the night, both of these guys are going to be hospitalized for alcohol poisoning, and IF they live, their health will be poor for the rest of their life/lives. So…is it worth it? How much self-destructive behaviour is acceptable to eventually “win”? Augh, I’m using quotation marks like Rumsfeld now…
I don’t know that Dubya respect Baker all that much. He’s one of Bush 41’s cronies and 43 has spent most of his life trying some bizarre oedipal quest to show up daddy. That’s why he hired Rummy, a guy 41 disliked in the first place.
That’s why he hired Rummy, a guy 41 disliked in the first place.
Really? Didn’t know that. Huh. Very odd considering that his parents have been known to stick up for him in the past. Like 41 saying the Hugo Chavez was “an ášš” after he called 43 “the devil.”
I give up then…is there anybody whose opinion this guy actually respects? Anybody at all?
During the Civil War in this country, was the democratically elected leader assisnated? Not until AFTER the Civil War.
Yes, but attempts were made. By both North & South on the opposing President.
I wouldn’t put too much stock in the “Iraq Surrender Group.” They and the left have been invested in this country’s defeat ever since we began the war on terrorism/islamofacism… all in a mad effort to get political power back in the United States.
DW
The report is a joke. Yes it states the obvious, Dubya failed. Even the far right can’t deny that! But it’s “solutions” are just as far out as Dubya’s. Asking Iran and Syria to take a hand? That’s like asking a rabid wolf into your house. They may come to the table, they may openly “agree” and they will do everything behind our backs to make it fail.
As I have said in other postings, we are still headed for either the reunification of Persia or the raise of a religious dictator.
What I think stands the best chance of success if people continue to insist that cutting and running is not an option is dividing the country further. The Kurds in the north 1 country. The middle 1 country and the southern third well I’d even concede leaving our troups there if Dubya continued to insist.
This civil war is about which stupid religious sect rules, so let them all rule!
As for Dubya’s reaction I love his response that the report could open bipartisan discussions… Like the report wasn’t bipartisan. What we are quickly approaching is the partianship is Dubya and cronies vs Dems and Repubs.
>They and the left have been invested in this country’s defeat ever since we began the war on terrorism/islamofacism… all in a mad effort to get political power back in the United States.
Oh yah sure we just love watching this country be handed it’s head for the second time in 30 years! Another person demonstrating why this country is so polarized, “the left wants us to loose”. No the left wanted us to fight the right war, one where we could win, instead we get 2 wars and our butts kicked in both.
Heh heh, some of the comments crack me up.
How naïve can you be to even imagine the foreign policy of the United States should ever be determined by the public opinion of the world community? What a patently absurd treatise to base an argument around. In doing so you are presupposing all governments throughout the world operate on a level playing field which is hardly the case.
Wow, our standing throughout the world will be diminished? Excuse me while I go over and shed a few crocodile tears, I find myself terribly disaffected by the specter of such an event.
Our nation is not the bìŧçh/whørë of the world trying to sidle up to all the other nations in an attempt to be their friend or to be popular.
Admittedly the situation in Iraq is dire to put it mildly but, given the overall history of the region and what had gone on over the last three decades it certainly is better without Saddam than it ever was with him. The biggest mistake our nation ever made was in not letting Norman Schwarzkopf go straight into Baghdad to culminate the first Gulf War. At least the situation would then be resolved by now. People talk as if the Gulf War ended but it never really did. Instead, we lobbed cruise missiles into the place over the next decade and it didn’t make the situation any better.
I want to be sure I understand what is at stake if our standing in the global community lessens – what? Embassies won’t be burned down like they were in Pakistan, Libya and overtaken in Iran? Barracks won’t be bombed like they were in Lebanon or Saudi Arabia?
I will be the first to agree the situation needs to get better and a new approach is necessary to the situation but, what I will not agree with is the popular isolationist rant that runs the United States should never utilize military force as an adjunct to foreign policy. Sticking your head in the ground and hoping a problem will go away doesn’t work. The same people were running around in the late 30’s and that didn’t do anyone any good either.
Do things need to get better in Iraq? Definitely!
Are they better for certain segments of the population? Ask the Kurds or even the Shia.
There are a lot of conflicting goals for the players in the region. Turkey or Iran don’t really want to see an independent Kurdish state. Iran wouldn’t mind seeing a Shia dominated government which it could rule by proxy. Saudi Arabia and Jordan are concerned about having a Shia dominated alliance along their northern borders. It’s not a simple situation and it won’t be solved with a simple solution.
If the EU would become more actively involved along with the Arab League things might improve but again, each group has an agenda of their own none of which may be in the best interests of the majority of people in Iraq (and I am not saying we don’t have an agenda of our own). Abandoning those people is an even bigger crime than leaving Saddam in power would have been.
Saddam is still alive, maybe he can just take back the country and everything will go back to the way it was. All the detractors out there, do you think that would be best?
“Oh yah sure we just love watching this country be handed it’s head for the second time in 30 years! Another person demonstrating why this country is so polarized, “the left wants us to loose”. No the left wanted us to fight the right war, one where we could win, instead we get 2 wars and our butts kicked in both.”
No decision the President has made, nor any he could have made, would have satisfied the Left in this country when it came to this war. We know this from observing what took place in the months of his presidency prior to 9-11, during the attempt at the “New Tone.” He lets Ted Kennedy write the education bill and passes it (I still recall the big smile on Kennedy’s face and the hearty handshake and Kennedy’s arm thrown around Bush’s shoulder when the bill was passed) and the Left still couldn’t say anything good about it.
DW
“What gets me is less that the report is stating the obvious that the President announced repeatedly he was eager to hear the input from the Iraq Study Group and that he would be carefully considering their recommendations.”
Hearing does not equal listening to. And considering the reccomendations does not equal acting on them.
Mister_pj, the world is the world, this country is in it, and with so many countries so interdependent upon each other, other countries’ opinions do matter. Disagree? How much are you paying to put gas in your car? And there was one decision about this war that would’ve satisfied the “left.” Don’t START the dámņ thing.
“And there was one decision about this war that would’ve satisfied the “left.” Don’t START the dámņ thing.”
To not have started the war on terrorism/islamofacism after 9-11 would have been irresponsible. An arguement can be made as to whether it’s been fought effectively, as with all wars (Battle for Kasserine Pass, the Tet Offensive, etc). But to say we should have never started the war (which is erroneous in and of itself because the US was the one that was attacked) is to admit that you do not understand this enemy.
Darin
“And there was one decision about this war that would’ve satisfied the “left.” Don’t START the dámņ thing.”
Additionally, most of the leftist congress (who represent the Left in this country) voted for the war.
DW
Geez, is it possible for Americans to become *more* polarized?
Sure. We’ve been more polarized in the past. (145 years ago, for example) Not that we want to repeat that history, but it is possible.
>>”And there was one decision about this war that would’ve satisfied the “left.” Don’t START the dámņ thing.”
>To not have started the war on terrorism/islamofacism after 9-11 would have been irresponsible.
You make the common mistake of confusing the invasion of Iraq with the war on terror.
1 – Iraq is NOT an Islamic state.
2 – Iraq had NOTHING to do with the U.S. terrorist strikes. ALL the participants were Saudis, not Iraqis. Now, how many bombs did the U.S. lob at at Saudi Arabia in this “war on terror”? I forget …
Now, Afghanistan, on the other paw …
But, hey, that’s not going as well as it might either, because the U.S. is inexplicably (note sarcasm here) tied up in Iraq, rather than concentrating on Afghanistan where they started this was on terror (and then mostly left with it unfinished) and where bin Laden (remember bin Laden) may well be hiding. Butm hey, Iraq is where it’s at, right?
“You make the common mistake of confusing the invasion of Iraq with the war on terror.”
Actually, no. You make the common mistake of not recognizing that Iraq was a sponser of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda. This was even verified by the 9-11 Commission, which was deemed infallible by the mainstream media.
DW
You make the common mistake of not recognizing that Iraq was a sponser of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda
THis is absolutely false.
This was even verified by the 9-11 Commission
No, it wasn’t.
Sure. We’ve been more polarized in the past. (145 years ago, for example) Not that we want to repeat that history, but it is possible.
I don’t think you even have to go back that far. Read some TIME or NEWSWEEK fronm the 60s/early 70s and marvel at the fact that we made it out in one piece.
And Den…don’t make the mistake of trying to fight terrorism soley by military might. The US Army is geared for high intensity conflict, which we do very well (so well, in fact, that we will not be threatened by that kind of conflict for decades to come).
What we do NOT do well is counterinsurgency and low level conflicts, which is where you must combine political and military solutions to eradicate terrorists. The mistake of this adminstration is using high intensity conflict tactics to pursue a low conflict strategy.
“I don’t think you even have to go back that far. Read some TIME or NEWSWEEK fronm the 60s/early 70s and marvel at the fact that we made it out in one piece.”
The problem there is that you would have been reading TIME or NEWSWEEK.
DW
mister_pj:
If you support the war so much, why are you still sitting here whining about it. Get your butt over there and help out our troops.
Darin:
The same for you. Stop whining and get over there and support the troops.
Mr. Scullion – I love how you can totally gloss over all the foreign policy decisions the US made concerning Iraq between the years 1992 and 2000 as if they didn’t exist and have nothing to do with the situation we are currently in. You miss the point entirely in that the war never truly ended – perhaps you are unaware of Operation Desert Strike, Operation Desert Fox, Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch.
Further, the US is not behind the bombing of the Al-Askari shrine or other instances of sectarian violence. Where is all that high minded furor and rage when it comes to taking a stand to put a stop to events like this?
Seems to me that when the isolationists win, events like what happened in Rwanda occur. Maybe you think things were better for the Kurds when Saddam was going about the business of killing them in great numbers? Or even when he was doing his best to kill the Shia in the south?
I am not so naïve as to believe we don’t have a vested interest in the region but, acknowledge there is some ancillary benefit to our actions. I recall the chestnut: All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Allowing the situation to continue to fester like a boil was not an option.
“You make the common mistake of confusing the invasion of Iraq with the war on terror.”
Gotta disagree. There is no mistake made here. It is a willful ignoring of the truth. Typical of Bush’s lapdogs.
Mr. Coil – First, I am not whining about anything. Second, how can you be so very certain I am not? Don’t let me stop you though, please do continue, always interesting to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
“Darin: The same for you. Stop whining and get over there and support the troops.”
Now here’s an example of a thoughtless statement. Without even knowing who I am or what my own personal history is, you throw out a comment like that… essentially suggesting that I “shut-up” (and in the same move attempt to classify what I’ve said as “whining”). It did give me a chuckle, I’ll admit. Truth is, I’ve had my ášš in the grass and I’m no longer elligible to re-enlist anyway due to age. I support the troops by donating time and money to programs designed to assist them and their families. But don’t let that discourage you from making any more comments like these.
DW
mister_pj:
Oh, it’s just so obvious that you are merely sitting around and whining. Reading between the lines of your posts, you are obviously a chicken-hawk.
Darin:
You don’t have to be enlisted to be over there. If you truly believed so deeply in this cause, you would hire yourself out as a mercenary. I hear Halliburton would hire you as “Private Security”.
C’mon now, guys… this is Peter David’s message board! Surely we can do more than simply call each other names. It doesn’t befit someone of his stature to have that kind of thing happen on a blog with his name on it.
DW
And does anyone think anything is really going to change with our Iraq policy?
Baker’s report said to neither increase the number of soldiers nor start pulling out the troops.
Sounds to my like just another way to say
“Stay the course.”
“Darin: You don’t have to be enlisted to be over there. If you truly believed so deeply in this cause, you would hire yourself out as a mercenary. I hear Halliburton would hire you as “Private Security”.”
So, in what way am I not supporting the troops? (I find this fascinating.)
DW
And nobody is too old to serve in Iraq. There have been men in their 50s killed there.
If you can’t figure out what I am saying,
there are people who are older than 50 serving at this minute.
“Sounds to my like just another way to say
“Stay the course.””
That’s the dirty little secret… now that the election is over. The anti-war Left isn’t very happy with the folks who just took over the Legistlative Branch.
Another point:
Did anyone notice that NONE of the newly elected Republicans have ever served in the Armed Forces?
Reason?
Chicken-hawks!
“That’s the dirty little secret… now that the election is over. The anti-war Left isn’t very happy with the folks who just took over the Legistlative Branch.”
Oh, you are SO funneeeee. This report was helmed by the Republicans. All the truth is being covered up. Just as has happened for the last 6 years.
And at this point, I must stop for the night.
I, at least, have a job and need to get to sleep.
Pleasant dreams.
Even to all the chicken-hawks in the world.
I’ve enjoyed stirring up the pot here. You’ve provided me with some outstanding entertainment. But I do have to get on with my life away from the blogosphere, so this will be my final post on this thread. You all have the last word.
DW
I’ve enjoyed stirring up the pot here. You’ve provided me with some outstanding entertainment. But I do have to get on with my life away from the blogosphere, so this will be my final post on this thread. You all have the last word.
Oh, please. Oldest trick in the world.
Got your ášš kicked from here to Baghdad and you try to save face in this lame way? Pfaugh.